![]() | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
|
Part of a series on |
Conservatism |
---|
![]() |
This article is part of a series on |
Conservatism in the United States |
---|
![]() |
The "managerial state" is a concept used in critiquing modern procedural democracy.[ambiguous] The concept is used largely, though not exclusively, in paleolibertarian, paleoconservative, and anarcho-capitalist critiques of late modern state power in Western democracies.[1][additional citation(s) needed] Theorists Samuel T. Francis and Paul Gottfried, developing ideas inspired by the analytical framework of James Burnham,[2] say this is an ongoing regime that remains in power, regardless of what political party holds a majority.[citation needed]
Variations on the concept include the therapeutic managerial state, welfare–warfare state,[3] administrative state,[4] and polite or soft totalitarianism.[5] There is significant overlap between the concepts of the managerial state and the deep state, with theorists of the managerial state additionally drawing from theories of political religion and the secularization of Christian concepts, namely Puritanism,[6][additional citation(s) needed] which they contend demand an overweening concern with government intervention in favor of social justice, unaccountable regulation of citizens' private lives, and both informally and formally enforced political correctness.[7][need quotation to verify][additional citation(s) needed]
Theorists of the managerial state claim this constellation of factors tends towards the efflux of totalitarianism, which they call soft totalitarianism[8] and engage in criticism of administrative law and rulemaking.[9]
Samuel T. Francis, following James Burnham, said that under this historical process, “law is replaced by administrative decree, federalism is replaced by executive autocracy, and a limited government replaced by an unlimited state.”[10] It acts in the name of abstract goals, such as freedom, equality or positive rights, and uses its claim of moral superiority, power of taxation and wealth redistribution to keep itself in power.