Browse By

Soft Tyranny: Anything That Drives Republicans Crazy

soft tyranny, noun: Anything the government does that irritates Republicans.

Yesterday afternoon, we received a comment over on an article about AIG that seemed to have the generally vague language of comment spam:

“thanks for the blog, very interesting prespective, i still think b is a soft tyranny tho”

The phrase soft tyranny gave a link to a specific page in the Obama White House’s web site. Not too long after that, another comment came in from someone using a different name, but with the same IP address, offering another vague comment and another link to that same White House page using the phrase soft tyranny.

My thoughts immediately went to another phrase: Google bomb. A Google bomb is a silly form of Internet activism in which a group of people try to manipulate the way search engines work to get a particular page to show up at the top of the search for a particular phrase. When a phrase is used to link to a web page, search engines like Google note that and elevate that page’s ranking when that phrase is searched for. If there are a large number of sites that link to a page using the phrase “dirty black crows”, for example, that page is likely to be near the top when people search for “dirty black crows”. Google bombs are collective efforts to artificially engineer this kind of result.

That appears to be what’s going on with the phrase soft tyranny. Looking around on social network sites and other blogs, I see that comments including the same “soft tyranny” link are being left all over the web.

Somebody is trying to create a Google association between Barack Obama and the concept of soft tyranny. The thing is that they aren’t succeeding. Search Google for soft tyranny, and you don’t see that White House web page among the top rankings.

The reason is that the soft tyranny Google bombers appear to have a remarkably unsophisticated understanding of how the software of the Internet works. Most sites that allow comments use comment software that automatically inserts a rel=”nofollow” tag into any links in the comments that people make. We have that here at Irregular Times, as a way to discourage comment spam. The nofollow tag is an instruction to Google, and other search engines, to disregard the link in any calculations of search engine rankings. It’s a hidden message that essentially indicates to Google that the link is worthless. People can still follow the link, but search engine bots will not.

That means that almost all of the comments linking to the Obama White House with the phrase soft tyranny are failing to accomplish what the Google bomber seeks to accomplish. The soft tyranny Google bomb campaign appears to be orchestrated by idiots.

Who are these Google bombers, though, and what is soft tyranny, anyway?

The IP address of the commenter fails to provide a specific location, only informing us that the Google bomber who visited Irregular Times was using a Roadrunner service to access the Internet. However, I can say that the Google bombers are likely to be Republicans.

That’s because “soft tyranny” appears to be a particularly right wing catch phrase. Search around and you’ll find that the phrase “soft tyranny” is used almost exclusively as part of incoherent right wing ramblings that complain about liberals and government. For example, there’s the following babbling complaint by professor Alan Charles Kors about the continuing influence of people who were educated in the 1960s on college campuses today:

“From diverse motives of ideological sympathies and acute awareness of who can blackball their next career moves, they have given over the humanities, the soft social sciences, and the entire university in loco parentis to the zealots of oppression studies and coercive identity politics. In the latter case, it truly has been a conspiracy, with networking and common plans. In the former case–the professoriate and the curriculum–it is generally, with striking politicized exceptions, a soft tyranny of groupthink, unconscious bias, and self-inflated sense of a mission of demystification.”

Oy. Who has a self-inflated sense of mission of demystification there, Professor Kors?

Many sources attribute the idea of soft tyranny to Alexis de Tocqueville. They claim that the phrase comes from de Tocqueville’s work, Democracy in America. An article entitled The Soft Tyranny of the NOBama Regime, for example, cites a claim that “Modern Liberalism promotes what French Historian Alexis de Tocqueville called soft tyranny, which becomes increasingly more oppressive, partially leading to hard tyranny”.

Actually, I can’t find any evidence that Alexis de Tocqueville ever used the phrase “soft tyranny”. I searched through Democracy in America, but couldn’t find the phrase once. It seems to be the interpreters of Alexis de Tocqueville, and not de Tocqueville himself, who really invented the phrase and developed the idea.

