Political Systems
and
The Individual within Community
(Part 2 of the essay)
An Introduction to Political Systems
By thinking in terms of conservative versus liberal impulses as to how society should work, we’ve made some headway toward understanding the Conservative and Liberal divide. Let’s turn now to consider political systems. We’re looking for a conceptual taxonomy here not for forms of governments per se.
As to our form of government, Conservatives often insist that the United States is "a republic not a democracy." Their point, I take it, is that there’s a separation of powers, checks and balances, a federal system with states holding much power, and so on. (10) It’s true America isn’t a pure democracy; those work only at the level of a PTO or ancient Greece. This is however a dictionary definition of ‘republic’:
By thinking in terms of conservative versus liberal impulses as to how society should work, we’ve made some headway toward understanding the Conservative and Liberal divide. Let’s turn now to consider political systems. We’re looking for a conceptual taxonomy here not for forms of governments per se.
As to our form of government, Conservatives often insist that the United States is "a republic not a democracy." Their point, I take it, is that there’s a separation of powers, checks and balances, a federal system with states holding much power, and so on. (10) It’s true America isn’t a pure democracy; those work only at the level of a PTO or ancient Greece. This is however a dictionary definition of ‘republic’:
|
A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. (11)
|
So we have one version of representative democracy. Other versions can include parliamentary systems or constitutional monarchies. The point is that the conceptual taxonomy of political systems can be instantiated by many different forms of government.
Earlier I pointed out that we live as members of communities, ones that nest and overlap. A defining feature of society in the last 100 to 150 years has been the globalization of communities. No matter how autonomous an individual may think he is, anyone who is at all connected to modern life -- from a Social Security number to the electrical grid to a debit card to the healthcare system to the labels inside his clothes -- is inescapably part of this mix.
Similarly, a defining feature of society over the last 20 years has been the explosion of communities “betwixt and between” the traditional, concentrically arranged ones of family, community, region, nation, global. We now have virtual communities online. Heads of state communicate with their followers directly via social media. People that were formerly way “over there” (e.g., either Leftists or Rightists as the case may be) are now just a comment section away.
The technologies that have defined the parameters and the possibilities of society for the last 150 years -- from the telegraph to Telegram -- are like all human inventions: Capable of being used for good or for ill and open to all sorts of unintended consequences. The question for us now is not whether we are going to participate in this jumble of communities but how.
As I noted at the outset, the corollary to community is coercion. By the very fact that we participate in community -- willingly or not -- we’re subject to rules. Given that political systems are, by definition, systems and institutions which are coercive in nature, can anything be said toward justifying them? A central aim of political philosophy is to do just that: Provide moral and intellectual justification (if possible) for the coercive power of the state. (12)
Earlier I pointed out that we live as members of communities, ones that nest and overlap. A defining feature of society in the last 100 to 150 years has been the globalization of communities. No matter how autonomous an individual may think he is, anyone who is at all connected to modern life -- from a Social Security number to the electrical grid to a debit card to the healthcare system to the labels inside his clothes -- is inescapably part of this mix.
Similarly, a defining feature of society over the last 20 years has been the explosion of communities “betwixt and between” the traditional, concentrically arranged ones of family, community, region, nation, global. We now have virtual communities online. Heads of state communicate with their followers directly via social media. People that were formerly way “over there” (e.g., either Leftists or Rightists as the case may be) are now just a comment section away.
The technologies that have defined the parameters and the possibilities of society for the last 150 years -- from the telegraph to Telegram -- are like all human inventions: Capable of being used for good or for ill and open to all sorts of unintended consequences. The question for us now is not whether we are going to participate in this jumble of communities but how.
As I noted at the outset, the corollary to community is coercion. By the very fact that we participate in community -- willingly or not -- we’re subject to rules. Given that political systems are, by definition, systems and institutions which are coercive in nature, can anything be said toward justifying them? A central aim of political philosophy is to do just that: Provide moral and intellectual justification (if possible) for the coercive power of the state. (12)
States of Nature
Political philosophers often begin their theorizing with a hypothetical situation, what they call the state of nature. (13) Imagine the social world not as it is now, with governments that set rules which maintain order and (attempt to) promote human flourishing. Neither is it, as described earlier, arranged such that individuals are sprinkled throughout the world, self-sufficient and autonomous.
Instead, people are pressed in close to one another other; resources are few; the powerful prey on the weak. Imagine a real place like Yemen or a fictional one like Gotham. In famous lines, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588--1679) describes such a state of nature:
Political philosophers often begin their theorizing with a hypothetical situation, what they call the state of nature. (13) Imagine the social world not as it is now, with governments that set rules which maintain order and (attempt to) promote human flourishing. Neither is it, as described earlier, arranged such that individuals are sprinkled throughout the world, self-sufficient and autonomous.
Instead, people are pressed in close to one another other; resources are few; the powerful prey on the weak. Imagine a real place like Yemen or a fictional one like Gotham. In famous lines, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588--1679) describes such a state of nature:
|
Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short. (14)
|
The closest America has come to such is the Civil War. I suspect, though, that many who grow up in an inner city can relate.
