“Every human has four endowments – self awareness, conscience, independent will, and creative imagination. These give us the ultimate human freedom… The power to choose, to respond, to change.”
–Stephen R. Covey, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
The struggle for freedom and fairness in governance has a long and turbulent history. In the past the passion for liberty set citizens against totalitarian authority, and the goal was understood to be protection against the self-serving motivations of governments. By liberty was meant limits on the power of government to impose its’ will on the community.
Later, people came to believe it unnecessary that government should be independent and opposed in its’ interests to themselves. Consequently, a new demand for short-term elected leaders became predominant.
This idea was assumed at first to mean that elected officials should identify with the people and the interests of the nation. It followed that such a nation would not need to be protected from itself. Supposedly a democracy would not exercise tyranny over itself.
However, as Americans well know, the notion that citizens have no reason to limit their power over themselves only seems reasonable to those who have no experience with popular government.
After two hundred years of experience we know that “self-government” can be fragile and complicated. “The will of the people” often turns out to be the will of the most actively dominant portion of the citizenry, usually the majority, but quite possibly those with overbearing economic or financial firepower.
The American founders took great pains to control any possible abuses of power. As we saw in Chapter Four: Freedom and Order, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 recognized the importance of limiting such dangers throughout an uncertain future.
Liberty came to mean the freedom of each to live our lives as we see fit, so long as we do not impose ourselves on the well-being of others.
As an ideal, this is not so simple in practice. It was controversial then and it is controversial now. And, as I have suggested, the changes and challenges of the ensuing years have given us much to ponder.
Finding ourselves facing the dangers, complexities, and tensions of the present turning point, I believe the American people would do well to step back and reassess the values, principles, and general attitudes with which we can best regain our poise and seek a shared vision and purpose.
In short, I propose that the first steps to freedom will be those that lead to problem-solving and cooperation – if we are to avert catastrophe. And, I believe that this can be done most effectively when addressing felt-needs in our local communities. We will learn by doing, and act we must.
The first steps are challenging, but straight forward:
1) To engage as neighbors, which means learning to listen and to truly understand one another, and then to rise above our differences to resolve problems and address local needs.
2) To recognize the diversity of knowledge, skills, and experience we have available to do what needs to be done; our survival might depend on it.
3) To identify the extent to which we share values, and to build a level of trust that ensures we have neighbors we can depend on when the going gets tough.
4) To commit ourselves seriously to the ultimate purpose of seeking a vision of the future we can hold in common – a future we can all respect and believe in.
In focusing on first things first, we must learn the ways of community that Americans once practiced so well in the vibrant civil society of our past.
Such is the purpose of this little book. The pages that follow are devoted to finding our way through the difficulties and perplexity of this most difficult endeavor.
As we begin to take these first steps, I think we will find it helpful to reflect on the meaning of freedom in our personal lives. For it is deep in our own souls that we must first build confidence in our personal ability to prevail over fear and loss.
There is no greater strength to be found than knowledge of the freedom we control within ourselves. Indeed, it is through this primal freedom that we gain the capacity to respond to life’s tests with grace.
Tom
Next week: The resilience of inner freedom
Dear readers: I wish to thank all those who kept me in your thoughts and prayers during the past two weeks. My surgery went well and I am recovering rapidly. I keep finding more ways to appreciate you, and I look forward very much to continuing our conversation. (Please see the Facebook page, where there is active reader engagement.)
We each have a sense of self, a coherent unity within ourselves, a feeling of integrity that defines our identity in our own minds. This sense of self is challenged by the conflicts and incongruities we are forced to contend with, between the material and the moral, the physical and the metaphysical, and the various unresolved concerns in our lives.
The moral philosopher Mary Midgley describes this experience rather well I think:
“I am suggesting…, that human freedom centers on being a creature able, in some degree, to act as a whole in dealing with… conflicting desires. This may sound odd, because freedom sounds like an advantage, and having conflicting desires certainly does not.
“But it is not a new thought that freedom has a cost. And the conflicting desires themselves are of course not the whole story. They must belong to a being which in some way owns both of them, is aware of both, and can therefore make some attempt to reconcile them.
“…The endeavor must be to act as a whole, rather than as a peculiar, isolated component coming in to control the rest of the person. Though it is only an endeavor – though the wholeness is certainly not given ready-made and can never be fully achieved, yet the integrative struggle to heal conflicts and to reach towards this wholeness is surely the core of what we mean by human freedom.” (1994)
Each of us, consciously or otherwise, adopts a system of morality upon which to base decisions and guide our way in the world, either a formal religious system or one assumed or devised by ourselves.