What I did find in my search through Democracy in America was a poorly defined idea that government regulations and social expectations can combine to create a drag on individual achievement. It’s this kind of idea that de Tocqueville’s fans seem to be getting at when they use the phrase soft tyranny. It’s a kind of libertarian concept: Government regulations may attempt to serve the common good, but in doing so, they thwart exceptional individuals.

The people who complain about soft tyranny appear to believe that they’re just the sort of exceptional individuals who would flourish, if only it wasn’t for the burden of the do-gooder government and its regulations. I wonder, though, how long all of these opponents of soft tyranny would survive in competition with each other, the exceptional individuals that they are.

This version of soft tyranny is rather, well, soft. It reflects an attempt to inflate mere inconvenience to the level of oppression. It asks us to accept the idea that paperwork and government licenses are equivalent to the abusive reigns of people like Adolph Hitler and Vlad the Impaler. They were tyrants. The people behind the desk at the Department of Motor Vehicles are not.

The idea of soft tyranny gets even softer, though, as it leaks out into the Republican culture beyond the sphere of people who have actually read Democracy in America. Republicans seem to have taken up the phrase soft tyranny to mean pretty much anything that they don’t like.

For example, Armand Vaquer, a right wing blogger and contributing writer to Godzilla fan magazines, recently wrote in an article entitled We’re Becoming Frogs in Obama’s Soft Tyranny that:

“Obama is implementing soft tyranny through executive orders without bothering to wait for congressional action. What we have now is a government that believes that it is the sole decider on what’s in the best interest of citizens, as opposed to the people themselves.”

Vaquer’s complaint isn’t against government regulation per se, but merely in opposition to Barack Obama using executive orders rather than allowing Congress to take all control of the operations of the Executive Branch. There isn’t really anything of the pseudoTocquevillian concept of soft tyranny in his accusations. Vaquer merely accuses Obama of tyranny which seems to be soft. That’s the mumbling weakness the general use of the phrase soft tyranny, complaining about little uses of authority that don’t really amount to much.

There are serious reasons to worry that President Obama could be facilitating the machinery of tyranny in the American government. Barack Obama is continuing George W. Bush’s massive programs of electronic surveillance against the American people, for example. Obama is also supporting Bush’s legal arguments that the President has the ability to place himself above the law, declaring state secrets in order to prevent people who accuse the government of gross violations of constitutional rights, such as arbitrary imprisonment and torture, from having the opportunity to pursue justice in a court of law.

If we’re going to bother as citizens to oppose acts of tyranny in the Obama Administration, let’s focus on acts of hard tyranny such as these, rather than the supposed soft tyranny of using government funds to promote the general welfare, as the Constitution suggests. Soft tyranny, after all, appears not to really be tyranny at all, but mere inconvenience for an elite few.

11 thoughts on “Soft Tyranny: Anything That Drives Republicans Crazy”

  1. Dave the CEO says:

    Nice try, but eloquence in expressing an idea such as you have, is so substitute for understanding and intelligence. I find that smart people who miss the mark often lack another key ingredient for success: sufficient vision to see not immediate effects, or even months ahead, but rather years ahead. The internet can give exceptional visibility to those with eloquence and yet not vision, and it is left to the reader (as it should be) to find the truth. I refer primarily to the seminal works of Elliot Jacques on human capability. The great leaders who have seen the future for what it is, not what it appears to be to lesser people, possess the Strata 5, 6, and 7 type of thinking that you lack. Your short-sided, popular culture, unfounded reaction to electronic suveillance is just one of the many short-comings in your reasoning. But I defend to the death your right to say what you believe; though great ideas come from unexpeted places, not all opinions should be equally. The takeover of key industries such as banking through excessive, not minimally prudent, regulation is a wonderful example for your analysis if you can think far enough ahead.

    1. J. Clifford says:

      Dave, it seems that the essence of your argument is that you think I cannot see into the future as well as you can. To that, I can only say that we’ll have to wait and see.

      1. Jim says:

        I’m not sure Dave has an argument, just a proclamation that he’s read the seminal works of Elliot Jacques, is a greater person than you, and is located on Stratum 5, Stratum 6 or Stratum 7, or maybe all three, from which his superior vision allows him to see what you can’t.