Hobbes saw the state of nature as an essentially lawless place, where the only “law” is the right to self-preservation. He interpreted our duties toward each other in essentially negative terms (if I don’t steal from you, you won’t steal from me) and understood the tradeoff between being within a community versus outside it in purely transactional terms (if I submit to the King then I will be protected from civil strife). Other philosophers have been less pessimistic about the state of nature and about the community that might result. Hobbes’ vision is, however, the classic one.
Given such a condition then, we can imagine people entering into an agreement -- a social contract -- such that they freely surrender aspects of their autonomy for the protections and the opportunities offered by the community at large as that is manifested via its sovereign power (that is, the government).
Admittedly, these are all obscure possibilities. Few of us live in anything approaching a Hobbesian dystopia. We largely take government, society, and our relationship to them as “givens.” However, the value in considering them lies just in the insight they provide on what we take for granted. They will also aid us -- as a kind of touchstone -- as we develop our political taxonomy.
Given such a condition then, we can imagine people entering into an agreement -- a social contract -- such that they freely surrender aspects of their autonomy for the protections and the opportunities offered by the community at large as that is manifested via its sovereign power (that is, the government).
Admittedly, these are all obscure possibilities. Few of us live in anything approaching a Hobbesian dystopia. We largely take government, society, and our relationship to them as “givens.” However, the value in considering them lies just in the insight they provide on what we take for granted. They will also aid us -- as a kind of touchstone -- as we develop our political taxonomy.
Anarchism
The first political system to evaluate is really an “unsystem.” It is anarchism (from the Greek; literally, “without a ruler.”) Anarchists deny that any coercive political system is morally justified. Some of America’s recent unrest was instigated by self-described “anarchists.” It is unclear whether these are true anarchists or mere posers. Regardless, while ‘anarchy’ connotes lawlessness and mayhem, anarchism as an ideology isn’t necessarily committed to violence. It’s not that different from radical libertarianism.
There is a rich tradition of anarchist thought, of which I know only a little. That said, I cannot make any sense as to how anarchism would work. Hobbes’ dystopia would seem close to hand. Surely there is a moral imperative to prevent physical harm, which is what a government at its most rudimentary does. Moreover, setting theoretical possibilities to the side, like it or not, the modern world is as it is. Life as we know it seems unlivable under anarchism. I shall therefore set anarchism to the side -- no doubt too easily. (15)
The first political system to evaluate is really an “unsystem.” It is anarchism (from the Greek; literally, “without a ruler.”) Anarchists deny that any coercive political system is morally justified. Some of America’s recent unrest was instigated by self-described “anarchists.” It is unclear whether these are true anarchists or mere posers. Regardless, while ‘anarchy’ connotes lawlessness and mayhem, anarchism as an ideology isn’t necessarily committed to violence. It’s not that different from radical libertarianism.
There is a rich tradition of anarchist thought, of which I know only a little. That said, I cannot make any sense as to how anarchism would work. Hobbes’ dystopia would seem close to hand. Surely there is a moral imperative to prevent physical harm, which is what a government at its most rudimentary does. Moreover, setting theoretical possibilities to the side, like it or not, the modern world is as it is. Life as we know it seems unlivable under anarchism. I shall therefore set anarchism to the side -- no doubt too easily. (15)
The Individual and the Group
Assuming that some arche is justified, a watershed question follows: Does the collective political body or the individuals comprising that body have logical primacy? Is the community first or the individual within the community? G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831) captured the “collectivist” perspective with his doctrine of communitarianism.
Assuming that some arche is justified, a watershed question follows: Does the collective political body or the individuals comprising that body have logical primacy? Is the community first or the individual within the community? G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831) captured the “collectivist” perspective with his doctrine of communitarianism.
|
[This] maintains that rights of individuals are not basic and that the collective can have rights that are independent of or even opposed to what liberals [see below] claim are the rights of individuals. According to communitarians, individuals are constituted by the institutions and practices of which they are a part, and their rights and obligations derive from those same institutions and practices. (16)
|
The other perspective -- that of the individual’s primacy over the collective -- found its classic expression in John Locke (1632-1704). Elements of Locke saw their way into America’s founding documents: “All men are created equal ... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights ...” (17) The ultimate ground for Locke’s views lay in his theism.
|
God created man and we are, in effect, God’s property. The chief end set us by our creator as a species and as individuals is survival. (18)
|
Though less dystopian than Hobbes’, Locke also posited a state of nature. This condition was not completely lawless. For people
|
would still be under divine obligation; and much (if not all) of that obligation would be accessible to them by the use of their natural capacities.
|
The “natural law” would operate in this space prior to any human legislation. The dictates of natural law are available by right reasoning. Reason also reveals our “natural rights”: to our life, liberty, health, and property. (19)
There is a vast literature on what are now typically called human rather than natural rights. (20) One definition of ‘rights’ is "advantageous positions conferred on some possessor by law, morals, rules, or other norms." (21) Another is "moral or legal entitlement[s] to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." (22) A final one is this:
There is a vast literature on what are now typically called human rather than natural rights. (20) One definition of ‘rights’ is "advantageous positions conferred on some possessor by law, morals, rules, or other norms." (21) Another is "moral or legal entitlement[s] to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way." (22) A final one is this:
|
Rights are entitlements to perform certain actions (or not), or to be in certain states (or not); or entitlements that others perform certain actions (or not) or be in certain states (or not). (23)
|
Various other kinds of rights are typically said to follow from the basic ones: civil, political, social, economic, and cultural rights, among others.
