CAN NATURAL RIGHTS APPEASE HUMAN NATURE?

Reviewing the literature of natural rights advocates, one finds recurring themes; e.g., capitalism has provided a miraculous economic boom.  That boom, in turn, has advanced the well-being of all who live in a capitalist nation.  Or stated another way, capitalism has found a way for people – either at the individual level or at the group/organizational level – to cooperate and coordinate themselves and others to do those things necessary to first establish and then maintain a modern life.  This is no small accomplishment. 

Also, in those accounts there are recurring descriptions of human nature as conniving, self-centered, and readily relying on violence, brutalization, and other such means to acquire immediate desires.  A prime message is that because human nature is what it is, a way to direct such tendencies needed to be discovered so that the advancements one associates with modern life could have been attained.  And that basically refers to developing free markets.

One such work is offered by Jonah Goldberg in his work describing the formulation of The Miracle – aka, capitalist economies.[1]  He not only provides a description of how human nature exhibited itself before the advent of capitalism, but also issues a warning that capitalism is facing challenges that might lead to its demise. 

What constitutes the danger?  Basically, the still present anti-social nature humans possess finds ways to express itself under various guises; ones that are amenable to a modern perspective but are simply ways for misguided or corrupt individuals to re-establish a more brutish social landscape.  How?  By either direct methods or through programs that undo free market arrangements.

These programs undermine, to various degrees, the ability of the individual to exercise his/her freedom with either straight forward coercion or through government action to meet the wants of some “deserving” faction or interest group.  Whatever the rationale, the bottom line is that such efforts go contrary to the basic interactive – invisible hand – operations upon which free markets function. 

Along with the economic aspects of this development, there are the political ones as well.  Since, the Western nations, through a variety of programs, have betrayed basic attributes of a natural rights political construct, the political liberties/freedoms of people are in high jeopardy and one can expect that an end to “The Miracle” is a real outcome as the abuses to freedoms continue to pile up. 

There are a lot of signs and developments that point to this demise – too many to list here, but one is the rise of the bureaucratic state.  Goldberg pinpoints the beginning of this trend in the US to the Woodrow Wilson progressive administration, but it was later institutionalized during the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt.

But before describing this danger further, this writer likes to point out what to him is an obvious miss use of a term.  Goldberg calls his view of a desired sense of rights as natural rights – what this blog describes as the extreme sense of individual rights.  But Goldberg uses the term after describing the anti-social nature a natural person is apt to exhibit once any coercive force that keeps human nature under control is compromised. 

It reminds one of the scenes, in Gone with the Wind, when the southern soldiers are withdrawn from Atlanta and Rhett Butler knowingly says, in effect, all hell is about to let loose.  Goldberg admits early in his work – the one cited here – that any capitalist society needs to socialize its members to hold and believe in moral precepts that deem extreme selfishness as sinful.  

Yet, natural rights cares little about such things; what is needed is some extra-theoretical basis, such as religion or some belief in a narrative, that provides a reason to place human nature at bay.  So, is the term, natural rights, the best word or sense of what should be sought?  Of course, this blog has offered another perspective concerning rights; i.e., federal rights.

Goldberg does hold that without respecting natural rights, corrupt factors start taking hold.  The forces of nature are constantly eroding what un-natural capitalist norms get people to do.  At its heart, those norms can do that by establishing win-win interactions.  Yet, because segments who really don’t buy in, but instead seek immediate win-lose advantages – such as exploiting tribalistic or aristocratic or bureaucratic arrangements to their advantages – they unleash corruption that begin to undermine individual freedom.

For example, the US bureaucracy, according to Goldberg, has – as the often-cited popular moniker indicates – truly become the fourth branch of government.  It is not elected, but it does, through regulations and judication of regulations, enact laws to which citizens are subject.  They also tax – using the term, fees – without Congressional authorization.  This, on the face of it, is unconstitutional.

Elements of the bureaucracy exist, according to their legislative mandates, to provide for perceived needs of segments of the population.  While the rationales of the various departments or agencies have ultraistic aims, they are made up of staffs that are “naturally” seeking their own selfish interests – apparently healthy salaries and protected job security are not enough to solicit from those workforces the intended outcomes.  One senses that the only answer to this problem is that government cannot provide such services without undermining individual freedom.

Goldberg offers the Veterans Administration as his example.  He relates such an example as just a modern version of an aristocratic-style entity that uses, what has been generally deemed to be a legitimate group, to further their self-serving aims.  The aristocracies of the Middle Ages used religion, modern bureaucracy, in the case of the VA, uses a common sense of debt to those who have served the nation in the armed forces to provide a government service outside the discipline of a market arrangement. 

Such misguided efforts are primed to become corrupting organizations that erode the individualist basis for eliciting desired behaviors upon which modern society is based.  Of course, this posting can only skim the elements of the argument.  Federation theory is at odds with this argument.  And that opposition has many levels.  For one, markets fail to meet all wanted or needed outcomes. 

Federation theory ascribes to markets the role of being the primary means to provide those goods and services by which a federated populace can be established and maintained.  But markets are not always successful, and keeping a federated populace is primary to any economic arrangement.  When markets fail and volunteerism is not enough, then government is called upon to meet those requirements.  One such requirement is viable health care and a thankful nation is wise to provide it to those who served it.

This writer will not pass judgement on the VA – he simply does not know enough about that government program.  But he does believe that generally government services are good, and they hire committed people who do good work.  To bolster that claim of competency, the reader is directed to read Michael Lewis’ work, The Fifth Risk.[2]  This writer will address Lewis’ findings in future postings.

---

[1] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).