Whether it is weak or strong, sloppy or consistent, or we even think about it very much, our personal morality serves as the grounding for our sense of identity and our actions. It is impossible to function without it.
It is our integrity as “whole persons” that resists the onslaught of disintegrating forces in our lives. When we lose consciousness of this effort and succumb to the fragmentation imposed by the incoherent impact of advertising and mass media that constantly bombards us, we lose control of our independence as individuals.
This is particularly challenging I think for those who choose to disregard the teachings of the great religious traditions, which supply us with rich and textured guidance. For the reader who is religiously inclined, the way forward is generally well-lit – at least in principle.
If the reader is non-religious, the task will be to ground oneself in common decency, to focus ones’ vision on the highest good, to abide consistently by an ethical code, and to bring healing and encouragement to those around us.
Let’s be clear, however: This is quite difficult, especially when we rely on our own devices.
Each of us is called to step forward to participate in the affairs of the community we have chosen as our home, and to engage with our neighbors respectfully as active listeners and facilitators motivated by a desire to encourage and empower.
We can only ensure the integrity of our purpose by means that are in harmony with our purpose. Mahatma Gandhi said it best: “They say ‘means are after all means’. I would say ‘means are after all everything’. As the means so the end.” (1937)
This assertion was stated somewhat differently, but just as explicitly by the economist and political philosopher F. A. Hayek, when he wrote: “The principle that the ends justify the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals.” (1944)
These are not theoretical statements. Rather they express a profound truth. The integrity of means must always provide the standard of reference in every endeavor.
If each of us holds our personal integrity clearly in focus, attends to moral responsibility, and respects our neighbor as we ourselves would wish to be respected, we should not find ourselves at odds with justice.
The manner in which we respond to our personal differences will determine who we are and the freedom we are capable of knowing.
Tom
In Two Weeks: Finding a transcendent resilience through inner freedom
Dear readers: I am scheduled for surgery next week. Consequently the blog will be on pause very briefly. I hope to have the next post ready for you on Friday, February 19.
“Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there.”
–Will Rogers
We all know the discomfort of unwelcome constraints imposed by our workplace, our families, and society in general. Freedom for the individual, it seems, is relative. As we mature we come to see purpose in the underlying order of things and recognize that often we cannot advance our interests without it.
We generally understand and accept the limitations we experience in life, however much they chafe. Still there are aspects of freedom we value highly despite the complications and challenges they present.
As individuals we value freedom of opportunity. We also have preferences concerning the control of processes that impact on our personal lives, and preferences concerning the processes that operate in society.
There is much of value to discuss here, but I wish to focus on our response to life’s inevitable constraints, especially in the context of crises, and the choices we can make if we wish to work effectively with others.
There are rules we accept that regulate such things as athletic contests and the marketplace, which make it possible to ensure fairness, to strategize and compete. And, it is the certainty of fairness and predictability that allows an economy to be productive and our lives to be sane.
Similarly, it is fairness, honesty and respectfulness that are most conducive to constructive dialog and decision-making in any organization or community. This is what leads to trust, and trust is essential if we are to reach our compatriots.
When we find ourselves confronted with unpredictable and chaotic conditions, our first steps can always be to address the need for order that allows respectful and meaningful communication.
Progress toward social and economic reconstruction in our communities will require that we work together in a civil manner, regardless of our differences. Problem-solving cannot take place otherwise.
We cannot assure safety in our communities or create effective organization if form and structure, or varied opinions, are viewed as limitations to liberty.
The iconic conservative philosopher Richard Weaver, who we heard from in the previous post, would say this goal represents a formidable task; that it would require us to confront a national character uncomfortable with form, resistant to leadership, and impatient with any systematic process. He called America “a nation which egotism has paralyzed.”
We have seen how this egotism has diverted our attention from serious purpose: in our infatuation with expensive toys, in our descent into personal and public indebtedness, and in a sordid media voyeurism that forgoes all pretensions of privacy. Weaver called it “the spirit of self, which has made the [citizen] lose sight of the calling of his task and to think only of aggrandizement.”
Is it this “spirit of self” that has led us to the meaningless disorder in which we now find ourselves, where self-indulgence overwhelms motivation, rational judgment, and foresight?
I see some truth in this, but I believe we must look more deeply into the character of a people who have risen to every test in the past. Americans are smart, resilient, and creative. In the difficult years ahead I expect we will gain a deeper understanding of freedom and will respond with a maturity imposed by necessity.