There are several ways to “ground” rights. (24) The original one -- and the conception most people have of a right -- is in terms of a person’s status just insofar as they are a human being. That is, there are attributes of human beings -- our rationality, our free will, our being created by God, and so forth -- such that it’s self-evident that we possess rights. Rights are thus “naturally fitting for independent beings.” (25)
Locke’s theory of rights is obviously status-based. Our rights flow from the fact that we are created by God, belong to him, and have a mandate to survive. As a theist, I can certainly affirm these points. As a Christian, though, more flesh can be put on these bare bones. The “creational monotheism” of the Jewish and Christian faiths point toward a God who so desires to share His goodness -- in short, to love -- that he created and sustains both a universe that is good and also human beings who bear his image (whatever “image-bearing” means precisely). (26) Each human individual reflects -- and indeed shares in -- the “personhood” attributes of God: that he is one, that he thinks, that he knows, that he loves, that he wills, that he acts, and so on.
Likewise, as a philosopher, it seems to me that any rights held by a collective of persons must be derivative upon those of its constituent members. We are (at least theoretically) autonomous agents who freely choose to associate with others. In extremis a person could disassociate either by exile or even death.
Granted, certain properties -- especially complex interrelationships among a society’s persons (for example, the interdependencies between business owners and workers in an advanced capitalist society) -- emerge once a group reaches a certain size. But I fail to see how it follows, as collectivists must hold, that that collective qua collective thereby possesses rights which overrule those of its members. Does it even make sense to talk of a collective possessing rights in any meaningful sense of that notion? A right seems a thing applicable first and foremost to flesh-and-blood humans -- not to an abstraction like a group or set of people.
Putting all this together, I would argue that: (i) Collectives are temporally and conceptually posterior to the Individual humans who comprise them; and ii) whatever “rights” they do possess must be in virtue of the rights possessed inherently by these individuals. (27) In short, humans aren’t like The Borg from Star Trek. Nor are we like ants or bees.
There are several ways to “ground” rights. (24) The original one -- and the conception most people have of a right -- is in terms of a person’s status just insofar as they are a human being. That is, there are attributes of human beings -- our rationality, our free will, our being created by God, and so forth -- such that it’s self-evident that we possess rights. Rights are thus “naturally fitting for independent beings.” (25)
Locke’s theory of rights is obviously status-based. Our rights flow from the fact that we are created by God, belong to him, and have a mandate to survive. As a theist, I can certainly affirm these points. As a Christian, though, more flesh can be put on these bare bones. The “creational monotheism” of the Jewish and Christian faiths point toward a God who so desires to share His goodness -- in short, to love -- that he created and sustains both a universe that is good and also human beings who bear his image (whatever “image-bearing” means precisely). (26) Each human individual reflects -- and indeed shares in -- the “personhood” attributes of God: that he is one, that he thinks, that he knows, that he loves, that he wills, that he acts, and so on.
Likewise, as a philosopher, it seems to me that any rights held by a collective of persons must be derivative upon those of its constituent members. We are (at least theoretically) autonomous agents who freely choose to associate with others. In extremis a person could disassociate either by exile or even death.
Granted, certain properties -- especially complex interrelationships among a society’s persons (for example, the interdependencies between business owners and workers in an advanced capitalist society) -- emerge once a group reaches a certain size. But I fail to see how it follows, as collectivists must hold, that that collective qua collective thereby possesses rights which overrule those of its members. Does it even make sense to talk of a collective possessing rights in any meaningful sense of that notion? A right seems a thing applicable first and foremost to flesh-and-blood humans -- not to an abstraction like a group or set of people.
Putting all this together, I would argue that: (i) Collectives are temporally and conceptually posterior to the Individual humans who comprise them; and ii) whatever “rights” they do possess must be in virtue of the rights possessed inherently by these individuals. (27) In short, humans aren’t like The Borg from Star Trek. Nor are we like ants or bees.
The Group and the Individual
There are, however, “softer” notions of communitarianism than the collectivism of Hegel. These seem best viewed as correctives to an individualistic perspective that goes too far. For the idea that we each leave a state of nature and freely enter community, that we are fully autonomous agents with no prior attachments -- these are obviously drastic simplifications of real life.
In reality, none of us are social atoms. We are born, we live, and we die within a web of relationships. Our reality is a social reality. These relational facts, connections, and commitments -- our birth family, ethnicity, school peers, neighbors, sports teams, work colleagues, religious or civic groups, society at all levels -- these things enter into our identity; they are constitutive of us.
