The Systematic Organization of Hatreds
By Robert Higgs • Saturday May 5, 2012 9:34 AM PDT • 14 Comments
In the mid-1970s, I began to do consulting work in addition to my academic work. By that time, I had become familiar with how economists generally analyze cooperation and competition, in both the economy and the political realm. Economists put great weight on gains from trade. Nobody, they like to say, walks past a $20 bill he sees lying on the sidewalk. If a situation contains the potential for a trade or other arrangement that will bring gain to a decision-maker, he will embrace that trade or arrangement. This market process leads, in the theoretical extreme, to the happy condition known as the Pareto Optimum—the situation in which all potential gains from trade have been captured.
Notice that this view of mankind causes us to think of people as self-interested, but not as vicious. Individuals are seen as, in effect, indifferent to the welfare of their trading or cooperating partners, but intent on making themselves as well-off as possible. They do not seek to harm others, but only to benefit themselves (and those about whom they happen to care).
As I launched into my consulting work, which involved various efforts by Washington state and the U.S. government to resolve disputes and to increase the harvestable resource in the Washington salmon fishery and the federally-regulated offshore salmon fishery in the Pacific Ocean, I quickly learned that the politicians in Olympia did not fit the model I had mastered in my education as an economist. To be sure, they sought to feather their own nests, by hook and by crook. But, in many important cases, they acted simply to hurt their political and personal enemies—whose ranks, in some cases, were quite large. Often, it seemed, Mr. P was clearly “out to get” Mr. Q, and he was not simply seeking this objective, other things being the same; he was actually out to get Mr. Q even if he had to bear a cost in doing so.
So, despite the formal models and informal rhetoric that economists and other academic specialists wield in their research and writing about politics and government, a critical element tends to be completely overlooked: the powerful role of aversion, dislike, and hatred. Economists represent individual preference orderings as rankings of valued options: good thing A > good thing B > good thing C, and so on. But for political actors, the preference ordering often looks more like: good thing A > hurt person X > good thing B > hurt person Y > good thing C, and so on.
This sort of preference is the political sentiment Vladimir Lenin expressed when he remarked: “My words were calculated to evoke hatred, aversion and contempt . . . not to convince but to break up the ranks of the opponent, not to correct an opponent’s mistake, but to destroy him.” Closer to home, Henry Adams observed that “politics, as a practice, whatever its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.”
We see the importance of this element of politics clearly in the contemporary conflict between Democrats and Republicans. Given that these two parties are but two wings of the same predatory one-party state that rules the United States, we might well wonder why their intramural feuding often reaches such vitriolic extremes. The short answer is that despite the two parties’ general similarity of fundamental positions, they comprise somewhat different sorts of people—different in regard to religious conviction (or the lack thereof), typical social position, culture, background, occupational distribution, urban-rural composition, and ethnic makeup, among other things—and the two groups tend to dislike each other; indeed, in many individual instances, they despise one another. And their political representatives, though more inclined to conspire and cut deals with the other side, also represent their supporters along the hatred dimension. Occasionally, when a politician does not realize that the microphone is live, we hear some honest expression of his true feelings about his political opponents—“enemies” is the more accurate word.
In view of the foregoing, we are well advised to consider that whenever we seek to move a type of decision-making from private life to the realm of politics and government, we are very likely moving it from a world in which hatred is incidental and avoidable to a world in which hatred is central and inescapable. Because a government imposes one rule, one outcome, one state of affairs on everyone subject to its rule, the hatreds that go into the making of that outcome become generalized and infused throughout the entire society. Thus, what economists label a “public good” is often, in the most substantive way, a “public bad.” Even if a person does not share any of the component hatreds that political actors express and deploy, no one can avoid living in a politicized world fashioned in such large part by the organized expression of hatred. It is, therefore, small wonder that some of us view the entire apparatus of politics and government as the living embodiment of evil.
Even a devout Christian has no small difficulty in following Christ’s admonition to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” But when we live and act in the private realm, we can make our best attempt to love others or at least to tolerate them in peace, and we have many options for avoiding or running away from hateful people and situations; occasionally we may even be able to lead someone, or ourselves, to substitute love, or at least understanding, for hatred.