All form has structural limits. It is the consistent dependability of this reality that allows us to launch ourselves into new frontiers of learning and experience, to control the direction of our efforts, to instigate, organize, create.
Without the constraints of necessity, which include our own values, we would have no capacity to direct our energy and intelligence, to explore new ideas or undertake new ventures.
For the individual, the ability to exercise discipline overcomes the limitations imposed by nature and society. Surely the discipline to leverage inspiration against the constraints we encounter in life provides the power to actualize our freedom and transcend the material difficulties in life.
We cannot leap without a firm foundation beneath our feet; we cannot fly without wings.
It is in the encounter between discipline and necessity that we find the ground of freedom.
Tom
Next week: The freedom within.
Dear readers: Your thoughts and feedback will be very helpful to me.
“Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.”
–Jeremiah 6:16
Answering questions about what has gone wrong is never comfortable. Some truths are not pretty. But, revitalizing core American values and the restoration of a once vibrant civic spirit will require that we recognize what has been lost and why. I believe an honest appraisal is in order.
The current difficulties have developed over a long period of time. The gradual loss of a commitment to integrity in all areas of life has left Americans without the interwoven fabric of community relationships, without a soulful center or shared sense of purpose.
We find ourselves dominated by materialism and immersed in a homogenized culture with little conscious identity. Where is there a meaningful commitment to community, to the dignity of mutual respect, to embracing shared responsibility for local needs?
Most significantly, in my view, Americans have become obsessed with immediacy. We want what we want and we want it now. Reason and foresight have been eclipsed by a fixation on material appearances, and yet we are unabashed about entertaining ourselves with violence and degrading behavior.
Even the once humiliating liabilities of personal debt seem to be of no concern. All possibility of generating real wealth is abandoned in exchange for false appearances bought with future income.
Strange as it may be, we have essentially abandoned the future.
The moral bankruptcy and distortions of logic represented by this posture have influenced almost everything in our national life. An undisciplined attitude has led us to the brink of disaster, and our insistence on freedom from institutional and cultural restraints is fraught with contradictions.
For example, our respect for the individual requires that we honor the independent integrity and privacy of each citizen, and yet we have abandoned this principle out of fear for our own safety.
Similarly, we have failed to see that privacy has been sacrificed when we welcome the obscenity and titillation of mass media into our homes. Personal integrity is lost to a fascination with “the raw stuff of life,” in the words of the conservative American philosopher Richard Weaver:
“The extremes of passion and suffering are served up to enliven the breakfast table or to lighten the boredom of an evening at home. The area of privacy has been abandoned because the definition of person has been lost; there is no longer a standard by which to judge what belongs to the individual man. Behind the offense lies the repudiation of sentiment in favor of immediacy.”
Richard Weaver wrote these words before the advent of television. And he was not the first to make such an observation. A quarter century earlier George Bernard Shaw commented that “an American has no sense of privacy. He does not know what it means. There is no such thing in the country.”
Weaver warned Americans of a self-destructive streak that would ultimately lead to a crisis. He pointed out our fascination with specialization and with the parts of things at the expense of understanding and respecting the whole. He argued that an obsession with fragmentary parts without regard for their function necessarily leads to instability.
Such instability is insidious, penetrating all relationships and institutions. In his words, “It is not to be anticipated that rational self-control will flourish in the presence of fixation upon parts.”
This is not the fault of government – except to the extent that government, managed by people like ourselves, has joined whole-heartedly in the party. In a democracy it is tragically easy for government policy to degenerate until it serves the worst inclinations of a self-interested electorate.
Consequently we have descended into the financial profligacy of the past fifty years and are now the most indebted nation in history by a wide margin. Ours has been a twisted path, but with a clearly visible end. And, the implicate outcome remains ignored.
If we are to recover our balance, it is essential that we recognize the wrong-headed thinking that got us here.
Values and principle are not in question; only wisdom. What we are challenged to do now is to reconsider the way we think.
Tom
Next week: Freedom or paralysis.
Dear readers: I would be grateful for your thoughtful remarks and feedback.
“It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country to decide, by their conduct and example, the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force.”
–Alexander Hamilton
For more than a hundred years Americans expressed their values and creative energy in numerous organizations and associations. As we saw in the previous post, Americans overcame constraints on their freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.
Generations later, however, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement has been replaced by an increasingly self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.
Is it these technologies that have isolated us from one another?