Here’s how Amitai Etzioni -- a leading communitarian thinker -- describes the view:
There are, however, “softer” notions of communitarianism than the collectivism of Hegel. These seem best viewed as correctives to an individualistic perspective that goes too far. For the idea that we each leave a state of nature and freely enter community, that we are fully autonomous agents with no prior attachments -- these are obviously drastic simplifications of real life.
In reality, none of us are social atoms. We are born, we live, and we die within a web of relationships. Our reality is a social reality. These relational facts, connections, and commitments -- our birth family, ethnicity, school peers, neighbors, sports teams, work colleagues, religious or civic groups, society at all levels -- these things enter into our identity; they are constitutive of us.
Here’s how Amitai Etzioni -- a leading communitarian thinker -- describes the view:
|
[Communitarianism] is a social philosophy that, in contrast to theories that emphasize the centrality of the individual, emphasizes the importance of society in articulating the good... Communitarians examine the ways shared conceptions of the good are formed, transmitted, justified, and enforced. Hence, their interest in communities (and moral dialogues within them), the historical transmission of values and mores, and the societal units that transmit and enforce values – such as the family, schools, and voluntary associations (including places of worship), which are all parts of communities. (28)
|
Attempting to decide whether the individualist stance or the communitarian one is the “correct” one is a fool’s errand. Each reflects an important perspective. There is a tension to be acknowledged and respected here. We can however say a few things about the contrast and the tension.
First, the question of the rights of the individual versus the needs -- and thus the dictates -- of the group underlies most conversations about politics or practical policy: from gun rights to “censorship” of misinformation on social media to having to wear a face mask during a pandemic to addressing climate change. That the question usually lies unstated is one reason we so often talk past each other.
Second, in terms of (Western) philosophy, the diagnosis of the human communal condition has ranged from the dystopian vision of Hobbes to that of Aristotle, who straightforwardly noted that humans are by nature social animals. (29)
Third, for those of the Christian faith, a prominent theme of recent theology and scholarship is a de-emphasis of traditional individualistic conceptions of faith (e.g., “my personal salvation”) and a rediscovery of the communal dimension. Scripture places significant emphasis on community. Right at the start, God creates Eve because it was “not good” for Adam to be alone. (30) Psalms tells us he “sets the lonely in families.” (31) We see patterns of tribe and ethnicity as God calls out Abraham and then the nation of Israel as his own people. And we see this ethnic focus transcended in the New Testament via the formation of a group of people, the Church, where “[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (32) The individualistic mindset of most contemporary American evangelicals is, for example, worlds away from the communally-focused one of the New Testament.
Fourth, to radically compress the social and economic history of the last several centuries (as seen from the West): Human society was traditionally constructed upon small clusters of family and kin relations. Even after the formation of large cities, the vast majority of the population was rural. (33) It wasn’t until Modernity -- with its upheavals in religion, philosophy, science, industry, commerce, and empire -- that the mass “decommunitizing” at the lowest societal scale could take place. As a result, contemporary society makes it possible for one to be, if one desires, truly alone.
Fifth, the balance a person or group chooses to strike between individual and community often depends on their context. The “ethical egoism” of Ayn Rand -- an ardent individualist who continues to inspire Conservatives and Libertarians -- makes sense given she fled Soviet Russia. (34) So too for the powerful defense of individualism delivered by F. A. Hayek in the face of Naziism. (35) On the other hand, the labor organizing of Eugene Debs seems quite appropriate given the incredible power industrialists possessed at the turn of the last century. Likewise for the tactics of “community organizing” as developed by Saul Alinsky to advocate for social justice for oppressed communities. (36)
First, the question of the rights of the individual versus the needs -- and thus the dictates -- of the group underlies most conversations about politics or practical policy: from gun rights to “censorship” of misinformation on social media to having to wear a face mask during a pandemic to addressing climate change. That the question usually lies unstated is one reason we so often talk past each other.
Second, in terms of (Western) philosophy, the diagnosis of the human communal condition has ranged from the dystopian vision of Hobbes to that of Aristotle, who straightforwardly noted that humans are by nature social animals. (29)
Third, for those of the Christian faith, a prominent theme of recent theology and scholarship is a de-emphasis of traditional individualistic conceptions of faith (e.g., “my personal salvation”) and a rediscovery of the communal dimension. Scripture places significant emphasis on community. Right at the start, God creates Eve because it was “not good” for Adam to be alone. (30) Psalms tells us he “sets the lonely in families.” (31) We see patterns of tribe and ethnicity as God calls out Abraham and then the nation of Israel as his own people. And we see this ethnic focus transcended in the New Testament via the formation of a group of people, the Church, where “[t]here is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (32) The individualistic mindset of most contemporary American evangelicals is, for example, worlds away from the communally-focused one of the New Testament.
Fourth, to radically compress the social and economic history of the last several centuries (as seen from the West): Human society was traditionally constructed upon small clusters of family and kin relations. Even after the formation of large cities, the vast majority of the population was rural. (33) It wasn’t until Modernity -- with its upheavals in religion, philosophy, science, industry, commerce, and empire -- that the mass “decommunitizing” at the lowest societal scale could take place. As a result, contemporary society makes it possible for one to be, if one desires, truly alone.
