Understanding the Dynamics of Power and Community
Power is always in motion, seeking to grow. It’s not restrained by ideals or written codes; it’s held back only by formidable rivals that can stand against it. These rivals need strong roots, self-sufficiency, and a knack for earning loyalty. They should demonstrate sovereignty in ways that governments can’t easily duplicate and cultivate an influence area that allows them to stand up to state overreach without resorting to violence.
Throughout history, strong communities have played this crucial role. Their shared beliefs, steeped in religion and folklore, shaped their lives and were inherited across generations. This cultural heritage drew authority from something greater than themselves. Families built churches, schools, libraries, and various organizations to uphold their traditions, impart values, and support one another.
Communities with shared traditions can act as a check on government authority. But as diversity increases, those checks tend to weaken.
These communities fostered a sense of sovereignty. They placed unique demands on their members and provided services that the state often could not offer—spiritual support, mutual aid, and a strong sense of identity. Being part of these communities required active participation. The traditions were deeply embedded, and any disregard from the state risked significant pushback.
Over time, these communities typically amassed wealth. Their values and stability generated resources that underpinned strong institutions and safety nets. Their members leaned on each other in times of need rather than solely depending on the government. This middle class created a natural barrier to state expansion, building stability on the foundation of culture and shared practices. Perhaps that’s why the government felt compelled to undermine them.
Class Dynamics
Political theorist Bertrand de Jouvenel discussed a classic power dynamic in “On Power”: the contrast of high and low against the middle. Rulers invariably seek to consolidate power, while the middle class often resists. The lower classes typically can’t push back due to their dependency. It’s usually the property-holding middle class, with their traditions and institutions, that poses a challenge. To widen their influence, the ruling class aims to dismantle these sovereign communities.
This often means forming alliances with dependent lower classes. Sometimes those lower classes are local, but shared culture and traditions can limit their utility as tools. Bringing in foreign lower classes can prove more effective. Immigrants often lack deep local roots and traditions, making them more pliable and reliant on the state. They can, therefore, be leveraged against a well-established middle class.
A surge in immigration provides the affluent with lower-cost labor while simultaneously creating a new political constituency. Wealthy individuals benefit from inexpensive services, and politicians gain potential voters eager for state support.
Dependency as a Tool
Immigrant communities often lack cohesive cultures or sturdy institutions. They might not have strong networks to resist state dependence. Many cannot speak the local language well. Their reliance on the ruling class for access, employment, rights, and welfare becomes a driving force for their loyalty. This is not mere passive dependency; they actively call for the state to expand its support.
To create this new lower class, the ruling class often turns against the middle. They blame the latter for disparities and push policies that tax or strip away what’s been built up. The wealth is redirected to immigrants, which only reinforces state control. The middle class diminishes, loses its assets, and institutional support fades. Families that once stood firm against government encroachment now find themselves relying on it.
Large-scale immigration erodes cultural foundations, too, which are essential checks on state power. Diverse populations can complicate or dismantle shared cultural identities. As communities are compelled to interact more with newcomers, the essence of shared identity can erode. Cultural separation falls into disfavor. Resources for charity diminish, public spaces decline, and people grow less willing to contribute to causes beyond their immediate circles.
Ultimately, the state ensures that escape from this predicament is nearly impossible. First, social taboos emerge, followed by laws that inhibit communities from segregating or re-establishing their foundations. Those who attempt this are often labeled as biased or face legal repercussions. This suppresses the middle’s ability to restore its traditional way of life, and virtue fades. The sphere of sovereignty disintegrates, leaving individuals as rootless dependents who unwittingly give the state a free hand to expand its power.
The Rationale Behind Immigration Policies
This is why mass immigration has become a focal point across many Western democracies. It’s not just about removing barriers to state authority; it’s also about constructing a support system to expand that power. Rulers obtain cheap labor, justify their actions to grateful voters, and plunder the middle. The cultural cost may be disbandment, but for the elites, that is often a feature rather than a flaw.
If we aspire to have leaders who genuinely serve the populace rather than undermine it, we need to cut off this influx of newcomers who become clients of the state. We must stop dismantling communities and restore the middle class as a bastion of sovereignty that safeguards freedom. Only then can we contain the ever-expanding Leviathan of state power.
