Another insult hurled in the direction of liberals these days is “statist.” It is of a piece with the “liberal fascist” thesis that has electrified the imagination of many Reeps. In the threads, I am sometimes addressed as “statist,” as though barking at a communist or some other lowlife.

In the first place, it is useful to distinguish between government and state. In most countries, those functions are divided. The head of government is accountable for results and the head of state is accountable for character. Both results and character are aspects of leadership. The one is managed. The other is modeled.

In America, we hold to a Hollywood fantasy that character and results blend into one happy ending. Elsewhere, there is less naiveté. The leadership qualities needed to generate good results is not always conducive to good character. The reverse is also true. And so they diverge into an age-old “altar and throne” split. In the disparaging words of Ayn Rand, the Witch Doctor sanctions Attila and Attila provides protection for the Witch Doctor. In point of fact, though, state and government, monarch and prime minister, character and results, are two different things, and although these two aspects are often contradictory, human beings need BOTH from leadership.

In that light, to be called a “statist” is not a terrible thing. In fact, since morality is derived from civics, then “the state” has an indispensable role to play in creating public order. While it does not bash heads, like the government, it IS the repository of our cultural and moral heritage. In a real enough sense, to be stateless is to be soulless.

The assertion that we liberals are “statists,” even “fascists,” come from a perspective on GOVERNMENT—not the state. The recurring theme in these parts is that government is evil, and that the difference between the left and right in America is the difference between big government and small government. Let’s ignore the history of this argument—the fact that there is little in contemporary experience that should lead us to believe that the Republicans are the party of “small government.” It is clear that Reeps only begin to worry about governmental “intrusiveness” when they themselves are out of power. Natural enough, but hardly a principled theme (there are some rare exceptions on this—Ron Paul, for instance).

Rather, unless one is an anarchist, one must concede that government is at LEAST a necessary evil. Further, if government governs with the consent of the governed—if it has institutionalized a process by which the governed have the ultimate say-so on the direction of government—and if it is able to govern in a manner that is constitutional, i.e. with neutral and objective institutions—then the EVIL of government is largely mitigated. Even if it does not clear this minimum threshold—a threshold that distinguishes civilized nations from barbaric ones—one must still acknowledge that government remains a NECESSARY evil.

There is no doubt that the Founders saw King George’s government as tyrannical. And in those revolutionary days, there was an equation where the larger the governmental power, the smaller the individual liberty. But that was power that taxed without permitting representation. Once “republican” government was instituted, the fact that it was derived from legitimate democratic representation put an end to that inversion between power and liberty. Liberty, after all, is not entirely the right to do what one will. Human animals are not angels. Liberty is also, and even primarily, the right to have a say in that which tells you what you cannot do. In this country, we have achieved that. We have free speech, free worship, and regular elections. You want a government that taxes less and spends less? Speak out and win an election. And when you win an election, tax less and spend less. But you are out of bounds—way out of bounds—when you argue that those of us who want to tax more and spend more are “fascists.”

For here is the clinching argument. One can argue that government is inefficient. One can criticize government for being random and capricious. One can accuse bureaucrats of abusing their power. All these things are true, but they do not bleed into an issue of small government vs. large government. Big versus small government is a different question. Because what is not true is that “small government” is more efficient and less abusive. The inherent clunkiness in government is ALWAYS there. The power imbalances are still there. The 65 cents of value for every dollar spent is still there. The process-orientation rather than the result-orientation is still there. It is just smaller. And the ungoverned part of society is larger--still savage, still nasty, still operating by fraud and by force, still doing the things that make government necessary in the first place.

So shut up with your “statist” nonsense. You don’t know what you’re talking about.