A NATURAL RIGHTS STORY

This blog, through the last series of postings, has described a foundational construct that is offered by Jonah Goldberg.[1]  Assuming this writer has sufficiently provided an accurate account of Goldberg’s view, what message should the reader derive from that construct?  This posting attempts to begin answering this question by offering a restatement of Goldberg’s explanation for why and how not only governments become established, but how and why liberal values came to be accepted.

This posting uses a language that better sets the stage for this blog’s critique of Goldberg’s view – possibly, it can be considered the first stage of that critique.  As for this review, it includes explaining what led to the Miracle.  The Miracle refers to the most pronounce “hockey-stick” upward curve in human history; that being of economic activity that Europeans initiated during the 1700s. 

Current inhabitants of what is generally called the advanced nations benefit from this historical turn in countless ways, but just to mention one, the average life span has increased from 35 years of age to over 70 years of age in the era of the Miracle.  From people this writer knows, a household of public servants (husband and wife), such as public-school teachers, who live normal, modest lives with some industry, can accrue assets of over a million dollars derived from a thirty-year career. 

This might rely on a public pension program and a viable union, but the examples are out there.  One can safely say, such a retirement was not available to any teachers back before the Miracle took hold.  It might not be available to the current crop of teachers since, in general, income distribution has not advanced during the reign of Reagonomics initiated in the 1980s.

Initially, this posting was to begin a critique, and, in a way, it does.  But an overall review of Goldberg’s explanation is felt to be in order.  This posting, in a more narrative form, reviews Goldberg’s account of how and why governments come about.[2]  To begin this overall explanation, this writer focuses on the contextual factors Goldberg establishes to make his argument. 

That, in turn, refers to that writer’s view of what human nature is – where, by the way, most foundational constructs of government and governance begin.  An initial question:  how would humans behave without the effects of civilization?  More specifically, how would they behave without being socialized to the values of a liberalized democracy?

According to Goldberg, without any civilization, humans, roaming in a natural environment, would be almost totally self-centered trying to eke out a way to survive the day.  The individual would be devoid of any sense of private property, especially any objects in the possession of others.  If possible, the first party, if he/she wanted something in the possession of another, would simply take it, if he/she could. 

One can question this basic view of life – many think this isolated, nomadic life is unhuman in that archaeological evidence places humans in social groupings, most often tribes, from the earliest found remnants.  But, for the sake of the argument, accepting this basic framework – one used by John Locke to introduce liberal thinking – one can make an important speculation.  If it existed and prevailed, this state, for obvious reasons, would preclude any social basis for coordination and/or collaboration. 

Therefore, humans would be unable to enjoy any material-based assets – the stuff that makes life easier and even enjoyable.  Such developments call on coordinated efforts which, in turn, depends on sufficient levels of trust and comradery to make any efforts bearable over significant amounts of time.

But Goldberg’s construct provides the possibility for such a development.  He offers an exception to the above description of an egoistic human.  Humans, it turns out, have a natural attraction for others that are seen as themselves.[3]  That is, people naturally are attracted to others that look like them, that are members of their tribe (which presupposes a tribe).  Once this attraction functions, then limited abilities to coordinate and collaborate become possible and takes place.  This allows tribal, social arrangements to take hold and allow for limited advancements. 

A prior posting describes how, in current days, this allure of others who belong to the “us” category provides the motivation for troubled individuals to seek allegiances within the context of say a street gang, the Klan, or the Mafia.  As such, this allure can be quite strong given the social dangers such memberships entail.

Limiting social arrangements to local tribes also results in debilitating consequences.  That is, if one limits oneself to cooperating and collaborating to fellow tribespeople, one can have a very limited autarky (self-sustaining economy), but it will be:

·        Limited to local resources – both physical and social;

·        Exhaustive of local resources; and

·        Lacking in competition which can/does lead to serious inefficiencies.

These factors are not important initially, but as the tribe, the region, or the nation seeks to advance its economy, they can be very important.

This bias for linking with others who are like themselves also allows those in power, on a limited basis, to extend this sense to larger social arrangements and, up to the 1700s, that process had grown to an inclusiveness that corresponds to modern nation-states.  Later in his account, Goldberg describes how those who are ready and willing to take what they want – that is, steal – found the taking more difficult given a more organized victim.  This did not deter such stealing; in fact, an organized tribe with more material assets, became a more alluring target. 