Fifth, the balance a person or group chooses to strike between individual and community often depends on their context. The “ethical egoism” of Ayn Rand -- an ardent individualist who continues to inspire Conservatives and Libertarians -- makes sense given she fled Soviet Russia. (34) So too for the powerful defense of individualism delivered by F. A. Hayek in the face of Naziism. (35) On the other hand, the labor organizing of Eugene Debs seems quite appropriate given the incredible power industrialists possessed at the turn of the last century. Likewise for the tactics of “community organizing” as developed by Saul Alinsky to advocate for social justice for oppressed communities. (36)
Individualism and American Politics
Sixth and finally, in our context, individualism is dominant. Contemporary American culture is hyper-individualist, fragmented, consumerist, narcissistic even. This seems so obvious as to require little justification. (37) Our popular music and entertainment, habits on social media, consuming lifestyles, political tribalism (or disengagement), rates of family dissolution, lack of civic (e.g., church, clubs, lodges) participation, distrust of expertise, and more bespeak a society that lacks the common bonds and sense of the common good necessary for its people to flourish.
What are possible explanations? America was settled by waves of immigrants; the frontier advanced over the course of 250 years. These speak to prizing self-sufficiency. Our governmental system is decentralized, with substantial power reserved for the states. And our founding documents guaranteed various rights of which we’re justly proud. (38) These speak to an independent, libertarian streak.
We too have been buffeted by Modernity and its upheavals. The Second World War brought women into the workforce. Medical science gave us The Pill, making it possible to decouple sex from reproduction. And laws on divorce were liberalized. While each of these were good things, they were not without consequences. Jointly, they explain, in part, the duress that families, marriages, and children have suffered since the 1960s.
Technology, art, and a thirst for distraction have driven innovations in popular culture, media, social engagement, and politics. Most of these have emphasized individual self-expression and choice. Moreover, our economy is largely built on a model centered around consuming, which emphasizes individual choice and immediate gratification. Finally, since the early 1980s, our laissez-faire version of capitalism has favored corporations, shareholders, and the upper middle class, while seeking to protect their wealth from being “redistributed” to the feckless poor.
In point of fact, the individualistic stance is really the operating assumption of both Liberals and Conservatives. This is so, even though Conservatives call Lefties “communists” and Liberals label Righties “fascists.” After all, the Right cries “Don’t tread on me!” while the Left is supposedly full of “snowflakes.”
Examples abound. Conservatives assert a very broad right to carry firearms, effectively weaponizing public spaces. Liberals’ concerns over issues of sexuality and gender require rethinking everything from bathrooms to pronouns. In the recent protests, Conservatives have focused on private property, Liberals on free expression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Conservatives have worried about impositions on personal freedom (face masks and “lockdowns”), Liberals on the possibility that any particular person dies.
Liberals and Conservatives fail to see how alike they are in their motivating assumption, which is deeply ironic. As a result, each sees the other as abandoning the common good. For if you’ve adopted an individualistic stance, and if you see a putative right as in fact an indisputable one, then someone who “attacks” that right goes against not only you but all others in the community. This is why claims as to who loves their country most or who’s more patriotic get dragged into our disputes so readily.
Again, both the individualistic stance and the communitarian one are valid and good. What seems key is awareness: that there’s a tension to be maintained, that our culture is strongly biased toward individualism, and that most of us are as well.
I believe wisdom consists in this: We each possess an innate dignity. This dignity finds its most authentic expression when we live as a member of a community. We can’t understand what individual human flourishing means without reference to the group and vice versa. So we are made for community yet find it takes hard work to actually live that way.
Let's turn now to Part 3 of the essay, to consider the political theory known as Liberalism.
Sixth and finally, in our context, individualism is dominant. Contemporary American culture is hyper-individualist, fragmented, consumerist, narcissistic even. This seems so obvious as to require little justification. (37) Our popular music and entertainment, habits on social media, consuming lifestyles, political tribalism (or disengagement), rates of family dissolution, lack of civic (e.g., church, clubs, lodges) participation, distrust of expertise, and more bespeak a society that lacks the common bonds and sense of the common good necessary for its people to flourish.
What are possible explanations? America was settled by waves of immigrants; the frontier advanced over the course of 250 years. These speak to prizing self-sufficiency. Our governmental system is decentralized, with substantial power reserved for the states. And our founding documents guaranteed various rights of which we’re justly proud. (38) These speak to an independent, libertarian streak.
We too have been buffeted by Modernity and its upheavals. The Second World War brought women into the workforce. Medical science gave us The Pill, making it possible to decouple sex from reproduction. And laws on divorce were liberalized. While each of these were good things, they were not without consequences. Jointly, they explain, in part, the duress that families, marriages, and children have suffered since the 1960s.
Technology, art, and a thirst for distraction have driven innovations in popular culture, media, social engagement, and politics. Most of these have emphasized individual self-expression and choice. Moreover, our economy is largely built on a model centered around consuming, which emphasizes individual choice and immediate gratification. Finally, since the early 1980s, our laissez-faire version of capitalism has favored corporations, shareholders, and the upper middle class, while seeking to protect their wealth from being “redistributed” to the feckless poor.
