What is this "mandate" that America should largely stand for individualism, separatism, localism, autonomy, self-reliance, and so forth? Good values, to be sure. But the opposites are equally essential: Collectivism, union with others, the greater good of the commonweal, mutual interdependency.
Of course, the dialectic between these two poles is the eternal political question. The contrast between the right and the left, individualists and "socialists," conservatives and "progressives," the Tea Party and "liberals."
What troubles me is the presumption that the Tea Party, and conservatives long before them (Ronald Reagan, William Buckley, George Will, etc.) are more in touch with America’s true political soul than are their opponents. Quoting the Constitution, Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers, they incessantly remind us that America was founded on such principles as the protection of strong local (e.g. states’) rights, and individual rights (most of the amendments). We are told that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights emphasize "negative" rights, i.e. things which the government may not do (deprive citizens of their freedoms), rather than affirmative rights, i.e. things which the government must do (e.g. provide every citizen with a minimum level of safety and a minimally adequate standard of living).
True enough. However, what is not true, is that America’s basic political soul is therefore located on the individualistic side of the political spectrum. After all, the country was founded on the principle of union for the greater good of all. Our name is the United States. The Civil War was fought in order to preserve the Union. Our motto is E Pluribus Unum. One of the bases of our political system is that we are our brother’s keeper, and that together we can accomplish far more than if we each go our separate ways.
Some of the current political debate reflects appalling ignorance. For example, the other day Chris Matthews was interviewing libertarian Ron Paul, asking him whether or not he agreed that the government has a responsibility to provide retirees with a minimum standard of living (through Social Security), or all citizens with health insurance. In sum, should there be a social compact?
To me, such a conversation is idiotic. It re-invents the wheel. These things were settled long ago. Has no one heard of John Locke or Thomas Hobbes? What about the Federalist Papers and Alexander Hamilton? The conversation has been taking place for centuries. While everything in life is a matter of degree, even so-called Jeffersonians agree that civilized society is only possible through the social contract. The question is not whether we should give up some of our individual rights and resources (e.g. submit to income taxes) in exchange for a better life for all, but how much.
The fact that America has been the most successful society in all of history is due, precisely, to the fact that it was able to unite a larger group with greater collective resources than any previous society. Is this what the Tea Party wishes to dismantle? leave comment here