E Pluribus Unum

E Pluribus Unum - Out of many, one. The first national motto of the United States.

I am currently reading Howard Zinn's book "A People's History of the United States", as well as James W. Loewen's book "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong". Reading these two books has reinforced my understanding that every person, without regard for tradition, ethnicity, or class, wants opportunity: an opportunity to thrive as an individual, an opportunity to serve as a member of a welcoming community, and an opportunity to fulfill his or her potential as a human being.

These two books have also showed me once again that American history is a tale of how some people were able to seize opportunities for themselves, how some were denied opportunities, and how some people resisted oppression and prejudice to create new opportunities which had never been imagined before. American history is the legacy of overlapping identities - a process called syncretism, described in Loewen's book as "blending elements of two different cultures to create something new" (Lies, 102).

Syncretism, in its power to combine different cultures and traditions into a greater and more vibrant whole, represents the finest qualities of America. Autonomy. Individualism. The power to decide for yourself. Democracy is the same process of deciding among new choices and options which syncretism uses to create new cultures -- so is capitalism. American encounters with new ideas, and our resulting new creations, give birth to ever sharper and more inclusive societies and economies. Pluralism is the lifeblood of America.

America's mass society is controversial, and there are many public voices who wish to soften or silence it. Traditionalists, the precursor to today's social conservatives, argued that people in a more diverse and less tightly rooted society are more isolated and alienated. These arguments are the start of the movement which complains that traditional values are declining, and unfairly labels those Americans - perceived as foreign and unpatriotic - as lesser citizens, and less worthy of participating equally in America's democratic and economic life.

The ever changing values of America are a strength of our society, and this change is not only compatible with America's political and economic values - this change is essential to preserving those values. A pluralistic and diverse society provides choices for individuals to accept or embrace, and this act of choice is a radical offering. It is a vast departure from previous political and economic arrangements of human history. In nations without these new encounters, confrontations, and choices - without syncretism and pluralism - capitalism becomes feudalism, and democracy becomes dictatorship. Every element of civic life becomes stagnant, and the rule of the public transforms into the rule of the elites. The ancient hierarchy which our Founding Fathers despised and risked their lives to oppose will be viciously restored once syncretism and pluralism are attacked and diminished.

The fight for democracy is the fight of the individual and the community against the hierarchy of the elites and those who would replace the rule of the many with the rule of the few. The greatest danger to a democracy is not that elites will directly deny the rights of the public - the greatest danger is that elites will indirectly deny the rights of the public in such a gradual fashion that no one will notice what has happened until it is too late to reverse the trend.

Elites indirectly rob the public of their ability to participate in democracy when corporations and the highest members of government erode the rule of law by ignoring what the laws say and acting outside the bounds of the law.

Elites rob the public of their rights when individuals cannot choose new alternatives. When there is inadequate funding for education at all levels, when there is rampant unemployment, when people are afraid to start their own businesses because they can't get health insurance, the energy and vitality of our country atrophies. When people have no other options, they will accept their position in society without question. This passive acceptance is poisonous to American greatness.

The consistent rule of law, the ability for all individuals to have equal opportunity to participate in the economy and in their government, and an acceptance of pluralism are all necessary to sustain a thriving democracy. When these three principles are no longer defended, and become degraded, democracy begins to decay.

However, there is nothing else that I can say which will show you what these principles look like in action, other than to give you the best example I have:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Me Lover's Pizza With Crazy Broad
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

A man of Lithuanian and Latvian descent loves Italian pizza from New York City! What could be a better example of syncretism and pluralism leading to American greatness? What could be more authentically American than this?!

What Are Liberal Values?

What Are Liberal Values?

I am currently taking a class called "History of the Modern Conservative Movement". My professor is an ardent conservative. He usually does not engage directly in political arguments during class, but he occasionally challenges liberal ideas in an indirect and subtle way. He'll offer a conservative attack on a liberal idea, and then say "this is what conservatives tend to think, not necessarily what I think - and you're taking this class to hear the conservative view, so here you go".

My professor addressed the following challenge to liberals during the first month of class, and I have been considering how to answer his questions since then:

"A conservative recognizes the same rights that have been traditionally recognized by thinkers such as John Locke: life, liberty, and property. Also, a conservative believes that these rights are not given by the government - but by an external source. I always want to ask liberals this: what is your vision of the country? Where would you stop if you could have your ultimate wishes? Conservatives know what kind of country they want - with the protection of the same traditional rights which have been the heritage of America since the Founding. But liberals keep trying to create new 'rights'. Where will you stop? You can see that there may be a kind of validity to Hayek's argument that once citizens depend on the government for more and more 'rights', the government can become oppressive."

Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights? This is the wrong question.

What's the right question?

Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?

That's the correct question.

Securing Our Rights

Life. Liberty. Property. That's a celebrated trifecta - a trilogy - a trinity - and it seems simple and convenient enough to understand. If you're an American, you heard about it from Thomas Jefferson, who scribbled something about "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" once upon a time.

Isn't it enough that the government assist individuals in their pursuit of these three things? Why should the government do otherwise? Government is inherently oppressive - the less it does, the better the country.

Point taken - let's start there. Suppose you want to establish a government solely devoted to ensuring the rights of life, liberty, and property. Let's assume that the government should only intervene in cases where the public cannot accomplish a task effectively on its own, and the task relates directly to one of our big three times: life, liberty, or property. For each right, let's assess the capacity of individuals to secure the right on their own, without the intervention of government, and see if it's plausible for a government to take any additional measures to secure those rights.

Life

The right to life is the right to personal security. If society is enmeshed in a condition of anarchy and lawlessness, the right to life may be extremely difficult to secure. Can private citizens secure law and order successfully without the aid of a government? Perhaps - to a limited extent and for a small scale. A voluntary association of citizens could access a certain supply of small arms and protect a smaller area. However, most people lack the resources to defend themselves against more threatening fears, such as a conventional military or terrorist attack.

Another option is to establish a corporation which individuals pay to protect them. However, it would be difficult to distinguish in an emergency who paid dues and who did not. Further, by failing to address a public threat only because someone did not pay for protection, there could be harm to those who did pay. It would be far more practical to establish a police force or a military. I feel that this assertion is non-controversial, and that the majority of conservatives would agree with me on this.

Liberty

Liberty is a difficult concept to understand. It's not a tangible object, like life or property. Alexis de Tocqueville noted this in "Democracy in America", when contrasting public support for liberty and equality: because equality is more tangible and easier to understand, there is a danger that the public will always favor measures which bolster equality at the cost of weakening liberty.

Unfortunately, the problem is even worse than de Tocqueville imagined. The public also is liable to favor measures which bolster security at the cost of weakening liberty. However, this assertion cuts across many political ideologies. I know conservatives and liberals who are wildly opposed across political issues who would make this same argument regarding the dangers of abandoning liberty in the name of security. The funny thing about this phenomenon is that it is completely foreseeable. The culprit here is that there is a wide variety of definitions of liberty.

I told you liberty was a renegade. How many possible human activities can you imagine? That's how many definitions of the word 'liberty' exist today.

Rights as Restraints

This quibble over the meaning of the word 'liberty' leads me to an important point about the understanding of rights: many of the Enlightenment thinkers believed that rights can only be secured when the actions of other people are restrained. My professor for History of the Modern Conservative Movement put it this way: "our Founders believed that with every right comes a certain responsibility".

It's no wonder liberty is preposterously hard to grasp - it's an internally contradictory concept. Every person who uses the word 'liberty' has a hidden assumption of which kinds of behavior citizens should have liberty to choose. Generally, it has been suggested that the proper limit on action should be taken when an action would infringe on another person's life, liberty, or property. Said another way: you can basically have the liberty to do what you want until you take away someone else's liberty.

Let's assume we can decide that the type of liberty we should protect is the kind that does not take away someone else's liberty - that's a simple enough definition. Now let's return to the original premise of our discussion: what should be done to secure liberty (as we have defined it), and who should be in charge of those efforts?

Reconsidering Liberty

To secure liberty as we have defined it (that individuals should have the liberty to do all things which do not remove someone else's rights) - let's try to identify some actions which may or may not violate liberty, and decide on that basis whether they are permissible. To secure liberty, we should want to stop actions which erode it.

Does abortion violate rights? If the fetus is a person, then it has a certain set of rights which should be considered. However, the mother is also a person who has a certain set of rights, too. When does the personhood of the fetus eclipse the right to liberty a woman has over her own body?

Does the death penalty violate rights? If a person has been convicted of murder, that individual has already violated another person's liberty. Should the government violate a person's rights just because he or she did it first-isn't that fighting a wrong with a wrong? Or, should the government remove the liberty of a criminal to protect the liberty of the public?

Does a ban on online gambling violate rights?

Does a ban on marijuana violate rights?

Does a ban on same-sex marriage violate rights?

