"During the course of the XIXth Century a dreadful ambiguity existed in this regard in democratic ideology; concepts and trends inspired from genuine devotion to the people and genuine democratic philosophy were mixed up with concepts and trends inspired from spurious democratic philosophy and would-be dictatorial, mistaken devotion to the people. There were men who believed that, as Jean-Jacques Rouseau put it, they should force the people to be free. I say they were betrayers of the people. For they treated people like sick children while they were clamoring for the rights and freedom of the people. Those who distrust the people while appealing to the highest feelings and to the blood of the people cheat and betray the people."
--Jacques Maritain, Man and the State, 1951

I don't know much of anything about Rousseau. What sort of "freedom" was he forcing on the people?

I can think of a sense of the phrase "forcing people to be free" that I would endorse. It hinges on the Augustinian idea that true freedom is aimed at virtue. Thus, coercion that restricts vice is a manner of "forcing people to be free." I doubt this is what Rousseau had in mind.

Who should we trust with the power to force people to virtuous?

The people that are virtuous.

Who will decide who is virtuous enough to rule?

In a democratic society, the people will decide. Obviously, the society as a whole will have standards of virtue given to them throuhg tradition and religion. Some societies standards will be better than others. But we can ensure that the best (i.e., the most prudent) among us are elected by a tiered system similar to how U.S. Senators used to be chosen: the masses elect who they think is best, the those men (a better group than the masses) elect who they think is best, etc. (to my mind, a few more tiers would be beneficial). The men elected at the end of the process represent the best among us, the paradigms of our standards of virtue, and these men should then "force others to be free" in the sense of legislating the standards of virtue of the society as a whole.

"In a democratic society, the people will decide. Obviously, the society as a whole will have standards of virtue given to them throuhg tradition and religion. Some societies standards will be better than others. But we can ensure that the best (i.e., the most prudent) among us are elected by a tiered system similar to how U.S. Senators used to be chosen: the masses elect who they think is best, the those men (a better group than the masses) elect who they think is best, etc. (to my mind, a few more tiers would be beneficial). The men elected at the end of the process represent the best among us, the paradigms of our standards of virtue, and these men should then "force others to be free" in the sense of legislating the standards of virtue of the society as a whole." - Ralph

The United States Congress is the best among us?

Oh dear.

You've missed my point. Reread it.

No, I haven't. You stated that in a democratic society the people decide who will rule, based on the standards of virtue handed down to them through cultural institutions.

I asserted that the United States Congress is anything but virtuous. It is now up to you to defend the democratic system in the United States at making sure that the most virtuous rule or pick a different way of attaining the objective of having the most virtuous rule.

Your argument hinges on the notion that the people will elect their betters, who in turn will elect THEIR betters, and so on. You offered nothing to support this notion, you simply assumed it.

I would in fact argue that the average member of the United States Congress is morally inferior to the average private citizen of the United States.

The neocons are Jacobins, the intellectual heirs of the French philosophes such as Rousseau.

Like the revolution of 1789 he inspired, today's neocon horse whisperers in the American government think the entire world should be forced to be free: "regime change", "exporting democracy", etc. This to be done by bomb and bullet with the flimsiest of pretexts for shoving them around or none, if we think we can get away with it (as it turns out we can't, not even in a tinpot, half-ruined land such as Iraq after 2003).

And as in the French Revolution, the one-size-fits-all model of universal freedom, peace, love and progress imposed by the armed missionaries curiously always seems to suit the economic interests of the nation doing the missionary work.

Prof. Claes Ryn of the Catholic University has traced the line of descent from the original Jacobins, via the leftists to their sons and grandsons of the highly dynastic neoconservative and Straussian school of mostly secular Jews in America-- and there are startling resemblances between the Rousseauite pamphleteers of the 1790s and the Kristols and Pod people inflicting their expensive and futile b.s. on America today:

www.fpri.org/orbis/4703/ryn.ideologyamericanempire.pdf

However there is no resemblance between the neocons' nostrums and the foreign policy precepts of our Founding Fathers, of course.

www.ronpaul2008.com

"Your argument hinges on the notion that the people will elect their betters, who in turn will elect THEIR betters, and so on."

This is the very idea of an election.

"This is the very idea of an election." - Ralph

Yes, I'm aware.

Ralph,

I can assure you that Rousseau did not have any Augustinian ideas in mind w/ that phrase. He was well aware of Augustine's thought as he wrote his own "Confessions" but he was hardly an orthodox Augustinian.

I hear what you are saying about giving a spin to the phrase that makes it fine, but I think it isn't worth trying to spin it. The reason being that Augustine was a strong believer in the freedom of the will and the ineffectiveness of coercion on it (certainly on matters of faith but I think also on morals). What you have in mind is that the rule of law "disciplines" people, and this constraining "force" can lead them to develop virtue.

My problem w/ the phrase though as Rousseau used it was its collapsing the social into the political. This was a key aspect of modernity and its move to the liberal "Moral" state, that is the State that takes over the social. To put it another way, the state crowds out the Church and then takes over its role of moral arbiter for society.

I want to agree with your view only I don't see it working now in modern states, rather we end up w/ an endlessly moralizing socialist and post-Christian ruling elite.