LIBERTY AND CIVIC VIRTUE AS RIVAL IDEALS

To radicalize an idea, ideal or claim about reality is to believe the idea, ideal, or reality claim should always be held to be true or it should always be advanced above all other views or choices. This view or choice is determined to be the most appropriate, irrespective of the particular factors involved in any given situation under which the idea, ideal or reality claim becomes relevant. For example, in a given situation, if I radicalize the ideal of liberty, I would choose the option that promotes liberty no matter what else is going on. In terms of liberty, the most clearly stated expression of a radicalized view was issued by the presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, when he stated, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice!” People also forget that in his very next sentence, he doubled down his extremism by stating, “And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” Of course, one needs to define terms – like what we mean by liberty or justice – but however we define liberty, Goldwater's first sentence in effect chides us to pick, in a relevant situation, the option that advances liberty the most. I believe that much of a given philosophy is about radicalizing an idea, ideal, or some claim of reality. Post structural/post modernism, for example, relies a great deal on the truth that the meaning of symbols is dependent on the context in which they are used. The implications of this insight can be far reaching, but should it be the basis by which we view all social reality? I don't think so and I find the whole approach of radicalizing ideas, ideals, or truth claims to be mostly counterproductive.

I have, in this blog, reviewed the mental construct, natural rights, and have pointed out that that construct holds liberty as a trump value. In its more extreme forms, as in libertarian thought, the ideal, liberty, becomes radicalized. In the extreme, the ideal takes on an antagonistic posture toward other ideals such as civic virtue. This is true, not so much in theoretical terms, but in practical terms. Richard Dagger provides the following definition for liberalism – the more philosophic term for natural rights – which is authored by Lance Banning: “… [A] label most would use for a political philosophy that regards man as possessed of inherent individual rights and the state as existing to protect these rights, deriving its authority from consent … .” ¹ Dagger goes on to describe civic virtue as follows: “Someone exhibits civic virtue when he or she does what a citizen is supposed to do.”² How do these two ideals relate to each other? On the surface, I think it is self evident that these ideals are relevant and important to civics. But how they relate to each other is not so self evident.

In my presentation of these ideals in earlier postings, I have expressed agreement with Dagger in that I don't see the ideals as necessarily antagonistic to each other. They are distinguishable from one another but not, in essence, incompatible. There is a tension, though, between the two when one of them is radicalized. This happens, for example, when liberty is radicalized. If a person acts under a radicalized view of liberty, there will be times, probably often, when practically unrestrained behavior, even if limited by legal restraints, will lead to self determined choices that have no concern for what is supposed to be done. These behaviors will be aimed to advance self interests at the expense of the common good and such acts, by any practical consideration, do not constitute doing what one is supposed to do. To express such a concern, as I am doing here, does not indicate that one is anti liberty or anti civic virtue. The problem is in the radicalization.

Let me review, before I expand on how the two ideals can be at odds, on how the two not only can be compatible, but also how they must be compatible. If for no other reason, a necessary compatibility between the two lies in the reality that no case exists in history – at least in modern history – in which a complete disregard for liberty leads to a citizenry that can be dedicated to the more noble aspiration to do what is supposed to be done. Yes, there have been cases in which inspirational leaders have established regimes in which liberty has been squelched, but the duration of these regimes is limited. To some minimal degree, people will only be concerned with what their behavior should be when each person has a sense of liberty to decide what to do. Total coercion, which is a total lack of liberty, might solicit obedience for a time – in some cases, a long time – but the costs of maintaining the means of coercion will finally become too high and forces, to institute liberty, will find ways to express themselves. The most recent expression of this generalization is the Arab Spring.

Under conditions of coercion, the common good would not only be hard to find, but also hard to define. Under such conditions, civic virtue will be in short supply in everyday intercourse between citizens. As a matter of fact, to our modern eyes, civic virtue will be expressed by actively revolting against such coercion. In short, liberty is a social condition that is part of the common good.

Again, I don't want to leave you with the notion that the natural rights construct or traditional liberalism radicalizes liberty. Only with adopting an extreme version, such as becoming a libertarian, does one approach doing so. Presently, libertarianism has, through the Tea Party, become somewhat popular and is extensively covered on national TV and other media. My concern is that such exposure helps to popularize libertarian ideas, ideals, and reality claims. Further, I worry that all of these mass media treatments, in a perverse way, will encourage secondary students to accept more radicalized versions of natural rights' views. I would hope that even if a civics educator does not accept a more republican view, such as federation theory, to guide his or her choices of course content, that such an educator would become familiar with a more communal approach and use its concerns to formulate appropriate classroom questions. These questions would be designed to make the more extreme nature of what is being espoused by radicals apparent. Whether or not a student accepts and adopts such views is his or her prerogative, but such a choice should be based on reasonable and responsible reflection on the implications such a choice implies.

Teaching about conflicting ideals is not easy. Part of immaturity is a lack of the ability to appreciate subtlety and nuance. In teaching secondary students, a teacher needs to be careful not to present ideas, ideals, and/or claims of reality in such a way as to encourage students to radicalize them. There is a natural tendency not only among teenagers, but also people in general, to radicalize beliefs or values. We easily divide reality into either-or perceptions. Good or bad, goodness or evil, right or wrong, liberty or tyranny are just a few of these “bi-polar” divisions. But reality is seldom so easy, and this can definitely be said of realities relating to issues that make up the subject of civics.

1Daggar, R. (1997). Civic virtue: Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism. New York, NY: Oxford. Quotation on p. 12.

2Ibid., p. 13.