They, the takers, had more to steal, but there was a problem.  If one takes by raiding a tribe what the tribe has, a taker would not revisit the site, since those of the site now have nothing.  But if one can figure out a way to steal but allows the victim to retain some of their possessions and even leave them with ability to produce more, than the robber can continuously steal.  Hence, the motivation to create government that the robbers, through some acceptable rationalization, control and can, on an ongoing basis, continue to steal from the victimized population.

And what better rationalization can be used than one that exploits the tribal bias in which individual humans are wired to feel.  The nation is simply the expression of “us, the people” of a given geographic place.  And, as in the “natural rights of kings” rationalization, God, in his beneficence, has ordained this king/queen to rule.  That royal family, in Goldberg’s take, are, with their necessary party of advisors and supporters, the established robber-class who exploit the rest of the population on an ongoing basis.

Not only does the ruling class have an ongoing victimized population, but certain social qualities are started and advanced.  Yes, economic activity can transcend tribal, regional, or even national borders (depending on the level of advancement).  Institutions emerge and they are those defining trade which naturally leads to advancement in legalisms – between individuals, tribes, regions, and nations. 

Higher levels of economic wealth – and, therefore, higher payoffs for the ruling class – are further produced and increased.  All this is assisted by higher levels of trust and feelings of empathy, benevolence, and even friendship among those within and among populations.  This, in turn, can lead to the development of different ideas and, in the case of Europe, led to liberal supporting developments – such as the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, exploration, the Protestant Reformation, and other developments.

They were instrumental, in the case of Europe, in initiating liberal governance.  But as these progressions took place, humans strayed from their natural biases.  To learn and accept these newer values and perspectives, the individual needed/need to be taught to accept them.  And that process is not natural; it is unnatural and, therefore, a never-ending process is necessary to be administered to each new generation. 

In other words, people need to learn to be accepting – or at least tolerant – of “foreign” customs, aesthetics, and views of reality, be they next door or on the other side of world.  Of course, this has its limits.  And with this language, the next posting will extend this “critique” with an account of a “primitive” people from an unlikely source.  Afterall, Goldberg’s view is based on a view of what natural humans were like.  That account is offered by, of all people, Christopher Columbus.

---

[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] While attempting to be true to Goldberg’s account, this writer, to give the account a more narrative quality, adds some descriptive elements.  Hopefully, this does not offend the points Goldberg makes.

[3] Robert Sapolski provides supportive evidence of this human trait.  See Robert M. Sapolsky, Behave:  The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst (New York, NY:  Penguin Press, 2017).

SOCIALIZING PRODUCTIVE CIVILITY

To this point, this blog has been reviewing the work of Jonah Goldberg.  He has offered a foundational construct – a view of how and why governments exist and why liberalist government emerged and has been maintained since the 1700s.  The following quote summarizes a lot of what he is trying to get his readers to understand:  “When we fail to properly civilize people, human nature rushes in.  Absent a higher alternative, human nature drives us to make sense of the world on its own instinctual terms:  That’s tribalism.”[1]

          Proof?  Look at those urban youths that find themselves in struggling families – both economically and socially – and are attracted to join a street gang.  The sense of belonging these arrangements offer the young person goes a long way toward explaining other attractions, that of the Klan or the Mafia.  These are all forms of tribes. 

Instead, to avoid such membership, the young person needs to be taught to seek that sense of belonging in those groups that further the common interest (the family, the workplace, the school, and possibly the church – assuming the religion involved has a pro-civic theology) to counter this attraction.  Of course, these institutions need to be operating in such a way that they advance this sense of belonging – they need to project a federated relationship among their members.

          Goldberg points out Benjamin Franklin’s observation that those colonists who were abducted by indigenous tribes at a young age and “went native,” would likely refuse to leave the tribal life for the more “European” lifestyle when the opportunity was offered.  Why?  The speculation is that the native life more completely satisfied this human yearning – the interpersonal relationships that characterized the indigenous tribes.  Obviously, humans have an innate need to have the relationships that add meaning to their lives.  Tribal life does that.

          But tribes have limited resources.  And the resources are not only those having to do with environmentally based assets – such as minerals – but human resources in terms of talents, knowledge, dispositions, sensitivities, experiences, motivations, and other assets.  Goldberg understands the lure of the tribe but points out its limitations.  That is why the Miracle – the economic advancement liberal governance has made possible – had to oppose the tribal option.

