To the victor belong the spoils.

Posted on May 27, 2026 by jsh54

The title comes from a quote attributed to Senator William Marcy (D-NY). It refers to the idea that loyalty to and support for a political candidate should receive material reward if the candidate is elected.[1] American politics was rife with it from the Colonial period onward. Perhaps its best-known practitioner was President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845, President 1829-1837). “Old Hickory” richly reward his “friends,” whether personally known or unknown to him. This “spoils system” continued to staff the federal, state, and city bureaucracies well past the end of the Civil War. As someone later said, “Power grows from the barrel of a pork.”

As time passed, a reaction took place. More and more people grew unhappy with the services of a government manned by idiot nephews and political hacks. The campaign for a merit-based system took a while to achieve success. In the meantime it was derided as “snivel service reform.” The first breakthrough came with the Pendleton Civil Service Act (1883). OK, this took a demented office-seeker (Charles Guiteau[2]) shooting President James A. Garfield. Thereafter, reformers continued their campaign at the federal, state, and local levels of government. The United States ended up with a professional, merit-based civil service which was the envy of many places in the world.[3]

Donald Trump and “Trumpism” bear more than a passing resemblance to Andrew Jackson and “Jacksonianism.”[4] During his first term, Trump refused to release his tax returns. No law required him to do so, and tax-payer information is required to be kept confidential by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). However, it had become a custom for presidential candidates to release such information in the name of “transparency.” Liberal journals of opinion[5] severely criticized Trump’s refusal. Then someone in the employ of the IRS leaked some of Trump’s tax returns. These were published and analyzed.

Then came Trump’s contesting the election results of 2020, 6 January 2021, and the attempted prosecution of Trump and associates on charges of election-interference, paying “hush money,” retaining official documents, and fraud.

Jump ahead to Trump’s second term.[6] He sued the IRS for $10 billion over the leaked tax returns. Then he agreed to settle the matter with his own Justice Department. There are two parts to the settlement. First, creation of a tax-payer funded settlement fund to pay people who were victims of “lawfare” by the Biden administration. Neither the president nor his family may receive money from the fund. The value of the fund is patriotically-valued at $1.776 billion. Second, the IRS can’t pursue “any and all” pending tax claims against the president, his family, or his businesses.

The fund has not been well-received by Democrats and many Republicans. Some critics lambast the possibility of the 6 January rioters getting “compensated.” Others point out that Trump’s money-making in office uses the same shady practices he’s often used in business.

We have laws because good judgement and common decency often are lacking.

[1] Ari Hoogenboom, Outlawing the Spoils: A History of the Civil Service Reform Movement, 1865-1883 (1961).

[2] Like many people in history, Guiteau was too strange for fiction.

[3] But not Britain, Germany, or France.

[4] The Worst President Ever 5 July 2019. | waroftheworldblog

[5] The Opinion section of the NYT, Stephen Colbert, etc. Alas, George Carlin was dead. Our loss.

[6] “Outrage erupts over Trump’s ‘slush fund’ for allies,” The Week, 29 May 2026

Federal Mandates as a Flash Point.

Posted on May 12, 2026 by jsh54

Nearly half (46 percent) of Americans “believe the facts on vaccines are up for debate and that it’s damaging to mandate shots.” Furthermore, almost half (49 percent) of Republicans “say the return of vaccine-preventable diseases is a price worth paying for the ability to refuse shots.”[1] Are Republicans serious about this position? If so, they themselves never had any of a bunch of vaccine-preventable childhood diseases.[2]

Yes and No, probably. First, No. A recent poll showed that 67 percent of Republicans “support the use of vaccines to prevent disease.”[3] On the one hand, that means that a full third of Republicans don’t “support the use of vaccines to prevent disease.” On the other hand, 67 percent favor vaccines, while 49 percent oppose mandated vaccines. Apparently (67 – 49 = 18 percent) of Republicans accept mandated vaccines, while 49 – 33 = 16 percent) are opposed to mandates rather than vaccines. If it wasn’t mandated, then of course they’d get the shots.

Second, Yes. The figures above still leave 33 percent of Republicans, 28 percent of Independents, and 7 percent of Democrats who don’t believe in vaccines. Odd, no?

