Controlling Subversive Groups
| Author | Ernest Van Den Haag |
| Published date | 01 July 1955 |
| Date | 01 July 1955 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000271625530000110 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
62
Controlling
Subversive
Groups
By
ERNEST
VAN
DEN
HAAG
THE
right
to
forbid
incitement
to
revolution
is
inherent
in
the
lawful
authority
which
all
governments
claim.
Democratic
principle
grants
this
lawful
authority
to
governments
which
issue
from
the
freely
expressed
wishes
of
the
majority.
In
a
democracy,
therefore,
incitement
to
revolution
is
unlawful
and
contrary
as
well
to
the
substantive
prin-
ciples
on
which
the
law
rests.
Revolu-
tion
would
necessarily
defy
the
wishes
of
the
majority
and
thus
not
only
the
governmental
principle
of
legitimacy
but
also
the
democratic
principle
of
popu-
lar
consent.
Because
opponents
are
free
to
urge
the
ouster
of
the
govern-
ment
and
if
they
grow
into
a
majority
to
replace
it
by
a
peaceful
vote,
demo-
cratic
governments
cannot
stay
in
power
when
opposed
by
a
majority.
Hence
only
groups
despairing
of
persuasion
and
resolved
to
conquer
power
in
spite
of
the
wishes
of
the
majority
need
urge
violence.
But
in
a
democratic
system,
governments
have
the
duty
to
safeguard
the
effective
franchise
of
both
the
ma-
jority
and
the
minority.
Thus,
while
other
governments
may
have
the
au-
thority,
democratic
governments
also
have
the
obligation
to
ban
incitement
to
revolution.
Perhaps
the
majority
is
only
luke-
warm,
and
democracy
though
fulfilling
their
wishes
does
not
satisfy
their
wants.
Santayana
is
probably
right
on
this.
But
what
government
does?
At
least
democracy
does
not
allow
the
govern-
ment
to
decide
what
the
citizens
want,
by
disregarding
the
wishes
they
express
or
forestalling
expression.
God
reads
our
hearts’
desire
better
than
we
do.
But
it
is
unlikely
that
governments
will.
And
they
might
misread
their
desires
into
our
muted
hearts.
That
much
is
settled
doctrine.
How-
ever,
only
advocacy
of
violence
is
barred.
At
present
organized
attempts
to
per-
suade
citizens
to
bring
antidemocratic
groups
to
power
by
the
ballot
are
law-
ful.
Yet
I
believe
that
the
pursuit
of
subversive
aims
even
by
peaceful
means
should
be
outlawed.
The
logic
of
demo-
cratic
principles
leaves
no
place
in
our
system
for
parties
which
propose
to
abolish
democracy
even
by
a
peaceful
vote.
Even
though
the
facts
have
sadly
dis-
proved
his
optimism,
ritualists
will
go
on
quoting
Jefferson
to
the
effect
that
enemies
of
our
system
should
be
left
&dquo;un-
disturbed
as
monuments
of
the
safety
with
which
error
of
opinion
may
be
tolerated
where
reason
is
left
free
to
combat
it.&dquo;
Yet
in
John
Stuart
Mill’s
words:
It
is
a
piece
of
idle
sentimentality
that
truth
merely
as
truth
has
an
inherent
power
denied
error....
Men
are
not
more
zealous
for
truth
than
they
often
are
for
error,
and
a
sufficient
application
of
legal
or
even
of
social
penalties
will
generally
succeed
in
stopping
the
propaganda
of
either.
Where
there
are
no
&dquo;penalties&dquo;
truth
may
not
be
suppressed.
But
there
is
nothing
to
bear
out
Jefferson
that
it
will
win.
And
one
would
have
to
share
Jefferson’s
natural-law
metaphysics-
which
strike
me
as
absurd-to
share
his
confidence
that
the
&dquo;right&dquo;
values
will
always
prevail.
Perhaps
you
think
that
I
am
tilting
against
windmills
nevertheless.
Anti-
democratic
groups,
you
may
say,
could
never
hope
to
sway
us
peacefully.
But
Hitler
came
to
power
largely
by
per-
suasion.
And
we
rightly
worried
about
the
outcome
of
some
peaceful
postwar
To continue reading
Request your trial