“Freedom versus Dependency in a Polarized World” Sydney Williams
http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com
Two conflicting yearnings embody all men and women – the desire to be free and the desire to be a part of a tribe: family, club, group, community, nation, etc. At their extremes, the two result in either anarchy or dependency. Anarchy can lead to the emergence of a strong, unscrupulous leader, a tyrant. Statism can lead to a loss of independence, the abandonment of personal responsibility and the rise of authoritarianism.
It is to mitigate the worst outcomes of either extreme – to live together as individuals, civilly and productively – that governments were created. Throughout history, most governments minimized individual freedom, while emphasizing security. The United States was (and is) different. In 1776, the Founders met in Philadelphia to address independence from Great Britain. The final paragraph of the Declaration of Independence speaks of the “Representatives of the united States of America,” with the “u” in united not capitalized. To reduce the threat of autocracy, the Constitution established a federal government of three separate but equal branches. It created a representative government – “of the people, by the people, for the people” – that provided freedoms of speech, religion, assembly, the press, and petitions, all to ensure individuals remained free. It was (and is) a government based on the rule of law, on equal rights, and one that recognizes the private ownership of property. (And the “u” in United States was capitalized in 1781).
Nevertheless, “the call of the tribe” (to use Mario Vargas Llosa’s title) is strong; it has been deployed by both the right and the left to attract disaffected members of the political public – groups like the Tea Party and Proud Boys on the right and Antifa and Black Lives Matter on the left. However, extremist groups, while they should be monitored for violence, are generally small and do not represent real threats to democracy. The real threat to the United States is more subtle. It is (and has been) the gradual usurpation of regulatory power by non-elected bureaucrats, and the seduction of American voters through financial inducements – “the call of the tribe” – creating dependency on “compassionate” government.
Politically, Americans are divided along ideological lines, which should allow for debate and compromise. For example: How big and how accountable should government be? What responsibilities should it bear and what should be the responsibilities of individuals? At what point will government’s debt obligations infringe on economic growth? How can we tame inflation while expanding deficits? At what point does dependency on government largesse overwhelm a sense of individual freedom? These questions have been sidelined, however, by the rise of identity politics (another “call of the tribe”) – racial, gender, ethnicity – which create a sense of victimhood – us versus them – that only “omniscient” government can resolve.
As well, identity politics divert attention from compelling problems: urban crime; an open border; declining education standards; infrastructure; run-away debt and deficits; inflation; changes wrought by new technologies; a simmering Middle East; a grasping, gasping Russia; the Thucydides Trap of a rising China and a faltering United States, and the struggle between advocates of an ever-expanding government, with its increasingly unaccountable administrators and regulators, and those who believe democracy and individual freedom are at risk. Keep in mind, what enticed immigrants was the promise of freedom – that one could rise as far as her or his aspiration, diligence, and talents could take them – not the assurance and comfort of a welfare state.
At the same time, we are more polarized than at any time since 1861. Conservatives are labeled misogynists, xenophobes, and racists. Progressives are presumed to be radicals, socialists, and communists. A few conservatives and progressives deserve those adjectives, but for most the labels are hyperbole, adding to the societal dysfunction that already exists. False accusations have become ubiquitous, denying debate, making civil discussion difficult, and negatively effecting civic behavior. However, polarization is not necessarily unhealthy. In his 1945 novel, That Hideous Strength, C.S. Lewis wrote: “Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce left and fierce right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done.” In a talk with the editors of The New York Magazine on February 1, 2007, Ayaan Ali Hirsi said: “There is peacetime and there is wartime, and you don’t need polarization on wartime issues. You need polarization on all other issues.” In her 2020 book Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism, Anne Applebaum wrote: “Unity is an anomaly. Polarization is normal.” While I am not sure that each side need be “terrified of the other,” polarization of ideas is natural and healthy, as long as reason governs discussions and debates, and pushes us toward the “anomaly” of compromise and unity.
But tribalism is not all bad. Families are the backbone of a successful society. Religious organizations provide a moral sense. Civic organizations give opportunities for individuals to come together in their communities. Alumni groups assure a solid future for schools and colleges, where students should be taught subjects that help them succeed in life, to learn self-reliance, and to be good citizens, not to succumb to “the call of the tribe” of race, gender, and ethnicity. We need government in multiple ways – security, infrastructure, education, to care for the needy and those unable to care for themselves. But we must assure that dependency on government does not smother initiative; that the focus is on opportunities, not outcomes; that merit is not replaced with equity; that upward mobility is available to all, without regard to race, gender, or economic class. We must not sacrifice individual independence on the altar of “benevolent” government.
Government is a hard beast to tame. Its appetite grows larger every year. The administrative state is almost impossible to shrink. Bureaucrats, aided and abetted by public sector unions, find more things to do, more ways to spend the public’s money, more ways to make more people dependent. Political power is an aphrodisiac. But nothing in life is free. As dependency on government waxes, personal freedom wanes. You cannot have it both ways.
Comments are closed.