How did the mandate part of the vaccination issue come to be so contested? One possible answer goes back to the Affordable Care Act. A lot of people didn’t have health insurance. Some were young and healthy, so they didn’t want to spend the money. Some were a range of ages, unhealthy, and poor. They wanted health insurance, but either it wasn’t provided through their work or they didn’t make enough to pay for insurance. What to do? The answer was to require everyone to have health insurance and require insurance companies to insure everyone. The ones who didn’t need the insurance would bulk up insurance company earnings and cover those who did need it, but couldn’t pay.

This began as a Republican idea, then was taken over by the Democrats. So it was the Democrats who caught Hell for it. Never before had the federal government required that people buy something that they didn’t want. The mandate could be compared to “compelled speech.” The Supreme Court had already held that compelled speech violates the First Amendment.[4] Schools can’t make students recite the Pledge of Allegiance and states can’t compel anti-abortion “crisis centers” to post notices of abortion services. What’s the difference?

In some minds, the insurance mandate may have seemed wrong in its own right, and an entering wedge precedent for a huge extension of government power over individual lives. What else might follow in time? The revolt against vaccines may have amounted to a Libertarian response to an arrogant government. Not many Libertarians among the Democrats.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 24 April 2026, p. 17. The figures come from a Politico/Public First poll.

[2] I have. Came down with chicken-pox during the rehearsal for the Christmas concert of my elementary school. Vomited all over the back of the white shirt of the kid in front of me. Then there was the girl who walked with leg braces and crutches because she had been hit by polio. This was long before the Americans with Disabilities Act, so I still remember her laboring up the steps from the front door.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2026, p. 17. The figures for Independents were 72 percent, and for Democrats 93 percent. That means that 28 percent of Independents and 7 percent of Democrats don’t “support the use of vaccines to prevent disease.”

[4] Later, in “Janus v. AFSCME,” the Court held that “the First Amendment does not permit the government to compel a person to pay for another party’s speech just because the government thinks that the speech furthers the interests of the person who does not want to pay.”

“War solves nothing.”

Posted on May 5, 2026 by jsh54

In the 1770s, the British North American colonies accepted continuing British rule. They formed an association which became Baja Canada.

In 1861, the larger association of Baja Canada, with the approval of Great Britain, allowed the peaceful secession of its Southern members.

The new Confederate States of America preserved its beloved traditions of human slavery and White supremacy.

Slavery proved to be highly adaptable as an economic institution. For example, the very productive automobile plants of North and South Carolina and Tennessee are now worked by slave labor.

During the first half of the 20th Century, Germany united and reorganized Continental Europe as “Germania.” During the second half of the 20th Century, China united and reorganized the Far East as “Redasia.”

All of this was accomplished without the resort to actual WAR.

Tip of the Iceberg: Budget Reconciliation.

Posted on April 29, 2026 by jsh54

The 100-member Senate normally requires 60 votes to pass legislation. In an era of deep partisan division, it is difficult to assemble such a “super-majority.” The “Congressional Budget Act of 1974” created a device to by-pass this obstacle.[1] It is called “Reconciliation.” This device requires only 51 votes to pass certain specific kinds of legislation related to the budget. What are the basic rules of “Reconciliation”? First, the required 51 votes can consist of 51 Senators, or of 50 Senators plus the vote of the Vice President. Second, the bills must deal with a) mandatory spending, b) revenue, or c) the federal debt limit. The bills can also deal with more than one of these categories in the same bill. Third, the Senate can pass one bill dealing with each of these categories each year. Fourth, non-budget issues are excluded; changes to Social Security are excluded; and the bill must not increase the federal debt after 10 years.[2]

Two recent bills passed by means of “Reconciliation” are worth noting. The first is the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.”[3] The bill proposed spending $1.9 trillion to accelerate recovery from the economic effects of the COVID 19 pandemic and the related recession. The bill raised taxes on some wealthy individuals and on some corporations. The tax increases were projected to raise $60 billion in revenue. That is, it proposed to spend $1.84 trillion not covered by revenue. The bill ticked a lot of Democratic social policy boxes. Republicans criticized it from an economic perspective: it was labeled a ‘stimulus” bill when such “stimulus” was not longer needed. They may have had a point. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco later (2022) calculated that the “American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,” in combination with the earlier “CARES Act” (2020) raised the core inflation rate by 3 percent by the end of 2021.