In point of fact, the individualistic stance is really the operating assumption of both Liberals and Conservatives. This is so, even though Conservatives call Lefties “communists” and Liberals label Righties “fascists.” After all, the Right cries “Don’t tread on me!” while the Left is supposedly full of “snowflakes.”
Examples abound. Conservatives assert a very broad right to carry firearms, effectively weaponizing public spaces. Liberals’ concerns over issues of sexuality and gender require rethinking everything from bathrooms to pronouns. In the recent protests, Conservatives have focused on private property, Liberals on free expression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Conservatives have worried about impositions on personal freedom (face masks and “lockdowns”), Liberals on the possibility that any particular person dies.
Liberals and Conservatives fail to see how alike they are in their motivating assumption, which is deeply ironic. As a result, each sees the other as abandoning the common good. For if you’ve adopted an individualistic stance, and if you see a putative right as in fact an indisputable one, then someone who “attacks” that right goes against not only you but all others in the community. This is why claims as to who loves their country most or who’s more patriotic get dragged into our disputes so readily.
Again, both the individualistic stance and the communitarian one are valid and good. What seems key is awareness: that there’s a tension to be maintained, that our culture is strongly biased toward individualism, and that most of us are as well.
I believe wisdom consists in this: We each possess an innate dignity. This dignity finds its most authentic expression when we live as a member of a community. We can’t understand what individual human flourishing means without reference to the group and vice versa. So we are made for community yet find it takes hard work to actually live that way.
Let's turn now to Part 3 of the essay, to consider the political theory known as Liberalism.
Footnotes:
(10) The impulse, I reckon, is the same as defending the Electoral College as a good thing -- because it protects states’ rights or rural voters or some mythic American ideal -- even while it effectively disenfranchises millions of people.
(11) From Google Dictionary.
(12) This topic is a vast one. The main guide I shall follow in giving a conceptual taxonomy of political systems and their putative justifications is The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition (CDP). See the entries on “political philosophy,” “political theory,” “social philosophy,” and “liberalism.” I’m taking liberties with the order of the taxonomy in what follows.
(13) Another way to say this: The state of nature is the natural state of humans prior to an established society or government.
(14) From Leviathan. (Paragraph 9 of Chapter XIII “Of the Naturall Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery,” from Part 1 “Of Man.”)
(15) See “anarchism” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/)
(16) From the CDP, “political philosophy.” Hegel’s version of communitarianism (an extreme one) is an assumption shared by both the Far Left (e.g., ideologies like Marxism-Leninism) and the Far Right (e.g., nationalisms like Nazism).
(17) From The Declaration of Independence. Women and African slaves didn’t fall under the scope of the term ‘men’ in Thomas Jefferson’s day, of course.
(18) This paragraph and the next are indebted to the SEP entries “Locke’s Political Philosophy” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/) and “John Locke” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/index.html). The quotations are from the latter.
(19) Locke worked with notions of natural law and natural rights bequeathed by medieval philosophers and theologians. See the entry in the SEP, “Medieval Political Philosophy.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-political/)
(20) See the SEP, “Rights.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights) The relevant entries in Wikipedia -- “Rights” and “Human rights” -- are also valuable.
(21) From the CDP, “rights.”
(22) Google Dictionary.
(23) Adapted from a definition in “Rights” from the SEP.
(24) The two other leading ways to justify rights are instrumental theories (“rights [are] instruments for achieving an optimal distribution of advantages [i.e., within society]) and contractual theories (“rights define principles that would be chosen by properly situated and motivated agents agreeing to the basic terms of their relations [for example, within a state of nature].”) From “Rights” in SEP.
(25) Ibid.
(26) The notion of creational monotheism comes from the works of N.T. Wright.
(27) I’m aware that corporations and other legal entities have rights before the law. The same for nation-states. However, I see these legal rights as derivative upon the fundamental rights of the people constituting such collectives.
(28) Amitai Etzioni, “Communitarianism,” in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, First Edition, ed. Michael T. Gibbons. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015) See also the entry in SEP, “communitarianism.”
(29) Politics, [1253a] [1] Also translated, “political animals.”
(30) Genesis 2:18.
(31) Psalms 68:6 (NIV).
(32) Galatians 3:28 (NIV).
(33) In the United States for example the split between urban and rural only became equal in 1920. See the fascinating charts at: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#urbanization-over-the-very-long-term
(34) The influence of Rand and her book The Virtue of Selfishness has been immense: Alan Greenspan, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, the Libertarian Party, and many a young conservative have been mesmerized. See the entry “Ayn Rand” in SEP for more information. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/)
(35) Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom, written in the 1940s, likewise enjoys high status among Conservatives, Libertarians, and (some) Liberals alike. It deserves such praise. One might say that it is the philosophical counterpart to George Orwell’s 1984. Hayek’s encapsulation of individualism is classic: “[T]he essential features of ... individualism ... are the respect for the individual man qua man, that is, the recognition of his own views and tastes as supreme in his own sphere, however narrowly that may be circumscribed, and the belief that it is desirable that men should develop their own individual gifts and bents.”
