It is important at the beginning of this essay to understand Thoreau's use of "expedient", "inexpedient" and "expediency". When Thoreau says that "government is at best an expedient" he means that it is a "means to an end" or exists "to meet an urgent need." It is the same idea as something being a "necessary evil," that is, you may not like everything that comes with it, but it is, nonetheless, necessary.
When he says that government is "inexpedient" he means that it is does not act appropriately when one considers why and for what purpose it was created. For example, his view would be that the U. S. Government was created to provide liberty for its citizens, yet it allowed slavery. That makes no sense.
The "rule of expediency" refers to the government acting appropriately to circumstances. During times of peace it would be inappropriate to have the military roaming the streets with tanks and guns in order to "protect" us, whereas, if we were being invaded by another country that might well be appropriate.
The best government, according to Thoreau, is the one that "governs least." The government has no conscience, it is only people that have a conscience. So what is it that the government should do for its citizens? I like Thoreau's first answer. He says that the best way for governments to be effective is to get out of the way. Government hinders the actions of good citizens, so the best government will limit itself in the affairs of its people.
In my brief career as a high school football coach I attended a large coaching conference in the early 80's. Bill Walsh, former head coach of the San Francisco 49er's, spoke along with a number of college coaches. In one seminar an old collegiate coach, whose name I cannot remember, was asked, "How do you coach kickers?" I will never forget his answer. "Well, if he's a good kicker," he said, "I usually walk over to him during practice and ask how his girlfriend is or how his grades are or how his mom and dad are doing. I do not give him any advice on how to kick. Maybe, if I'm feeling adventurous, I'll pick up some grass, throw it in the air and comment on the state of the wind. But basically, I just try not to upset him."
In his acceptance speech for Life Achievement at the 70th Annual Academy Awards Stanley Donen, who directed the movies On the Town, Royal Wedding, Funny Face, Damn Yankees, Two For the Road, Singin' in the Rain and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers had this to say about directing:
I'm going to let you in on the secret of being a good director. For the script you get . . . Peter Stone . . . or Frederic Raphael . . . If it's a musical, for the songs you get George and Ira Gershwin or Arthur Freed . . . or Leonard Bernstein . . . Then you cast Cary Grant or Audrey Hepburn, Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Sophia Loren, Richard Burton, Rex Harrison, Gregory Peck, Elizabeth Taylor, Burt Reynolds, Gene Hackman, or Frank Sinatra . . . And when filming starts you show up and you stay the hell out of the way.1
These guys may not have made good politicians, but, according to Thoreau, they were on the right track.
Thoreau makes a great point about "actions" and "intent." He acknowledges that the people in government often have good intentions, however, he also says that if they were judged solely by the "effect of their actions" they would be no better than men who tried to derail a train to rob its passengers. (p. 2) Intentions are important, but outcome is more important than having good intentions. A good political leader considers the practical consequences of their actions and not just think because they meant to do good that their actions are justified.
Thoreau is radical. His ideas are revolutionary. Any government that wanted something close to unquestioned obedience would not allow him in their country. I doubt that politicians or even most people in our country would like his ideas about voting. Look what he says: "Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it." Why? He says that what voting accomplishes is "expressing to men feebly" that what you want to "prevail." A good person will, by their actions, make right prevail on their own.
This is high ideal and it has its pitfalls. What happens when two groups of people are completely convinced that their view is the correct one and what if they are so convinced about this view that they believe anything contrary to it is morally wrong? If they were to follow Thoreau's advice than they would do something about it and if these two groups clash—you might have a war, or civil war, or riots or whatever.
But Thoreau is strong on the point that one has to do something, not just talk about it, not just say that one disagrees with the government. If you truly disagree then refuse to pay taxes and suffer the consequences of your action based upon your conscience. Here's what he says:
Action from principle—the perception and the performance of right —changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary . . . (p. 7)
The key paragraph in Thoreau's ideas about this says:
If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear out. If the injustice has a spring, or a pulley, or a rope, or a crank, exclusively for itself, then perhaps you may consider whether the remedy will not be worse than the evil; but if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine. What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn. (p. 8)
He considers three things. First, the injustice may be necessary and may simply wear itself out. It may be the kind of injustice that is only temporary and not worth your trouble. Secondly, you may realize that the remedy for one injustice may actually be worse than the initial injustice. You can let that go too. However, he says, if the injustice requires you to be unjust to another than you must break the law. You must attempt to stop the machine. You must make sure that you are not contributing to the injustices that you condemn.
About halfway into the essay Thoreau mentions "peaceable revolution." In the context of what he is writing about it would simply mean refusing to pay taxes to a government that did not allow the liberty or contributed to the unjust imprisonment (slavery) of its citizens. Do not participate, whatever that may mean. If paying taxes is responsible for a great injustice to some segment of society than do not pay taxes. This idea of a peaceable revolution (a civil disobedience) was what Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr seized upon in their attempts to free the people they represented.
Daniel Webster, whom Thoreau quotes, gives us an idea of the Law and how, at least, some of those in political positions view it. In regard to slavery he said states should regulate it, regardless of the decisions they made. He then goes on to say:
Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will. (p. 17)
Thoreau sees this as a blindness and ignorance because Webster makes the comment while "standing . . . completely within the institution" that he is criticizing and therefore is not able to view it objectively. As Thoreau says earlier about the rich, men are hard-pressed to tear down anything that is responsible for having built them up. The longer they are entrenched within the institutions they are a part of, the less objective they become and the less open to change.
Thoreau asks a great rhetorical question at the end of the essay:
Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government?
Thoreau's answer is "No!" Governments, of course, even democratic ones, can be improved and, possibly, abolished for something better. Then Thoreau says,
There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.
For Thoreau the individual has the highest priority.
End Notes:
1Donen, Stanley, Acceptance Speech at the Academy Awards, "The 70th Annual Academy Awards," on ABC, Produced by Gilbert Cates, Directed by Louis J. Horvitz, March 23, 1998.