The second bill is the “Inflation Reduction Act” (2022).[4] Key elements of the bill addressed salient Democratic concerns: lowering prescription drug prices and fostering “green” energy. The bill proposed substantially less spending than did the “American Rescue Plan”: $891 billion. It also proposed to raise much more revenue from taxes on the wealthy: $738 billion. Thus, it spent $1.53 billion more than it took in. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the “Inflation Reduction Act” would not reduce inflation in 2022 or 2023. The Tax Policy Center[5] estimated that the top 1 percent of taxpayers would see a 0.2 percent increase in their tax rate, and the 80-99^th percentile a 0-0.1 percent increase. This is hardly draconian.

Which is exactly the point. “Make the rich pay their fair share of taxes” is a long-running and standard Democratic message. It has broad support among Democratic voters.[6] Why didn’t Democratic politicians include real and big tax increases on the wealthy in bills they passed by reconciliation? Perhaps one politician’s off-guard remark explains why: “you need both a public and a private position.”[7] This not a uniquely Democratic stance. It explains much.

[1] Which means that we have been dealing with a deeply divided Senate—and country—for better than 50 years. It isn’t such a new phenomenon. That doesn’t mean that the issues dividing the country have remained the same or that the voter line-ups have remained the same.

[2] Reconciliation (United States Congress) – Wikipedia

[3] American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 – Wikipedia

[4] Inflation Reduction Act – Wikipedia

[5] Tax Policy Center – Wikipedia

[6] See the excellent analysis in Americans’ top frustrations with the federal tax system | Pew Research Center

[7] Clinton’s Two-faced (Private v. Public) Policy on TPP

An Informed Discussion of the Blockade.

Posted on April 17, 2026 by jsh54

You may be satisfied with the discussion of the blockade of the Straits of Hormuz as presented in the media. If so, great! Want to buy a bridge? Or you may want to know more.

The podcast “School of War” is–so I judge–a right-of-center take on current small wars and demolition. It has the very great virtue of hosting guests who know a lot more than the average person about military and diplomatic affairs. The host is Aaron MacLean. Former Marine officer deployed to Afghanistan; former instructor at the Naval Academy, former staffer for Senator Tom Cotton; book-worm (and so am I). He’s no idiot and his estimable goal is to get his guests to talk about what they know.

He’s branched-out to Youtube. The episode linked here is the second of two recent broadcasts. First one is really good as well. This one will grant you access to a “how it works and what could go right/wrong” take by a knowledgeable person

How Trump’s Blockade of Iran Actually Works with Sal Mercogliano – YouTube

Our War with Iran.

Posted on April 16, 2026 by jsh54

There were reasonable arguments both for and against war with Iran.[1] President Donald Trump chose war. Trump has not offered a clear and persuasive argument for the war. As is his wont, he has put forth multiple justifications wrapped in clouds of hyperbole. It has been the same with his evaluations of how the war is progressing.[2]

The war started well: a decapitation offensive killed much of the senior military, security, and political leadership; the air defenses were largely degraded; ballistic missiles, their launchers, and weapons stockpiles were hit very hard; and the Iranian Navy (such as it was) has been largely destroyed.

Then, to the apparent surprise of President Trump and Secretary of War Pete Hogwallop, Iran did not surrender.[3] Pre-war commentary often said that the original widespread revolutionary fervor among Iranians had long since waned. Now, the ranks of the government were supposed to be filled with careerists mimicking enthusiasm in order to get and keep jobs. Surely, someone would step up to say “enough is enough!” This evaluation may have misread the situation.[4] Rather like the “Black Knight” in “Monty Python and the Holy Grail,” Iran refused to concede defeat. It kept on launching such missiles and drones as it still possessed at its oil-producing neighbors. It declared the Straits of Hormuz closed. Perhaps they can’t make good on that decree, but who wants to be on an oil tanker or natural gas container ship if they can? So, the Strait is mostly closed.

A two-week cease-fire has been agreed. The terms are murky and disputed. In all likelihood, the Iranian government is lying. In the past, they have denounced as forgeries documents that they signed days before. Peace-talks were held, but failed. Now the United States has blockaded Iranian shipping. Other preparations are undoubtedly underway as the cease-fire clock ticks down. These preparations may even involve “boots on the ground.”

This is not an excuse for quitting on the war that has begun. Better to see it through. If we quit now, take some phony deal just to have an “off-ramp,” bad things will happen.

We will have run through a lot of our limited stock of munitions for absolutely no gain. We will be less ready for whatever fight comes next.

Our enemies and our friends will see our weakness. That weakness is in military power, but also in will. Does anyone really want Iran to obtain nuclear weapons? Does anyone really want China to seize Taiwan? Does anyone really want Russia to defeat Ukraine? Does anyone really want ALL of these things to happen, pretty much simultaneously?