I hope you are beginning to understand the difficulty of weighing liberty against other rights. It is an extremely serious and delicate matter to consider just how far a government should act to limit the actions of individuals in order to protect the liberty of other citizens. Where is the balance between the greatest freedom of action and the strongest possible security of the rights of others?

I have heard conservatives argue this one way and I have heard liberals argue this another way, but both sides should agree that the question is a matter of balance and difficult to discern.

A Return to Our Premise

I mentioned earlier that there are two questions hanging over this exploration of rights:

1. Why do liberals keep trying to invent new rights?
2. Why aren't conservatives doing more to preserve and secure the rights they cherish?

It may appear that liberals accept a broader number of rights besides the major three enumerated traditionally: life, liberty, and property. However, I reject this view. I believe that liberals have a different perception of what is necessary to preserve and secure life, liberty, and property.

A liberal assumes that each right is dependent on a host of others. A liberal has a more extensive idea of what each of the three traditional natural rights entails.

If a bank forecloses on my home because they offered fraudulent mortgage terms, my right to property is violated.

If a corporation imported goods from China which contained poisonous lead, and I fall ill from ingesting it, my right to life is violated.

If the institution of public education is dismantled, and my ability to participate in civic processes in an engaged manner is therefore lacking, my right to liberty is violated.

A 'right to health care' is a right to life. A 'right to education' is a right to liberty. A 'right to consumer protection' is a right to life and a right to property, depending on the case. This is obvious, intuitive, and self-evident to liberals.

Does it make sense that these things are natural extensions of the rights to life, liberty, and property? Can a coherent notion of the rights to life, liberty, and property exist without guaranteeing those conditions which allow them to flourish?

A liberal doesn't want new rights: a liberal wants to secure the rights we have, and is dismayed when conservatives refuse to act to protect those rights for all Americans.

Embracing Desperation

“Most men lead lives of quiet desperation,” - Thoreau.

Why do people lead lives of desperation? What are we desperate for? What do we want? What are our desires?

I think our desires, I think our desperations, give us a reason to live. I think if you cultivate that desperation, if you manage it and direct it, it will become productive.

I think our society overwhelms us with cheap antidotes to our desperation that are not worth the price. I think we sacrifice too much of our long term potential for short-term gratification.

I think we should acknowledge freely that much of our lives is spent in a state of desperation, but I think this desperation, this longing, can lead us to produce acts of beauty and kindness.

I think this desperation can leads us to be empathetic. It can also lead us to be single-minded and selfish.

We are nearly always desperate: so what are we going to do about it?

I think society refuses to acknowledge our desperation. It doesn’t sell. It’s not glamorous.

It’s been said that the truth will set you free. Perhaps, but more likely: the truth will set you adrift. But is that such a bad thing - isn’t that what freedom means? Isn’t that what freedom is – bearing some responsibility to set your own course?

Our desperation is our reason for being. Our quest for truth is our reason for knowledge: its absence compels us to find it.

When we don’t have something, that’s when we want it. If we never lacked, we would never have the joy of finding anything. Of course, if we never lacked, maybe we would have a different joy. It all depends upon whether we can appreciate what we have and where we are. If we didn’t lack, but could still appreciate our condition somehow, I don’t think we would be worse off.

Yes, we’re so desperate and gullible and afraid. That’s why advertising and propaganda succeed.

Yet it brings us together, and it tears us apart. We’re all desperate and gullible and afraid.

We all lack – we all find. It brings us together.

Quiet desperation is chronically undervalued – it’s used as a slur. It’s used as the symbol of the mid-life crisis. Life is crisis – life is change – life is transience. Why can’t we recognize and accept this?

We should accept nothing less than lives of quiet desperation.

Desperation is the basis for action – I think Thoreau wants us to be active. I don’t think he’s maligning the act of desperation so much as he is saying that it is not all that is necessary – that there is more to it than that.

If all we did was stay in the state of desperation, we will fail. That is what I believe he is trying to say, and I agree with that.

We can’t just experience desperation; we’ve also got to act. But our desperation can serve as our foundation for our actions.

But what kind of foundation are we building? Exactly what do we desire and why?

Most of our lives are not built on a strong foundation. What kind of desperation are we dealing with?

There are many corrosive desperations: fear and paranoia abound.

You can never be sure where you are. Sometimes, you do something with the best of intentions and it turns out horribly wrong.

If we never think about our desperations, and we leave them alone, then everything else that we do will be worse, because our desperations are what lie at the beginning of everything. We must check ourselves and our desperations because they are the foundation of everything we do.

We must ensure that our desperation is used for the benefit of others and not for ourselves alone.