That said, I want to register that Hayek’s frequent use as a cudgel by Conservatives and Libertarians against any Progressive vision of a social safety net or welfare state is not justified. Hayek’s target was the “socialism” -- really, the collectivism -- of totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia. His deep concern was that the trenchant anti-individualism of such places was in danger of being replicated in the West, especially with the advent of “planning” -- that is, the drive to rationally direct large sections of the economy by the central government. (This certainly happened to a degree in the US and more so in the UK, in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.) He made a convincing case that this just wouldn’t work. He made other prescient points about the risks of Big Government and about the impossibility of creating a just society by redistributive fiat. But nothing that I or other Liberals would actually propose would “rise” to such standards. Moreover, as I explain below, the risk of actual socialism -- Hayek’s target -- in the United States is negligible. It should also be said that the historical claims that Hayek made relative to linking socialism to the rise of Naziism were far too simplistic -- as the actual history of the Weimar Republic shows.
On the other hand, Hayek was clear that he did not favor a “fundamentalist” (my term) interpretation of capitalism -- what he called “a dogmatic laissez faire attitude.” Nor was he opposed to “an extensive system of social services.” Finally, Hayek was biting in his critique of the “conservatives” of his day: “A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege.” While it would be unfair to identify completely the modern conservative movement in Hayek’s terms (again, the issue with names and labels), the anti-democratic / anti-majoritarian instincts and actions of the modern GOP certainly fit Hayek’s description. (The quotations just above are on pages 17, 41, 42, and xxxvi of the 1994 reprint by The University of Chicago Press.)
(36) Alinsky -- author of the justly famous Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals -- is a figure of particular loathing for Conservatives.
(37) I can see a Conservative (especially a religious one) countering this by saying that people in America aren’t individualistic enough. “Too many people are dependent on the Nanny State. Too many lack personal get-up-and-go. Too many have had their brains colonized by the dominant secular culture and so can’t think for themselves.” There is obviously some validity here; after all, I’m dealing in broad sweeps. In my experience, however, such claims are often condescending generalizations made by Conservatives against people they’re already predisposed to dislike. As to people “dependent” on the government, many need that help; or they may just be selfish individuals. As to those lacking in personal initiative, many have good reasons; or they may just be selfish individuals. As to our dominant culture, it is an individualistic one; a person colonized by it would be a selfish individual.
(38) Though these rights were originally only for men of European origin.
Images:
"United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. West elevation 'High Dome.'"
https://picryl.com/media/united-states-capitol-washington-dc-west-elevation-high-dome-3401bb
Public domain.
"Jungle." Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/jungle-forest-nature-cross-tree-2732995/
"Battle of Chickamauga."
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chickamauga.jpg
Kurz & Allison, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
"Water Lily." Image by Elle Dee from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/water-lily-pond-summer-flower-2256541/
"Underwater Lily Pads." Image by Reto Gerber from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/underwater-photography-pond-plants-1529209/
"The Gadsden Flag." Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805), Lexicon, Vikrum.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gadsden_flag.svg
Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Original 1/1/21.
(10) The impulse, I reckon, is the same as defending the Electoral College as a good thing -- because it protects states’ rights or rural voters or some mythic American ideal -- even while it effectively disenfranchises millions of people.
(11) From Google Dictionary.
(12) This topic is a vast one. The main guide I shall follow in giving a conceptual taxonomy of political systems and their putative justifications is The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition (CDP). See the entries on “political philosophy,” “political theory,” “social philosophy,” and “liberalism.” I’m taking liberties with the order of the taxonomy in what follows.
(13) Another way to say this: The state of nature is the natural state of humans prior to an established society or government.
(14) From Leviathan. (Paragraph 9 of Chapter XIII “Of the Naturall Condition of Mankind as Concerning Their Felicity, and Misery,” from Part 1 “Of Man.”)
(15) See “anarchism” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP). (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anarchism/)
(16) From the CDP, “political philosophy.” Hegel’s version of communitarianism (an extreme one) is an assumption shared by both the Far Left (e.g., ideologies like Marxism-Leninism) and the Far Right (e.g., nationalisms like Nazism).
(17) From The Declaration of Independence. Women and African slaves didn’t fall under the scope of the term ‘men’ in Thomas Jefferson’s day, of course.
(18) This paragraph and the next are indebted to the SEP entries “Locke’s Political Philosophy” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/) and “John Locke” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/index.html). The quotations are from the latter.
(19) Locke worked with notions of natural law and natural rights bequeathed by medieval philosophers and theologians. See the entry in the SEP, “Medieval Political Philosophy.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-political/)
(20) See the SEP, “Rights.” (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights) The relevant entries in Wikipedia -- “Rights” and “Human rights” -- are also valuable.
(21) From the CDP, “rights.”
(22) Google Dictionary.
(23) Adapted from a definition in “Rights” from the SEP.
