I have recently been studying modern political philosophy as has, in the past, not been my desire. I have spent countless hours absorbing American Revolutionary history and the people and thought that went into framing the social and political experiment called American Democracy. But had not spent anywhere nearly as long studying how that history had carried forward into today's political sphere. In recent weeks, I have attempted to remedy that.
What I have found is, that since the late 19th century, political thought in America could be divided into two schools of thought; progressivism and conservatism. Both terms bring preconceived and unstudied reactions to most modern Americans. Let me over-simplify the differences for ease of discussion:
Progressivism is the school of thought that government should be the purveyors of well-being to the governed. It should strive to make laws, provide examples and educate the governed to provide "Happiness" to the largest possible segment of the governed, even if the outliers remain unhappy. I will discuss the fallacies of this and conservatism later in this writing.
Conservatism espouses to conserve individual liberties through small(ish) government and individual choice; a person-by person pursuit of "Happiness". Again, there are logical fallacies to a strict adherence to this policy as well.
The Founders were highly educated and highly experienced thinkers who had all read Plato's Republic and John Locke's Two Treatises of Government. They had also fought a war and waded through the (at the time) failing Articles of Confederation. They built a Constitution that defined not what a government could do, but what it could NOT do. They, very ruthlessly, limited the powers of government and built in checks and balances to keep it limited. They believed that nature granted to the individual inalienable right as you and I believe the sun will rise in the West. And foresaw the evils of government trying to usurp those rights. They also believed that the ultimate safeguard against that occurrence was the governed themselves. So they gave the governed the power over government and hemmed in the government by limiting its powers to govern and dividing those powers among co-equal branches that would, over time, serve to keep governmental usurpation of rights in check.
Conservatism seeks to keep government small and its interference in the day-to-day life minimal. The aforementioned John Locke postulated that the ability to trust your government was inversely proportional to your distance from it. As I previously stated, Locke had a profound effect on liberal (meaning in the vernacular of the period - non-monarchal) governments across the Western world. His influence can be seen in the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, as well as other places. So the Founders sought to balance individual liberty with the absolute need of societies to be governed, with a strong bias towards individual liberties. To a true Conservative, nature gives inalienable right to the individual, not the community. Thus, in order to ultimately protect those rights, government should be kept small, its powers clearly delineated, and held in check by those same individuals.
The pros of conservatism are the protection of minority rights, protection of individual choice, and the oversight and ultimate responsibility of the governed for that oversight of the government. However, it pre-supposes a willing and educated individual or collection of individuals that maintain at least some interest in that oversight. Its philosophy rests on nature and the place of individuals within that nature, It does not adequately address the largest social sin of the 20th, and so far, the 21st centuries: apathy.
Progressivism is the anthesis of conservatism. It holds that individual rights must give way to the majority. That social happiness outweighs individual happiness. To quote Spock, "The good of the many outweighs the good of the few or the one". The role of government, in a progressive society, is to guarantee social "happiness" even if individual rights are usurped. It demands a large government to oversee virtually every aspect of social intercourse and legislate how it should be conducted. Work, play, and in extreme instances, speech become regulated to a social "norm". Individual rights are sacrificed to the majority so everyone can achieve "happiness".
The pros of progressivism are that no individual falls below a defined level of prosperity and education. Expectations, thus regulation of behavior, are universal across the body of the governed, and the life of the governed is simple, as long as they stay within the bounds of majority rule. However, progressivism depends on the majority ideals as being the basis for individual happiness. To paraphrase Jefferson, "There is no tyranny as that of the majority". No ideal in human political existence is universal. There is no universal path to happiness. Happiness is, ipso facto, an individual aspiration. What your grandparents told you is true, "you can't make everybody happy".
There is, in the opinion of this less than perfect and all-seeing author, a happy medium (if you'll excuse the expression) that should and could exist between rugged individualism and the collective good. But that state must be considered on a case by case basis. Should everyone have guaranteed health care? Does an individual have autonomy over their own body? Etc., etc. ad nauseum. There is no universal approach to societal issues simply because society is composed of very different individuals who have individual pursuits of happiness. No single individual wants a life or can have one exactly like any other individual. So the differences must be addressed and respected while still maintaining a healthy, happy society. That means that reasoned deliberation and discussion should occur and a balance or compromise reached that at least approaches the "happy medium".
It is the opinion of the writer that three things have happened in modern American history that have upset the governing apple cart; 1) progressivism has taught the American political body that the government is there to "take care of them", 2) Congress has slowly but oh so surely has ceded its powers to the Executive Branch and 3) the governed have become apathetic. All of these things are extremely dangerous to liberty and democracy. The federal government is the least capable institution on the face of the planet of taking care of any individual. It simply has no mechanisms with which to do so and no process exists or will exist to give it those mechanisms. Congress has had an extremely black history when it comes to guarding its powers and performing its function. Put plainly, Congress has not done its job since before the Civil War. It is aware of this, but instead of doing its job, its members collect large contributions and pass their job over to the President. I have a complete and lengthy diatribe about Congress, but that's for another post.
Now, the most dangerous of the three - apathy. Less than half of the registered voters in this country vote. Put another way, less than half of those who hold the ultimate power in this country exercise that power. The old adage of "use it or lose it" is apropos here. Hitler rose to power legitimately through the German election process where less than half of voters cast their ballots. And after that, casting a ballot was no longer an issue. If you think that cannot happen in America, think again. All it takes is for people not to care enough to use their power. This creates a power vacuum in the American body politic and nature abhors a vacuum. Someone will use that power if its not otherwise used.
The good new is that all of the problems I have outlined can be addressed by simply addressing the last. The Founders believed that the citizens would know that they had a vested and crucial role in government and would jealously guard that role. So, damn it, guard it! Educate yourself on the issues and the candidates and vote in your own self-interest. That's the way its designed to work. But American government cannot work at all if the ultimate brokers of power do not do their job. VOTE! Replace the Congressmen and Senators that would rather collect contributions from mega-corporations and billionaires than represent your interest. Does your Congressman listen when you call or write? Does your representative respond? Do they respond and address your concerns in a way that suits you? If the answer is no, then vote them out! If there is no one on the ballot you would vote for, then run yourself. Use your power!
No comments:
Post a Comment