Economic historian Niall Ferguson argues no. Rather he suggests that it is “not technology, but the state – with its seductive promise of ‘security from the cradle to the grave’ – [which is] the real enemy of civil society.” He cites the prophetic vision of Tocqueville in 1840, when he imagined a future America in which the spirit of community has been co-opted and neutered by government:
“I see an innumerable crowd of like and equal men who revolve on themselves without repose, procuring the small and vulgar pleasures with which they fill their souls. Each of them, withdrawn and apart, is like a stranger to the destiny of all the others: his children and his particular friends form the whole human species for him; as for dwelling with his fellow citizens, he is beside them, but he does not see them; he touches them and does not feel them; he exists only in himself and for himself alone….
“Above these an immense tutelary power is elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring their enjoyments and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood….
“Thus, …the sovereign extends its arms over society as a whole; it covers its surface with a network of small, complicated, painstaking, uniform rules through which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls cannot clear a way to surpass the crowd; it does not break wills, but it softens them, bends them, and directs them; it rarely forces one to act, but it constantly opposes itself to one’s acting; it does not destroy, it prevents things from being born; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, compromises, enervates, extinguishes, dazes, and finally reduces each nation to being nothing more than a herd of timid and industrious animals of which the government is the shepherd.”
Elsewhere Tocqueville added an explicit warning:
“But what political power would ever be in a state to suffice for the innumerable multitude of small undertakings that American citizens execute every day with the aid of association?…
“The morality and intelligence of a democratic people would risk no fewer dangers than its business and industry if government came to take the place of associations everywhere.
“Sentiments and ideas renew themselves, the heart is enlarged, and the human mind is developed only by the reciprocal action of men upon one another.”
I agree that government has had a part in the deadening of the American spirit. But, I do not think we can attribute the present condition solely to government. I believe the degeneration of attitudes and behavior cannot be divorced from the isolating influences of corporate culture, the dispersion of communities by the automobile, or the gradual loss of a moral, metaphysical center.
Telecommunications and commercial airlines have brought the world together on a macro level, but they have also left us disinclined us to engage with our neighbors.
I believe the long slide to isolation is the consequence of social forces that have followed the trajectory of human progress since the founding of the American Republic, and which we can only fault ourselves for accepting.
Our government is, after all, a creature of our own invention, served by people who have been subjected to the same degraded values and demoralized sense of responsibility as the rest of us.
Tom
Next week: The renewal of core American values.
Note to readers: Your comments and feedback would be much appreciated. As a writer I would find this very helpful.
“Never confuse motion with action.”
–Benjamin Franklin
We find ourselves now at a severe turning point, confronted by the consequences of the past and the anger and confusion of the present. Yet, this is also an opportunity, a rare moment in history that calls us to clarify our purpose and correct the attitudes and behaviors that brought us to this place.
We have lost a sense of ultimate purpose, and thus the conceptual framework upon which rational judgment depends. This has made us vulnerable both to our own vices and to the predatory interests and manipulative power of institutions that know our weaknesses.
To straighten things out will require that we address tough questions with open-minded objectivity. The effort may not be comfortable, but it will be essential if we are to regain our balance and rebuild our resolve.
In his recent book, The Great Degeneration, economic historian Niall Ferguson has provided us with a compelling review of what has come to pass. He considers four areas in which the degeneration of values and loss of social stability in the United States has had devastating consequences.
His four areas of concern are, to use my own words, 1) the loss of personal and social responsibility, 2) the disintegration of the market economy, 3) the role of the rule of law, and 4) the essential qualities of civil society.
Dr. Ferguson reminds us of our past, and in particular the vigorous civil and cultural life of nineteenth century America: “I want to ask,” he writes, “how far it is possible for a truly free nation to flourish in the absence of the kind of vibrant civil society we used to take for granted? I want to suggest that the opposite of civil society is uncivil society, where even the problem of anti-social behavior becomes a problem for the state.”
He goes on to cite Alexis de Tocqueville from the first volume of his famous commentary, Democracy in America, which was published in 1840:
“America is, among the countries of the world, the one where they have taken most advantage of association and where they have applied that powerful mode of action to a greater diversity of objects.
“Independent of the permanent associations created by law under the names of townships, cities and counties, there is a multitude of others that owe their birth and development only to the individual will.
“The inhabitant of the United States learns from birth that he must rely on himself to struggle against the evils and obstacles of life; he has only a defiant and restive regard for social authority and he appeals to its authority only when he cannot do without it….
“In the United States, they associate for the goals of public security, of commerce and industry, of morality and religion. There is nothing the human will despairs of attaining by the free action of the collective power of individuals.”