        And what he can see is…

  2. Steve says:


    1. Horatio says:

      Vague… too short to make sense… not dealing with the criticism in the article…

  3. Jim says:

    One does not need “Google bombs” to attach soft tyranny to Obama’s administration. It’s obvious to all who take the time to see.

  4. qs says:

    Obama controls the military.

    There are no other centers of power right now so it goes without saying that he gets to be the dictator for four years at least.

  5. qs says:

    “The problem isn’t the abuse of power; it’s the power to abuse.” as Libertarian candidate Harry Brown liked to say.

    Obama says he’s going to continue the Bush wiretapping program, but says he’s going to monitor it really closely. So apparently the power is wrong when it’s in the right hand but Ok when it’s in the left.

    Of course what the IRS does is much more intrusive than the wiretapping anyway but the left prefers that too.

  6. Michael Reeves says:

    I agree with JClifford that Republicans are grasping at straws saying anything they can to get people to turn on President Obama. The sad thing for them is that it won’t work, and here is why: As a group, conservatives lack visionary ideas or creativity. Their MO is to cling to fear like a life preserver, which is exactly why conservative talk radio is so popular in rural areas where incest is common and people lack formal education. By their inherent nature, conservatives tend to cling to superstition and tradition, which prevents them from moving forward in life and becoming enlightened human beings. Why conservatvies are becoming so hysterical in their rhetoric is because they know there are no formidable conservative challengers up to the task of taking on Obama in 2012. They have absolutely no one with enough charisma, character or intelligence to compete for the office of Commander and Chief; maybe not for another 20 years. Conservatives should follow the same advice that they typically give to women who are being raped: sit back and enjoy the ride because you can’t do nothing about it!

  7. Nagarajan Sivakumar says:

    Tocqueville envisioned a ruling power that would be “absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its object was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?”

    Tocqueville didn’t use our contemporary term, the nanny state, but he described it with some precision, and a wry detachment. The soft tyranny he envisioned “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people . . . . ”

    “I have always thought,” he added, with his usual insight, “that servitude of the regular, quiet, and gentle kind which I have just described might be combined more easily than is commonly believed with some of the outward forms of freedom, and that it might even establish itself under the wing of the sovereignty of the people.”

  8. Nagarajan Sivakumar says:

    You may have not found the words “soft tyranny” in Tocqueville’s work, but you missed the forest for the trees.

    Tocqueville seems prescient than ever before. Soft tyranny is exactly what this country has been experiencing – with the onset of the 20th century.

    Let me give you a small example of that – Social Security and Medicare. If you are a working individual in this country, American or otherwise, you have NO CHOICE but to “contribute” to Social Security and Medicare. I use the word “contribute” in quotes because these taxes are withheld from your paycheck automatically ( unless of course you are working for international organizations)

    These ideas are sold as “safety nets” – they are all for your good ! Except that I as an individual dont get to decide what is good or not good for my own retirement. Not only do i think that the biggest safety net is the one that you create for yourself, but also that this is nothing more than a scheme to make you pay extra taxes, all covered in the name of “safety net”.

    But here in lies the problem – we can agree or disagree on whether Social Security is the best way to build a “safety net”. But for the person who disagrees, you dont have a choice BUT to “participate” in it !

    As an adult, you cannot tell your Government that you will decide for yourself how you want to manage your own retirement ! And you think you live in a “free” society.

    These two programs would simply not work unless they were mandated upon people – unless the Government does not back it up with threats of co-ercion. Pay your payroll taxes or else ! No wonder automatic withholding of taxes is so convenient for the statists. You dont even have to threaten people into ponying up money – you just take it from them. After all, its for the “society’s good” ! Its for their own good ! And there is no better alternative than Social Security.

    A clique gets to decide what is “good” for “society”. This is exactly what Tocqueville describes and what you have completely missed out on. A Government that tells you what is best for you and does not leave with you any freedom to rationally challenge it. And it didnt have to do it with actual violence – it merely did it with the threat of a jail sentence.

    Living in the well of liberal frogs can be not so enlightening some times.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!