In politics and government, however, the institutional makeup fosters hatred at every turn. Parties recruit followers by exploiting hatreds. Bureaucracies bulk up their power and budgets by artfully weaving hatreds into their mission statements and day-to-day procedures. Regulators take advantage of artificially heightened hatreds. Group identity is emphasized at every turn, and such tribal distinctions are tailor-made for the maintenance and increase of hatred among individual persons who might otherwise disregard the kinds of groupings that the politicians and their supporters emphasize ceaselessly.
With a sigh, many people accept that politics and government are, at best, necessary evils. I have great doubt that they are necessary, at least in their present form, but I am certain that in this form they are evil.
Tags: Christianity, Civil Society, Economics, Morality, Politics, Religion, The State 
It seems that most people who are attracted to monopolistic government are those who crave power and control over others. And so far as I have seen, they tend to generally be very immature people. I guess very immature grownups seem to have a lack of control over their own lives, and thus need to control others.
Thank God for the exceptions (such as Ron Paul, who supports the removal of governmental controls over our lives, and who actually wants us to have the freedom to control our own lives).
Scott Lazarowitz | May 5, 2012 | Reply
Thank you once again Dr. Higgs for your prescient analysis of yet another “temporary” evil.
Having been an avid supporter and worshipper of the power of the State(I have worked in both law and State Legislatures and as clerk at DHS, I have seen megalomania up close...at all levels. It is the real opiate of the masses. ALMOST literally fighting on who gets to proudly wield the club of government-and to define the object of gradually visual hatred..and on what is “victory”. Through marriage and a caraccident coma, have been extricated from the poisonous miasma of hatred that politics IS and what government is BASED ON. I have seen the crowds of happy young and old people all cheering at RP rallies...very moving.....but I hope that the almost German idolworship of Dr Paul does NOT get in the way of rational reality....or ones duties of self and family. Even the best of people can be like Pinnochio and go to the Island...briefly of course and for the “right” reasons. Thanks again Independent.orgs(Theroux’s) and you and your work Dr. Higgs. Thanks and His Peace!
Chris Bieber | May 5, 2012 | Reply
How true!
Mark Tier | May 6, 2012 | Reply
The obvious observation is who benefits from the hate? In the end playing off Republicans against Democrats or for that matter Whites against Blacks or Christians against Jews or Jews and Christians against Muslims or Rich against Poor or whatever group against whatever group,is the age old tactic of divide and conquer. In the end you must still ask who benefits? The only ones who benefit are the Elites,behind the scenes,who are the real power in America. They divide and conquer by keeping their (the Elites) wealth in Tax Free Trusts,Endowments and Foundations yet,despite this vast wealth,have a Tax and Spend Political System foisted on the rest of society to keep that same society in perpetual debt to the Bankers. These Elites control the main areas of power in the American System: Money Creation,Banking,Taxes,Law Enforcement,Intelligence,The Main Stream Media and the Courts. Most of your major politicians and judges have been bought and paid for with campaign contributions and secret dossiers held by the Elites. Is it any wonder that the power in America and the main actors in that projection of power are Wall Street Bankers and ex CIA employees? Look at the 2 major Party candidates for President. Both are nothing but puppets of the Elitists. In the end its divide and conquer then stand back and wield real power. Hate is only one tool used by these Elitists.
libertarian jerry | May 6, 2012 | Reply
Hopefully, Robert Higgs, you will continue to examine and explain “Institutionalization,” how it comes about in its diverse versions in political parties, in administrative structures (the bureaus as institutions),in “education,” as well as elsewhere in a society whose members tend to seek civic cooperation.
We observe the features of institutions whereby the objectives for its existence and operations are determined by those whose purported functions originally were to operate instrumentalities initially established for commonly (externally)determined objectives (such as providing learning facilities for children).
We have the historic similarities of the Guild systems, and their effects.
In his perceptions of these issues, the historian Carroll Quigley has made the case that the instituionalization of social orders, leads to stagnation, which infect the civilization made up of those social orders, unless the the institutions are, at best, circumvented or destroyed with undesirable consequences.
Is circumvention possible?