Dr. Ferguson writes that “Tocqueville saw America’s political associations as an indispensable counterweight to the tyranny of the majority in modern democracy. But it was the non-political associations that really fascinated him.”
“Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial associations in which all take part, but they also have a thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very general and very particular, immense and very small; Americans use associations to give fêtes, to found seminaries, to build inns, to raise churches, to distribute books…. Finally, if it is a question of bringing to light a truth or developing a sentiment with the support of great example, they associate.”
What happened to American civil society? And what is the consequence of this loss?
As Tocqueville reports, Americans had once succeeded in overcoming constraints to freedom through their own initiative and sense of community.
Unfortunately, action has been replaced by inaction. A once spirited culture of engagement, based on committed interpersonal relationships, has been replaced by a self-centered attitude, the loss of community, and the isolating influences of the automobile, television, and the digital age.
Surely it is time to restore what we once did so well, and to address the great challenges ahead with renewed strength and responsibility.
Tom
Next week: When individual will is co-opted by government.
The idea of individualism has been an emotional force in the American experience. Indeed, respect for independence and individualism has been a source of honor and pride in the American mind.
Yet, there has been an obvious divergence between the vibrant and spontaneous civic life that characterized much of the early American story, and, at the same time, a record of violence and brutality revealing an arrogance that defied accountability.
Who are we, really? Who do we want to be?
Extremely anti-social behavior will evoke revulsion in most of us. But, historically, the dark side of individualistic egoism has been socially acceptable, even conspicuous, in racist attitudes and practices toward American Indians and African-Americans. And, we have an unfortunate legacy of gang violence, accentuated by the Mafia, drugs, and prostitution.
The destruction we are seeing today goes far deeper, however. We have witnessed a profound deterioration of moral character and social responsibility in recent years, impacting society at every level.
We live in a time of extremes. Mass murder and sexual crimes are proliferating on an appalling scale. Prior to 1960 there were apparently no more than 3 instances of mass murder in the United States per decade.
Definitions have changed, but so far in 2015 I count 42 instances in which 4 or more people died during single events (shootertracker.com). Many more were injured in 353 shootings this year where less than 4 people died.
This is but one example of a profound deterioration we can see all around us in attitudes toward honesty, trustworthiness, and responsibility.
The degradation of the social order has been a gradual and complicated process. But in my view a significant factor has been a lack of effective parenting. Children have been growing up without civilized values or emotional grounding.
The growing loss of moral responsibility even among older adults is especially disturbing.
And, it does not stop there. Institutions we have depended upon are facing financial bankruptcy; systems are breaking down; people are losing their grip.
How is it that we have so completely lost our way, our sense of purpose, our understanding of the integrity of our place in the world? The answer is not simple, but there has surely been a shift in attitudes. America has seen the loss of a once dynamic and thriving civil society, followed by the debasement of social discourse in the face of overwhelming materialism.
Clearly, the individualism that requires mutual respect and embraces civic responsibility will remain ever vulnerable to the dishonor of undisciplined individuals who lose their moral compass.
If Americans wish to regain a civil society in which we engage in meaningful discourse and join one another to resolve problems, we will need to step aside from unproductive bickering, extricate ourselves from the wreckage, and face the complex of dangers that now confront us.
Some have suggested we have inherited attitudes leading to fragmentation in the way we see and understand the world. Certainly early American settlers were influenced by the loss of religious and cultural roots, the dangers of frontier life, and the nomadic and transient qualities of American life generally.
But, the debasement of the social order we are seeing now is a recent development. America has, most certainly, not always been the way we see it now.
A healthy nation depends on an engaged and upbeat civil society. But, civic activities have nearly vanished from community life. Instead we have witnessed a steady erosion of values, the loss of civility, and accelerating disorder.
We now find ourselves at a critical turning point, confronted by the practical consequences of generalized anger and, at times, the emotional rejection of any perceived restraint. Most importantly, we have lost a sense of ultimate purpose – and thus the conceptual framework upon which rational judgment depends.
All this has made us vulnerable both to our own vices and to the predatory interests and manipulative power of institutions that know our weaknesses.
I will enlarge on these thoughts in the new year with observations from the early American chronicler Alexis de Tocqueville, historian Niall Ferguson, and the iconic conservative philosopher, Richard M. Weaver.
I will be taking a short break, and I wish you all a happy, peaceful, and reflective holiday season. We have a lot to think about. I hope to post here again on January 1.
Tom
Liberty and the American Idea 