LAST DITCH OF DEMOCRACY - Majority Rights

Mme. Chiang arouses one’s sympathies. BUT the error lies in this idea
that a universal theory will govern the world WITHOUT local order. If
neither Chungking nor Washington can bring order into their OWN
country, what likelihood is there that a still looser and larger bureaucracy
having still less definite responsibilities, and still less competent
executive offices, would be able to do any better?
One of the key thoughts, the bedrock thought that the late A.R. Orage
produced in 30 or 40 years ideological battle, was in an article on the
recession of power, i.e., FROM the people. As soon as people get control
of ANY organ of government, deliberative body or whatever, the real
control seems to retire into something INNER.
The ballyhoo vs. fascism was all tosh, insofar as it objected to
organization and control. What one sees after 20 years, two decades, is
that Italy has the professed Jeffersonian ideal. That of governing
LEAST. That the Fascist ideal is well nigh unattainable; not from wrong
direction, not from lack of aim toward organization, but from the natural
chaos of man, the unfailing laziness of the average man, who WILL not
be bothered to organize, who can not be persuaded to organize, save in
moments of danger or of enthusiasm. Even co-directors have to be lured
to board meetings by fees. Fifty dollars or whatever, to be bothered to go
watch proceedings. Machiavelli Senior remarked: “Men live in a few,
and the rest are sheep.” The idealists struggle against that. An occasional
miracle happens. In China men have set up a series of dynasties. Acts of
heroic creation, 160 to build or continue, and 160 years to decline. NOT
one of the great dynasties, the durable dynasties, was built on gangster
grab. Kublai was a great Kahn, but the Ming came 89 years later.
The cheap half baked smattering of western half learning, the lies of half
trained professors, shot into foolish young students have NOT been of
use to China. If the ancient Kings are too far back to be counted, the
Chinese would have learned more from Han, Sung, Tiang, Hong-Vou
and Tai Tsong, than from Woodrow Wilson and the Sassoons.