(24) The two other leading ways to justify rights are instrumental theories (“rights [are] instruments for achieving an optimal distribution of advantages [i.e., within society]) and contractual theories (“rights define principles that would be chosen by properly situated and motivated agents agreeing to the basic terms of their relations [for example, within a state of nature].”) From “Rights” in SEP.
(25) Ibid.
(26) The notion of creational monotheism comes from the works of N.T. Wright.
(27) I’m aware that corporations and other legal entities have rights before the law. The same for nation-states. However, I see these legal rights as derivative upon the fundamental rights of the people constituting such collectives.
(28) Amitai Etzioni, “Communitarianism,” in The Encyclopedia of Political Thought, First Edition, ed. Michael T. Gibbons. (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015) See also the entry in SEP, “communitarianism.”
(29) Politics, [1253a] [1] Also translated, “political animals.”
(30) Genesis 2:18.
(31) Psalms 68:6 (NIV).
(32) Galatians 3:28 (NIV).
(33) In the United States for example the split between urban and rural only became equal in 1920. See the fascinating charts at: https://ourworldindata.org/urbanization#urbanization-over-the-very-long-term
(34) The influence of Rand and her book The Virtue of Selfishness has been immense: Alan Greenspan, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, the Libertarian Party, and many a young conservative have been mesmerized. See the entry “Ayn Rand” in SEP for more information. (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ayn-rand/)
(35) Hayek’s book The Road to Serfdom, written in the 1940s, likewise enjoys high status among Conservatives, Libertarians, and (some) Liberals alike. It deserves such praise. One might say that it is the philosophical counterpart to George Orwell’s 1984. Hayek’s encapsulation of individualism is classic: “[T]he essential features of ... individualism ... are the respect for the individual man qua man, that is, the recognition of his own views and tastes as supreme in his own sphere, however narrowly that may be circumscribed, and the belief that it is desirable that men should develop their own individual gifts and bents.”
That said, I want to register that Hayek’s frequent use as a cudgel by Conservatives and Libertarians against any Progressive vision of a social safety net or welfare state is not justified. Hayek’s target was the “socialism” -- really, the collectivism -- of totalitarian states like Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia. His deep concern was that the trenchant anti-individualism of such places was in danger of being replicated in the West, especially with the advent of “planning” -- that is, the drive to rationally direct large sections of the economy by the central government. (This certainly happened to a degree in the US and more so in the UK, in the 30s, 40s, and 50s.) He made a convincing case that this just wouldn’t work. He made other prescient points about the risks of Big Government and about the impossibility of creating a just society by redistributive fiat. But nothing that I or other Liberals would actually propose would “rise” to such standards. Moreover, as I explain below, the risk of actual socialism -- Hayek’s target -- in the United States is negligible. It should also be said that the historical claims that Hayek made relative to linking socialism to the rise of Naziism were far too simplistic -- as the actual history of the Weimar Republic shows.
On the other hand, Hayek was clear that he did not favor a “fundamentalist” (my term) interpretation of capitalism -- what he called “a dogmatic laissez faire attitude.” Nor was he opposed to “an extensive system of social services.” Finally, Hayek was biting in his critique of the “conservatives” of his day: “A conservative movement, by its very nature, is bound to be a defender of established privilege and to lean on the power of government for the protection of privilege.” While it would be unfair to identify completely the modern conservative movement in Hayek’s terms (again, the issue with names and labels), the anti-democratic / anti-majoritarian instincts and actions of the modern GOP certainly fit Hayek’s description. (The quotations just above are on pages 17, 41, 42, and xxxvi of the 1994 reprint by The University of Chicago Press.)
(36) Alinsky -- author of the justly famous Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals -- is a figure of particular loathing for Conservatives.
(37) I can see a Conservative (especially a religious one) countering this by saying that people in America aren’t individualistic enough. “Too many people are dependent on the Nanny State. Too many lack personal get-up-and-go. Too many have had their brains colonized by the dominant secular culture and so can’t think for themselves.” There is obviously some validity here; after all, I’m dealing in broad sweeps. In my experience, however, such claims are often condescending generalizations made by Conservatives against people they’re already predisposed to dislike. As to people “dependent” on the government, many need that help; or they may just be selfish individuals. As to those lacking in personal initiative, many have good reasons; or they may just be selfish individuals. As to our dominant culture, it is an individualistic one; a person colonized by it would be a selfish individual.
(38) Though these rights were originally only for men of European origin.
Images:
"United States Capitol, Washington, D.C. West elevation 'High Dome.'"
https://picryl.com/media/united-states-capitol-washington-dc-west-elevation-high-dome-3401bb
Public domain.
"Jungle." Image by Mohamed Hassan from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/jungle-forest-nature-cross-tree-2732995/
"Battle of Chickamauga."
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chickamauga.jpg
Kurz & Allison, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
"Water Lily." Image by Elle Dee from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/water-lily-pond-summer-flower-2256541/
"Underwater Lily Pads." Image by Reto Gerber from Pixabay.
https://pixabay.com/photos/underwater-photography-pond-plants-1529209/
"The Gadsden Flag." Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805), Lexicon, Vikrum.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gadsden_flag.svg
Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Original 1/1/21.