This is what democratic societies do to themselves when they mistake the exercise of power for the maintenance of freedom. The recent pronouncements from Mr. Trump regarding the Strait of Hormuz, threatening military action against Iran unless they reopen the waterway, are not merely a matter of geopolitical posturing; they are a symptom of a deeper malady afflicting democratic nations - the tendency to believe that strength, particularly the demonstration of overwhelming force, equates to liberty. It is a confusion born of equality, a consequence of the very spirit that liberates individuals from the hierarchies of the old world, and which, unchecked, leads to a new form of unfreedom.

Observe the character of this moment. The United States, a nation founded upon the principle of self-governance, finds itself resorting to the language of ultimatum, of coercion, of the blunt instrument of military threat. It is a language more suited to the absolutist monarchs of my youth than to a republic dedicated to the consent of the governed. And yet, the impulse is understandable. In a world where individuals are increasingly atomized, where the bonds of voluntary association weaken, and where the state expands its reach into every facet of life, the temptation to rely on the centralized power of the government becomes almost irresistible. Citizens, weary of the burdens of self-governance, willingly cede their agency to those who promise security and order.

This is the essence of what I have termed the “soft despotism” - a gentle, pervasive control that does not break wills but softens, bends, and directs them. It does not destroy, but it prevents things from existing. The threat to strike Iranian power plants, while perhaps intended to deter, is in truth a manifestation of this tendency. It is the state, in its ever-expanding role, assuming the responsibility for ensuring the security of its citizens, and in doing so, diminishing their capacity to secure their own well-being. For what is freedom, if not the ability to of the world, to negotiate, to compromise, to build alliances, without the constant intervention of the state?

Consider the parallel to the old regimes. The monarchs of Europe, too, sought to maintain order through displays of power. They built magnificent armies, constructed imposing palaces, and enacted elaborate laws, all in the name of stability. But their power was ultimately limited by the inherent constraints of their system - the aristocracy, the Church, the traditions of feudalism. The democratic state, however, possesses a far greater capacity for control, precisely because it derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. It can mobilize vast resources, deploy sophisticated technologies, and exert a level of influence that no monarch could ever have dreamed of. And yet, this very power, unchecked by the countervailing forces of a vibrant civil society, becomes a source of new unfreedom.

The current situation in the Strait of Hormuz is further complicated by the peculiar tyranny of majority opinion that afflicts democratic societies. The impulse to appear strong, to project an image of unwavering resolve, is often driven not by reasoned calculation but by the fear of appearing weak. Dissenting voices, those who might advocate for diplomacy or restraint, are often silenced by the clamor of public opinion, which demands decisive action. This is not a tyranny exercised through law, but through the comprehensive social pressure that leaves the minority physically free while depriving them of the will to dissent. The reports of “blasts” in the region, the contested accounts of the Strait’s closure - these are not merely matters of factual accuracy; they are symptoms of a broader tendency to manufacture crises in order to justify the expansion of state power.

What is lost in this equation? The habits of self-governance, the capacity for reasoned deliberation, the willingness to compromise. Citizens, increasingly reliant on the state for their security, become passive subjects of administrative protection, rather than active participants in the shaping of their own destiny. The voluntary associations, the local institutions, the intermediate bodies that once served as buffers between the individual and the state - these wither and decay, leaving citizens vulnerable to the whims of those who wield power.

The American experiment, for all its brilliance, is not immune to these tendencies. The expansion of the administrative state, the erosion of local autonomy, the pressure of majority opinion - these are all forces that threaten to undermine the very foundations of liberty. And the current crisis in the Strait of Hormuz serves as a stark reminder of the dangers that lie ahead. It is not enough to proclaim the virtues of democracy; we must actively cultivate the habits and institutions that sustain it. We must encourage the formation of voluntary associations, strengthen local government, and foster a culture of reasoned debate and respectful disagreement. For freedom is not the natural condition of democracy; it is something that democracy must actively work to maintain against its own tendencies. Otherwise, we risk exchanging the shackles of the old regime for the gilded cage of the new.