Donald Trump started this war on his own, but he can’t be allowed to end it short of victory. This is America’s war; this is OUR war.

[1] See: The Argument for War with Iran. | waroftheworldblog ; and The Argument Against War with Iran. | waroftheworldblog

[2] Not to excuse Trump’s “style,” but after ten years of this kind of thing, you’d think people would accept that it’s how he talks. Discount the guff and focus on what is consistent. Counting up all the times that he has over-stated, offended, or lied doesn’t get us anywhere. Conservative commentators have argued that Progressives often confuse rhetoric with reality. Acting like Trump is no solution to Trump.

[3] Neither did Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan when they found themselves in an even worse situation in 1945.

[4] Possibly, such a misreading could have been based on psychological “projection.”

The Authoritarian Handbook–V.

Posted on April 15, 2026 by jsh54

The wars themselves, those of the third quarter of the century, had two faces. Yes, they reshaped the relationships between the so-called “Great Powers.” They broke the alliance between the arch-conservative powers Austria and Russia; they created two new nations in Italy and Germany; they sent the Austrian Empire spinning toward decay and collapse; and they put a stop to vexing French pretensions to dominate European affairs. This will gladden the hearts of future historians obsessed by the traditional themes of “Great Men” and dramatic events.[1]

No, they weren’t chiefly about re-making the balance of power. Effective “authoritarians” saw that their road to the power to do other things ran through first satisfying a public desire for language-based communities. That is, “Nationalism” had a powerful grip on the minds of many people.[2] Some of the benefits of the victory of Nationalism were psychic, rather than material. People felt pride in their nation. People felt themselves part of some deeply-rooted and long-denied community. Parades, flags, memorial columns, school lessons, the talk of older men who had once “done their bit,” and the language itself—salted with historical references and military analogies—all kept the victories of Nationalism alive in the minds of ordinary people.

Certainly, “authoritarians” could fail of their goals. Napoleon III gambled on war to shape Italian unification, then saw the Italians escape his leading-strings. Napoleon III gambled on war to prevent Prussian domination of a unified Germany, then saw his country defeated, replaced by a mere republic that has become a by-word for ineffective government, personal self-indulgence, and scandals. The Hungarians had wanted national independence, but had to settle for fifty years of partnership with the despised Austrians. The ungrateful and stupid heirs of Tsar Alexander II never gave a thought to improving the lives of their people. Their own psychological weakness led them to seek outward shows of authority. These men were lath painted to look like iron.

So, neither Peace nor War alone guaranteed the survival of “effective authoritarianism.”

[1] Editor’s Note. Actually, this “democratizing” critique became a commonplace theme directed against diplomatic and military historians in later, more “progressive” times. All the same, what are the “Iliad” or “King Henry V” or “War and Peace” about?

[2] Why language should prevail over other identities—religion, gender, race, or social class—at this hour in history remains a mystery to us. These other forms of identity seem just as vital as does Nationalism. They might yet provide the basis for a better organization of community.

The Authoritarian Handbook–IV.

Posted on April 10, 2026 by jsh54

We have spoken of the crimes of the “old authoritarians,” whether open or masked. What of their achievements? For these hold the key to understanding the “effective authoritarian.” It can’t be just blood, toil, tears, and snot if the “authoritarian” regime is to last. The years from 1850 to 1914 are a catalogue of “Dos” and “Don’ts” for “authoritarians” of our own day.[1]

Who are the model “authoritarians” of the period? The French Emperor Louis Napoleon III (r. 1850-1870). The Russian Tsar Alexander II (r. 1855-1881). The “German,” more accurately Prussian, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck (g. 1863-1890). These three men represent the highest plane of the modern pre-Great War “authoritarian.” Other men of the time stand on a somewhat lower plane. The Sardinian, then Italian, prime minister Camillo, Count Cavour (g. 1852-1861) is one. The American President Abraham Lincoln (g. 1861-1865) is another.[2]

There were many other “authoritarians” or “aspiring authoritarians.” As we will see, they were of the old type. Some sought to rule without check on their power, but also without any larger purpose in mind. Some sought to use modern methods to hold back necessary changes. Their successes and failures need not detain us.

What did “authoritarian” regimes achieve with their power?