[2] Michael Lewis, The Fifth Risk (New York, NY:  W. W. Norton & Company, 2018).

INTRODUCING THE “GRASS ROOT” APPROACH

The next topic this blog will entertain is an approach to political confrontation, the approach of “grass root” politics.  The blog could just as easily use the terms civic or political engagement, but however it is called, this blog views such engagement in a positive light.  As for a main source of authoritative information, future postings will rely on a book by Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t.[1] 

While such behaviors – those associated with political engagement – on the part of typical citizens does not equate to the acts of a political activist, it does mirror to some meaningful level what Tocqueville describes (and was just cited in the previous posting of this blog).  That is a citizenry involved in “a confused clamour [which was, in the 1830s,] … heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand[ing] the immediate satisfaction of their social wants.”[2] 

What a federated citizen does, by definition, is keep up with what is going in terms of government, understand his/her interests in that activity, understand how those activities affect his/her community, region (the state), and the nation, and determine, if necessary, how he/she will engage with those affected.  This should be part of a citizen’s life and accommodated into what else is happening in that life – work, parenting, church going, etc.

What Crutchfield does is convey qualitative research findings – emanating from her team of researchers – on what has been effective in terms of grass roots activities.  She also indicates what has not been effective.  This blog will convey some of those findings that are deemed as possibly useful to civics teachers that have decided their instructional plans should encourage that type activity. 

In doing so, Crutchfield highlights some successful national engagement movements – such as the anti-smoking effort – and some that to this date have not been successful – for example, efforts to regulate fire-arms.  She gives a good picture of what works and what doesn’t.

As what one would expect, the details can become of bit complex and even counterintuitive.  But before getting into some of these factors and narratives which make up these efforts, some overall information is useful.  And that information, provided in the Forward of Crutchfield’s book, is, in the opinion of this writer, highly agreeable with what this blog’s main goal is.

The goal is to convince civics teachers to adopt federation theory in guiding their curricular choices.  So, whatever advances the adoption of federation theory – parent support, curricular officials’ decisions, school administrators’ policies, etc. – is welcomed and that includes any findings that indicate federation theory is practical.  Crutchfield provides that evidence.

          Here, in part, is what that Forward has to say: 

[Crutchfield] shows us how networks and coalitions are critical to success.  No single organization is big enough or wealthy enough to tackle huge social and environmental problems alone.  Strategic partnerships and alliances across sectors are necessary for change.  This requires patience, skill, and ego adjustment … Sometimes – or, rather, oftentimes – it takes incredible optimism to fight these battles.[3]

Bill Novelli, the writer of these words, goes on to share some more overall information.

          He emphasizes that many of the change efforts that captures the attention of the mass media – the efforts the general populous knows about – really have to do with transformative change.  The efforts must change emotional positions on the part of people.  People, for example, had to change their collective and individual feelings about smoking. 

One factor, this writer believes, led to changes in smoking policy was the effectively communicated message that secondhand smoke affected innocent by-standers’ health.  This triggered in many an emotional response.  It related to the sense, “I am being unjustly harmed.”  But more is needed to be triggered in peoples’ feelings than what one single warning shot offers to have the vast response that eventually was evoked in that confrontation.

Another factor, as in the case of smoking, attacking specific types of people, e.g., cigarette executives, is effective.  There are still anti-smoking ads that depicts those executives as puppet characters mocking the health of cigarette victims and their concerns over the detrimental effects of smoking.  In one ad, the executives equate smokers with test rats.  That obviously is meant to arouse emotions and, given their repetitive broadcast, probably are found to be effective.

Further, Crutchfield brings up a factor that is probably not even thought of by many who support what is usually considered left-of-center movements.  That factor is the recruitment of large corporations that might find the effort or movement worth supporting.  Why would they?  Because what is being sought might initiate a new market or a new product line.  If not, it might augment what is otherwise a struggling market or product. 

As with the other above factors, some investigating can first identify such links and, in addition, can be nurtured and exploited.  Large corporations can bring significant resources – money, influence, expertise – that can prove to be the difference in a given political confrontation.

And finally – in terms of this introduction – rethinking leadership and follow-ship might assist a grass root effort.  Many participants, who are considered followers, through a reconceptualization of roles, can be viewed as leaders.

… [E]mphasis on leadership cannot be overstated.  Leaders make the difference in social movements, as in most human endeavors.  But [Crutchfield’s] finding – and our lesson – is that good leaders exist throughout a movement.  You don’t have to be the woman or man at the top to be a leader.  You can lead from the front, the middle, or the back of the parade.[4]

Novelli shares Colin Powell’s point:  many workers or participants in an organization follow those who do not have leadership positions or authority.  And commonly, these leaders provide needed direction and count on their gravitas to solicit the willing compliance of other participants.  There are “leader-less” organizations and “leader-led” organizations, but what is ideal is a “leaderful” organization. 

And by abiding by these factors, an organization can have the energy to not only increase the probability for success but remind all citizens that these efforts will always be a human concern.  Why?  Because the forces of entropy (those corrupt forces) are/will always be with a people – that’s one aspect of life that is natural to the human condition.[5]

---

[1] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t (Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018).

[2] Alexi de Tocqueville, “Political Structure of Democracy,” in Alexis de Tocqueville:  On Democracy, Revolution, and Society, eds. John Stone and Stephen Mennell (Chicago, IL:  Chicago University Press, 1980/1835), 78-101, 78-79.

[3] Bill Novelli, “Forward,”  In Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t (Hoboken, NJ:  John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018), ix (Kindle edition).

[4] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How Change Happens:  Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others Don’t, xi (Kindle edition).

[5] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy (New York, NY:  Crown Forum, 2018).