Ȃȅȅ Partʺʺ: Politics and Philosophy
Ideally it offers us a way of avoiding or dismissing rulers who would
destroy our individual rights. It is a radically inaccurate method of imple-
menting the desires of the people, but the alternative political methods
are even worse. It is a gross fallacy to slide from the case for democracy as
the least bad political method into admiring political methods as such and
into a supposed case for throwing more and more aspects of life into the
political—meaning governmental—arena. Ehrenhalt’s observations bol-
ster the case for strictly limiting the scope of government.
Although reforms in the democratic process will not dispel the dan-
gers of big government, Ehrenhalt’s book should arouse interest in explor-
ing them. Ļe case for limiting the terms of governmental office looks
better. So does the case for choosing legislators, or some of them, by lot
rather than by election. So, perhaps, do the radical reforms suggested by
F.A. Hayek inĻe Political Order of a Free People(ȀȈȆȈ).
Prospects for reforming politics and restraining government may look
bleak just now. In the long run, though, experience, reason, and the growth
of organized knowledge can change what is politically feasible. (Ļe his-
torical and intellectual demise of socialism is a case in point.) Ehrenhalt
has made a solid contribution to this growth of knowledge. So doing, he
provides grounds for optimism.