Peace, first of all. Certainly not absolute or universal peace. The 19^th Century was drenched in blood. It was mostly the blood of Africans and Arabs and Asians and the Wild Indians of North America. The Civil War among the Americans offers a striking exception to this rule.[3] Comparatively little blood fell on European battle fields.

In comparison to the frequent and lengthy wars of the 18^th and early 19^th centuries, the wars fought between 1815 and 1914 were few and of short duration. In 1849, war pitted the Austrian and Russian Empires against the rebellious Hungarians; in 1855, France and Britain fought the Russians; in 1859, France and Sardinia attacked (and the French defeated) the Austrians; in 1863 Prussia and the Austrians defeated the Danes; in 1866, Prussia defeated the Austrians; and in 1870, Prussia and its German allies defeated France.

Peace all the same. War between the major European states halted. There was no general war, no prolonged war, no devastating war. Particularly in the last third of the 19^th Century and the first decade of our own century, disputes were settled in diplomatic conferences. No wrecked cities, no grieving widows and orphans, no mangled veterans cadging tips on street corners. These “no”s are the invisible monuments raised in every farm village and factory town.

[1] Often is the question posed: “Why don’t people learn from History?” This is nonsensical. People DO learn from History. They learn from their own History—that is, experience subjected to consideration. What man has hit his thumb with a hammer more than two or three times? People of experience try to convey “lessons” to others (often their bored progeny) in the form of maxims: “Never try to fill an inside straight”; “You hold a woman around the waist and a bottle around the neck, not the other way around”; “Work hard and save your money, it’s going to be a hard winter” (said in any season); “A gun is always loaded until you know it isn’t, so always check in the breech”; “Without Love and a little fun, life isn’t worth living”; and “If you stare into the abyss long enough, the abyss stares into you.” Thus, harsh experience teaches lessons to Individuals. However, there is no mechanism for determining agreed “Lessons of History” for an entire community, nor for transmitting them from one generation to the next. Everyone derives his own lessons.

[2] It is to be admitted that Lincoln’s government drew much of its character from the necessities of a great war. It is impossible to know what might have been if he had continued his presidency into a full second term or even a third. Nothing in the American Constitution bars a president from seeking more than a second term.

[3] In light of our thesis on the attributes of “authoritarian” government, it is interesting that this great struggle took place between two democracies.

The Authoritarian Handbook–III.

Posted on April 5, 2026 by jsh54

We have looked at Authoritarianism Past. Let us consider Authoritarianism Present.

The last century appeared to witness a rising tide of “liberal” governments. The United States, France, and Great Britain (in that order) all created representative and “responsible” governments with regular elections, guarantees of civil rights, and a free press.[1] Even here, however, universal manhood suffrage has been slow in coming. It came soonest in the United States—for White men—by the 1830s. It came to France after the Revolution of 1848, then became the basis for the “Second Empire” of Napoleon III. It came to Britain by stages until 1884. For a hopeless Optimist, these countries formed the vanguard of a world movement, or at least a Western movement.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Other places moved in that direction, but stopped short at “false-front” parliamentary systems. These were mere bones thrown to dogs. In Europe, Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire exemplify the “false front” approach. The right to vote was restricted and manipulated; the governments answered to the emperor, rather than the parliament; and other freedoms were restricted. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece have all reached only a primitive stage of even these repressive systems.

Many other places remained fully “illiberal.” Look at a map. Where DON’T you want to go? The farther East and South you move from London, the more backward and illiberal the economy, the society, and the government become. Before the War, a novice British journalist asked the Prime Minister of Serbia about the state of industrialization his country. The Prime Minister replied that “In my country, a match is a machine.” (And lentil mush, served twice a day, is the only food in Serbian prisons.) Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Manchu China were hulking giants of tradition and oppression. Whips, hangman’s rope, and massacres—done either by government forces or at the behest of government agents—were and are common tools of “stable” government. Good for foreign corporations, perhaps, but highly unpleasant for the people who eke out a living there. Now they are all collapsed into revolution and civil war.

Anywhere one looks in Latin America, such a false-front parliamentary system is the best that can be hoped for. Everywhere there are long-serving “Presidentes” and be-medaled “caudillos.” There are national police forces, but no national school systems. In the Caribbean islands, government oppresses the poor on behalf of the rich until the poor descend into savagery themselves.