R Richard Schweitzer | May 6, 2012 | Reply
On an ellection year..competetion is Hatred at it’s most liable form...every party knows to rule is to have access to not only to govern but also to embezil millions of dollars into..”their” causes. To control the Revenue of this nation is what its all about..governing has fell to the wayside! When will it stop? Who will stop it..Who can stop it? The hate, distrust, out and out rape of this nation by the foreign vultures waiting in the background with the realization that we are a government no longer; for the people by the people...
carol lundy | May 7, 2012 | Reply
Agreed, in the context stated. But the institutional makeup, ie structures, foster much more than hatred, and much more basic: ignorance and lies. Keep a populace ignorant by controlling its ways and means of education, its ways and means of communications, its media, and then feed this populace with lies, and any government anywhere can function on the basis of hatreds. Create false threats and dissidents are easy prey, for to dissent is to be unpatriotic. It’s simply the oldest political game played, and the USA government is a master at it. 80 years of public, state controlled education has created a country focussed upon dogma and hatred, not truth and liberty. The populace has a vague conception of its constitution, but has no idea how to stand up for its rights and thereby effect change. Political correctness ensures nobody openly criticises anybody, for fear of losing careers and wealth: but this is simply a euphemism for cowardice and ignorance.
alzurzin | May 8, 2012 | Reply
Dr. Higgs, this article is one of those rare ones which teaches a fundamental truth. I recognized immediately what you were talking about, because I have puzzled for years about the widesperad anger I encounter among people on the left. The party, the constituency, which associates itself so adamantly with “compassion” and deep concern with the poor, the dispossessed and the powerless nevertheless demonstrate extreme and vicious hatred of their opponents on the right. It eventually became apparent to me that most leftists I know are far less focused on helping the helpless, and far more interested in hurting people who disagree with them. They don’t want to give more to the needy. They want to take stuff away from people they don’t like. I still don’t understand it, but I am glad to see that you have recognized it and that others have described it. Why don’t these supposedly educated and enlightened people see this in themselves?
Bonnie Beresford | May 9, 2012 | Reply
Who is more in control? The political elite or the economic elite? Note that a two bit senator can force the richest man in the world to genuflect to him, but the richest man in the world can’t force any senator to jump to his command.
Notice that Gates made a strategic error when Microsoft used to give money to Universities, but not the political class. After our political rulers when after him, he decided to pay off the K street mafia and the political class providing them money to fight their enemies.
Power inequality is far more important than economic inequality, but those with power don’t want to mention that. Even the local politician can force me to do things I don’t what to do that Bill Gates could never dream of like telling me I can’t eat foie gras.
Dallas Weaver | May 13, 2012 | Reply
Bob:
One point you have probably explored (perhaps in your fishing research) is that the Progressive success in derailing the evolutionary process by which the institutions of liberty expand (tolerance, property rights, contracts, trust) has led to an expanded sphere of influence of tribal zero-sum thinking (“hatred” being the natural result). Nothing that was not in private hands in 1890 has moved into the private voluntary exchange sphere over the last century plus. And as the value of these resources has increased (due to the success of capitalism in its allowed sphere), the challenges have been viewed as resolvable only by politics Thus, we’ve ceded the non-cooperative tribal world ever greater sway over our lives.
Ways of restarting this evolution – of allowing the private sphere to recapture part of this lost world – are critical. But, as you know well, that will face major challenges. How dare we turn the electromagnetic spectrum over to profit-maximizers? How dare we allow our “public” spaces to be privatized! Incremental ways of reopening institutional innovation (something in the fisheries area that New Zealand made great strides toward) is perhaps the major neglected task of classical liberals.
My thoughts on that are discussed in a piece written for the Freeman and also in a somewhat different piece written for IEA. I’d like your criticisms and comments (and those of others) on both.
Sincerely, Fred Smith
fred smith | May 13, 2012 | Reply
Excellent article. It goes beyond the omniscient and benevolent arguments, and addressess a continuous moral decay.
What to do? Protect yourself and your family; take advantage of the situation by ethical means (like Richard Cantillon did); and at least try to influence those close to you, even if they feel unconfortable with your views.
On the positive side, I remember that somebody very wise said that when he looked into the future he felt very pessimistic, but when he searched into the past, he was an optimistic.
Guillermo Barba | May 13, 2012 | Reply