War's Other Casualty; W. McElroy

WAR IN THE BALKANS War's Other Casualty by Wendy McElroy "war is the health of the State." Those famous words are contained in Randolph Bourne's essay "The State," written in response to America's participation in World War I, but left unfinished because of his death from influenza in 1918. In the introduction to War and the Intellec tuals: Collected Essays 1915-1919-an anthology of Bourne's writings-editor Carl Resek explains the phrase: "In its proper place it meant that mindless power thrived on war because war corrupted a nation's moral fabric and especially corrupted its intellectu als." Those seven words contain a complexity of meaning that is often overlooked by those who use them. To grasp this complexity, it is necessary to explore the theoretical context within which Bourne, a left-wing writer with individualist sensibilities, wrote. Bourne argued that in times of peace, the majority of people do not give much thought to the State, but deal instead with the Govern ment, which may be viewed as the practical day-to-day "offices and functions" of a State.

He defined "Government" as "a framework of the administration of laws, and the carrying out of the public force. Government is the idea of the State put into practical operation in the hands of definite, concrete, fallible men." The people whose jobs make Government Wendy McElroy is the author of The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival (Prometheus Books, 1998) and a contributing editor ofThe Freeman. 32 function, such as postal workers .. and grade school teachers, have no sense of sanctity about them. They are what Bourne describes as "common and unsanctified men." Even those elected to political office do not gener ally inspire admiration, but are usually "indis tinguishable from the mass." This egalitarian attitude is part of the American republican heritage. Thus in times of peace, "the sense of the State almost fades out of the conscious ness of men." People may rise to honor the flag at ball games but they have few practical reasons to contemplate the State.

The American State is more of a concept than a physical reality. It is the political struc ture established by the American Revolution, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Gov ernments come and go, but the State remains essentially the same. It is the State, not Gov ernment, that inspires emotions such as awe or patriotism within its citizenry because the State is considered to be sanctified by history and by the popular will. It is to the concept of the American State-not to any particular Government, Republican or Democratic that people pledge allegiance with hands placed over their hearts. Another key to understanding America is the concept of "Society," which Bourne referred to as "nation" or "country." Society is the collection of nonpolitical factors that con stitute life in America, including: characteris tic attitudes, common lore and literature, a shared history, a unique ethnic mix, the pre vailing cultural norms. These nonpolitical factors are what make the American society different from Chinese or French society.

They constitute "the American way." In times of peace, most people identify more with Society than they do with Government. For example, most define themselves more in relation to a community, religion, or ethnic heritage than in relation to a political party. For Bourne, Society, unlike Government, is not an expression of the State, nor can it peacefully coexist with the State because the two concepts are antagonistic. Bourne observed that "Country [society] is a concept of peace, tolerance, of living and letting live. But State is essentially a concept of power, of competition; it signifies a group in its aggres sive aspects. And we have the misfortune of being born not only into a country but into a State, and as we grow up we learn to mingle the two feelings into a hopeless confusion." The Impact of War Bourne defined war as the ultimate act of statehood. "Waris a function ... of States," he wrote, "and could not occur except in such a system."

He argued that war so blurs the lines sepa rating the State from Government and from Society that the lines virtually disappear in the minds of most people. Filled with emo tion, the patriot loses "all sense of the distinc tion between State, nation and government." As Bourne described the process, "Patriotism becomes the dominant feeling, and produces immediately that intense and hopeless confu sion between the relations which the individ ual bears and should bear towards the society of which he is a part." Thus, "Every individ ual citizen who in peacetimes had no function to perform by which he could imagine him self an expression or living fragment of the State becomes an active amateur agent of the Government in reporting spies and disloyal ists, in raising Government funds, or in prop agating such measures as are considered nec essary by officialdom." In times of war, the State and Government become virtually identical so that to oppose the Government is considered to be an act of disloyalty to the State. For example, although criticizing the president is a right regularly exercised by almost every Ameri can, such criticism becomes an act of treason when the president has just declared war.

Bourne explained that "objections to the war, luke-warm opinions concerning the necessity or the beauty of conscription, are made subject to ferocious penalties, far exceeding in severity those affixed to actual pragmatic crimes." The impact of war on Society is even more dramatic. Bourne wrote that "in general, the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, a hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war." Instead of its peace time principle-live and let live-Society adopts the State's principle of a group acting "in its aggressive aspects." This is the theoretical meaning of "war is the health of the State." In peace, people are largely defined by their Society and they interact with Government, giving little thought to the State. In times of war, the hier archy and the power of these concepts are inverted. The Government virtually becomes the State, and Society is subordinated to both.