There are gigantic cattle ranches, supplying beef and mutton to Europe. There are huge cotton plantations, crowding out the subsistence farms of humble peons. There are mines carving up mountains in search of every sort of metal. There are national railroad systems to carry all these commodities to seaports for export to “advanced” countries. All are financed by British capital. The rich few keep their wealth in foreign banks, rather than investing in their own countries. Why? Because they know that they live on the edge of a volcano that might explode beneath them at any moment.

The only hope for an ordinary person in any of these places is emigration to somewhere not good, but less bad. It is a flight without end.[2]

So, schools without teachers, hospitals without doctors, and elections without voters. This reality is prettied up by Western diplomats and Western journalists and Western travelers who consort with their own types in such countries. But, if one “rides the rails” or lives in rural villages for a time, one comes away with a more accurate understanding of “modern times.”

[1] Eventually, offshoots of Britain introduced the same systems for their own domestic management: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa.

[2] Editor’s Note. Curiously, this is the title of a 1927 novel by Joseph Roth. This may be pure coincidence. It may also indicate that at least one of the authors knew Roth. From 1916 to 1918, Roth served in the Austro-Hungarian army; from 1918 to 1920, he was a journalist in Vienna; and from 1920, he worked in Berlin. Perhaps they picked up the phrase from Roth before he put it into use as a book title?

The Authoritarian Handbook–II.

Posted on April 3, 2026 by jsh54

Editor’s Note: The pamphlet “The Authoritarian Handbook” survives only in scraps. I first learned of it while in graduate school in the 1980s. It was not to be found in major libraries or research collections. After much desultory searching, I found a package containing parts of the pamphlet in a barn/used book-store south of Cambridge, MD, on the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake.

Editor’s Note: It has been impossible to identify the authors whose names appear on the title-page. This leads me to think that they are pseudonyms. They appear to have read a great deal in various areas of knowledge. As will be clear from other sections, they seem to know the life of soldiers, fugitives, and prisoners. They lived in troubled times of war, revolution, and social and economic upheaval.

Authoritarianism Past.

If one seeks an “authoritarian handbook,” one has only to open a history book to any page. Virtually all governments of the past were “authoritarian.” There were kingdoms and empires. Yes, the “Classical” Greeks invented, “Democracy,” but they also invented Oligarchy and Tyranny.[1] The Roman Republic died in the bloody strife of men avid for personal power. Then the Many gave way to the One, the “first among equals,” the Emperor.

Later in Europe, and elsewhere in the world, there were kings who were “despotic” and kings who were “benevolent” or “enlightened.” There were emperors in China, and Japan, and Inca Peru. All were supreme rulers who were determined to defend their prerogatives. There were “republics,” again. In Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Venice, the term “republic” really signified an oligarchy that had escaped royal control. All ruled with an iron fist.

What were the parts of this “iron fist”? There were aristocrats and bureaucrats; soldiers, priests, and informers.

There were “subjects”—how expressive of the reality!—rather than “citizens.” Subjects have duties; citizens have rights.

This a key part of Authoritarianism. Men need food and shelter. They need safety, both of the economic sort and the law-and-order sort. These are the material even animal, essentials of human life. They may aspire to other, basically emotional, things once these essentials are achieved: community, a higher place in that community, and even a quest for a larger purpose in life. But the animal, material needs are essential and primary.[2] Without them, nothing else is possible. Hence, these will always lie at the heart of any politics, whether it be “liberal” or “illiberal” or “authoritarian.”

You will notice that we say nothing about Freedom. Rarely do men crave actual Freedom. History tells us of great revolts from below against the ruling classes. The list always includes the “Servile Wars” of the Roman Republic, the peasant uprisings of the Late Middle Ages in England and France,[3] and the revolts of urban workers such as the “Ciompi” in Florence. Then there are the many slave revolts in the Caribbean, with Haiti taking pride of place. All of these revolts sprang from intense human misery that had finally been pushed beyond the point of tolerance. Rents or labor requirements had been raised significantly by Medieval land owners, or piece-work wages reduced by urban employers. Mere survival appeared threatened for many people. Under these conditions, they revolted. Aspirations to something like what political theorists of the present-day label “individual rights” or “freedom” had little to nothing to do with the revolts.

[1] The Athenians put to death the suicidally melancholy public nuisance Socrates. No one grieved, outside of his small group of followers.

[2] Editor’s Note. The authors here seem to anticipate the theories of Abraham Maslow by twenty to thirty years. See: Abraham Maslow, Motivation and Personality (1954).

[3] Editor’s Note: The “Jacquerie” (1358) and “Wat Tyler’s Rebellion” 91381).