Michael Oakeshott, Joe Sobran writes in a column deserving of your attention, is "a subtle corrective to the impulse to demand, on all occasions, that government Do Something." But government is not only generally limited in its power to right wrongs, government in most cases would be better off doing nothing. For in acting, it compounds the collective injury and gives false hope that it can eliminate all sorts of evil, e.g., poverty, human nature, and hurricanes, to name but a few.

In another essay, Sobran quotes Oakeshott on the false god of the state: "To some people, 'government' appears as a vast reservoir of power which inspires them to dream of what use might be made of it. They have favorite projects, of various dimensions, which they sincerely believe are for the benefit of mankind, and to capture this source of power, if necessary to increase it, and to use it for imposing their favorite projects upon their fellows is what they understand as the adventure of governing men. They are, thus, disposed to recognize government as an instrument of passion: the art of politics is to inflame and direct desire."

Oakeshott then contrasts the fantasist's view of government with the conservative's: "the man of [conservative] disposition understands it to be the business of a government not to inflame passion and give it new objects to feed upon, but to inject into the activities of already too passionate men an ingredient of moderation, to restrain, to deflate, to pacify, and to reconcile; not to stoke the fires of desire, but to damp them down. And all this, not because passion is vice and moderation virtue, but because moderation is indispensable if passionate men are to escape being locked in an encounter of mutual frustration." The former position breeds demagogues; the latter, one hopes, statesmen.

To place Oakeshott's words in the context of current events, it is reckless to tell people that the government can stop hurricanes and foolish for government to try.

An answer to why the modern impulse toward government solutions can be found in Rationalism in Politics, in which Oakshott describes how "a beneficient and infallible technique replaced a beneficient and infallible God." In other words, man deposed God and installed himself in His place. Man proved an unworthy successor. The "rationalist," as Oakeshott terms those who put faith in political answers to all problems, "cannot imagine...politics which do not consist in solving problems, or a political problem of which there is no 'rational' solution at all. Such a problem must be conterfeit. And the 'rational' solution of any problem is, in its nature, the perfect solution." Thereby debate is curtailed (Why listen to any but the scientifically derived political solution?) and the quest for the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.

Government should "do something" about the common defense, adjudicating disputes, coining money, awarding patents, and other roles for which it is well suited and authorized. Regarding most of the modern state's pursuits, politicians would be better off reading Oakeshott and doing nothing.

I had noticed that Sobran column last night. Oakeshott is really fantastic. You may want to consider some of his writings, or the collection of his essays Rationalism in Politics, as a FF book club selection.

I think that his insight into modern politics where "a beneficient and infallible technique replaced a beneficient and infallible God" is a brilliant one. The government can be indentified with a "vast reservoir of power" as he says b/c as you (Dan) paraphrase: "man deposed God and installed himself in His place." This is the Promethean conundrum at the heart of modernity. When the sovereign God is deposed and a human "sovereign" put in His place (ala Hobbes) in the form of either an absolute monarch or an absolute republic then the government can be mistaken to have the same qualities and powers as our erstwhile God. Of course, this is an false assumption and a dangerous one to boot.

Does anyone really liken the power of God to the power of Government? I guess in some sense you may be right, but it has always seemed to me that it is the duties of the Church that have been snatched and are now administered by the Government. I don't think that anyone believes that Government is "all powerful" (as is God), but rather mistakenly believes that Government is self-sacrificing, and willing to serve the people with selflessness (as is the Church).

Along the lines of Dan's intial post, one has to wonder at the ridiculous law that is handed down by our Government. For example, according to a relatively recent regulation handed down by the Office of Foreign Assest Controls (Treasury Department), it is now unlawful to purchase a Cuban cigar in another country, and smoke it in that SAME country. Now, I would certainly agree on the need to maintain controls on Cuba, as it is related to the defense of the Nation, and Dan rightly points out that protecting the country is something our Government should "Do". But what on earth is the point of passing un-enforceable law if not to simply say: "See? We've DONE something?"

I agree Homer, about how these used to be roles of the Church. But I think Oakeshott is right too. Notice when the state snatches these roles from the Church (and other voluntary associations), they do so precisely because they think they have a god's power to solve what are really permanent human problems. When the Church gives disaster assistance, they do so out of love of the person and an understanding of the supernatural destiny of the person -- they therefore have a sense of limitation on what they can accomplish, because given the human condition all solutions are temporary, except for that eternal destiny. When the state snatches away that role, they view it as part of the ever increasing campaign to get all human problems under the control of "a beneficient and infallible technique."

PS Great post, Dan. I've really got to read more Oakeshott

Thank you for explaining that, Scully. Dan basically said all that you did, but it clearly went over my head. I understand much better now, and agree.

We need more like you in the FBI.

Now, if the liberals could get it through their heads that some things are way more important than others, and the self proclaimed conservatives honestly admitted that abusing the government to impose their own fictional utopia on every won't work (and spending more than the average liberal ever did in some cases to do so), we *might* actually get somewhere..

Oh bull Scully. Find me a church that does it without the belief that it ultimately will increase the number that follow them. True charity is doing what it right, because it is right, not because you think one of hundreds of different gods and thousands of different versions of them will be happy that you did it. If this was not the case, then why in every disaster, including the tsunami, and I don't doubt Katrina as well, do you find these self rightious 'for the love of the person' people flat out deny some people help, if they don't first convert?

Yes, most don't do it, but all secretly hope it will convert people, even if they don't demand it before hand. That is pure, unadulterated selfishness, not a true desire to make the world better or help anyone. To try to attribute some sort of higher cause to most of these people is delusional.

How do you explain Mother Theresa?

Kagehi my brother, I am afraid you misunderstand the basic nature of Christian charity. It might help to first understand the definition of charity in the King James version of the New Testament is simply "love".

Christians are instructed by Christ to peform acts of service and charity out of love: love for those in need and more importantly, as an expression of love for and obedience to Christ Jesus. Jesus says in Matthew "I tell you the truth; whatever you did for one of the least of these, you did for me." I have never in my life heard of a single instance where aid or comfort was conditioned by any Christian upon conversion.

And to my knowledge the outpouring of charity and assistance in the wake of Katrina has been no different.