The Individual in Wartime What happens to the individual when Soci ety and Government are dominated by the State? In times of peace an individual acts according to his own conscience to secure what he believes to be in his self-interest, which usually includes pursuing prosperity and security for the family, engaging in leisure, and the like. Individuals interact peacefully in Society without any imposed coordination because the interactions are sparked by a common desire (such as attend ing a football game or exchanging goods for money) without any loss of individual choice. In times of war, individuals become what Bourne refers to as "the herd." "The State is the organization of the herd to act offensively or defensively against another herd similarly organized." Members of the herd may have a 34 THE FREEMAN/IDEAS ON LIBERTY • WAR IN THE BALKANS • JULY 1999 ~ ;w( )I()( ;w( )I( i)( )I( ~ wide range of emotional and intellectual reac tions to wartime events and to the war itself.

Nevertheless, "by an ingenious mixture of cajolery, agitation, intimidation, the herd is licked into shape, into an effective mechanical unity, if not into a spiritual whole." Just as the line between the State and Soci ety blurs, so, too, does the line between the State and the individual. The State attempts to draw upon the powerful force of individual choice by appealing to the patriotism of peo ple and asking them to make the "choice" to enlist and otherwise support the war effort. Usually, the individual obliges because in "a nation at war, every citizen identifies himself with the whole, and feels immensely strength ened in that identification." But if the individ ual makes the wrong choice-the choice to not volunteer, to not cooperate with wartime measures-the State reveals that choice was never the real issue. "Men are told simultane ously that they will enter the military estab lishment of their own volition, as their splen did sacrifice for their country's welfare, and that if they do not enter they will be hunted down and punished with the most horrid penalties...."

Usually, the individual does not rebel against war's massive violation of rights because he feels what Bourne called "a large element of pure filial mysticism" toward the State, especially the wartime State. Bourne likened this mysticism to the response often offered to religion. "As the Church is the medium for the spiritual salvation of men, so the State is thought of as the medium for his political salvation." The same feeling ofpatri otism that brings tears to the eyes of those saluting the flag at ball games is magnified by-some would say distorted and exploited by-the wartime State to make individuals conform. Feeling strengthened by "identify ing with the whole," people cease to be indi viduals and become, instead, citizens of the State. The man who dissents and remains an individual feels "forlorn and helpless," while those who think and feel as the others in the herd have "the warm feeling of obedience, the soothing irresponsibility of protection."

Thus, a "people at war become in the most literal sense obedient, respectful, trustful chil dren again, full of that naive faith in the all wisdom and all-power of the adult who takes care of them." "[T]his great herd-machine" functions under "a most indescribable confu sion of democratic pride and personal fear" that makes the individuals "submit to the destruction of their livelihood if not their lives, in a way that would formerly have seemed to them so obnoxious as to be incred ible." The individual became a "child on the back of a mad elephant" that he could neither control nor abandon, but was compelled to ride until the elephant decided to halt. This, too, is the meaning of "war is the health of the State": war is the death of indi vidualism. Bourne's. essays, written while he was on the editorial staff of the New Republic, are not typical of antiwar literature. He did not dwell on the "butcher's bill" of dead soldiers and civilians. He did not rail against the profits reaped by the military-industrial complex, which was collectively called "the munitions makers" in his day. The thrust of Bourne's essays is how war leads to the moral collapse of society by kicking out the props of peace ful interaction.

In essence, Bourne addressed the moral consequences of war on a postwar society that had abandoned individualism in favor of "the herd-machinery." He eloquently argued that postwar America would be morally, intellec tually, and psychologically impoverished. By this observation, Bourne did not mean that peacetime America would struggle under the increased bureaucracy that never seems to roll back to prewar levels. Many historians have made this point. Bourne addressed the less tangible, though arguably more significant, costs of war. Post-1918 America, he predict ed, would be burdened by intellectuals who had "forgotten that the real enemy is War rather than imperial Germany." In converting World War I into a holy war, the intellectual and psychological groundwork was being laid for future instances of what he termed "the sport of the upper class"-global conflict. 0 Ideas and Consequences by Lawrence W. Reed Clinton versus Cleveland and Coolidge on Taxes I n a post-State of the Union speech in Buf falo, New York, on January 20,1999, Pres ident William Jefferson Clinton was asked why Americans shouldn't get a tax cut since the federal budget is in surplus and the share of personal income·taken by the federal·gov ernment is at a post-World War II high. Is this what he said in response?