Liberal democracy, though, through its mechanisms provides one an understanding of these limitations.  It encourages inclusion beyond the tribe.  This writer believes – and this is central to his criticism of Goldberg – that liberalism, on its own, does not provide the substantive narrative countering the alienating sense it ignores in its explanations.  That is, Goldberg might point this out, but the purely liberal construct does not.

While liberal writers, such as Adam Smith, point out the need for community, the theory itself ignores it and provides nothing to establish, maintain, or advance it.  Apparently, scholars have pointed out, for example, how incongruent Smith’s two major works are – they are incongruent on this very notion. 

These scholars refer to Smith’s two major works:  An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations – the work more based on egoistic motivations of humans – and The Theory of Moral Sentiments – the work that points out the need for humans to be sensitive to the needs of all, both rich and poor.  This was called the “Adam Smith Problem.” [2]  Generally, the judgement here is:  natural rights literature ignores the need to express benevolence and emphasizes the egoistic interests of the individual.

What one sees when socialization toward liberal democracy is wanting, people seek the tribal relationships that often exist to address the alienation the individual is likely to feel.  For example, the attraction of gang life demonstrates the emotional bent the young harbor that lead to membership in these ultimately anti-communal groupings.  What Goldberg points out is the naturalness involved when such a move or decision to join a gang takes place.  The young person is merely seeking those intimate relationships.

          He also names the set of emotions that leads to such strivings:  romanticism.  Goldberg describes his use of this term:

The core of romanticism, for Rousseau and those who followed, is the primacy of feelings.  Specifically, the feeling that the world we live in is not right, that it is unsatisfying and devoid of authenticity and meaning (or simply requires too much of us and there must be an easier way).  Secondarily, because our feelings tell us that the world is out of balance, rigged, artificial, unfair, or – most often – oppressive and exploitative, our natural wiring drives us to the belief that someone must be responsible.  The evil string pullers take different forms depending on the flavor of tribalism.  But the most common include:  the Jews, the capitalists, and – these days on the right – the globalists and cultural Marxist.[3]

Romanticism fills in in what liberal democracy tends to ignore.  Democratic capitalism, that construct’s “off-spring,” does not provide meaning beyond the motive to gain profit, yet humans seem to need meaning – a meaning anchored in human relationships.  Without such meaning and left with a view one can basically seek one’s self-defined interests, many, if not most, will seek those interests by means that counter the common good. 

That is, reaction to liberal democracy is reactionary.  Emotional, romantic movements are against liberal democratic rule and rely on sentimental corruptions – as in decay, putrefaction, rot – that strives to return to more natural modes of thinking and feeling.  Romanticism fights against inclusion among the peoples of the earth.  Why?  Because such inclusion is emotionally offensive to humans’ natural bias against those who don’t belong to one’s tribe.

Goldberg writes:

The Miracle ushered in a philosophy that says each person is to be judged and respected on account of their [sic] own merits, not the class or caste of their ancestors.  Identity politics says each group is an immutable category, a permanent tribe.  Worse, it works from the assumption that what benefits one group must come at the expense of another.[4]

In one way or another – some being very imaginative – liberal democracy repudiates this basic view.  There are those, in the academic world, who focus on alleged oppression.  Goldberg cites Howard Zinn’s work, People History of the United States.  It makes the case that US economic policy has been a series of exploitive actions.  This blog has identified this view as the critical theory construct.

          That strain of argument can be classified as extreme leftism.  But there is also extreme rightist arguments; this being in the forms of populism and nationalism.  Both the extreme right or left magnify the incidence of ingratitude for the accomplishments of the Miracle.  Goldberg claims that both are at best based on half truths or pure fiction.  Despite that, these intellectual denizens have become very popular and are dominant in certain circles including academic social studies.

          This writer – a critic of Goldberg – highly recommends his cited work.  He ends his introductory chapter to that work with the analogy of the fable of the golden egg, the Miracle, and with a scene from The Godfather.  Highly entertaining and apropos.  The next posting will pick up on this theme and continue this report of Goldberg’s foundational construct.  That posting will be this writer’s critique.

---

[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), 12 (Kindle edition).

[2] See “Adam Smith (1723-1790),” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n. d., accessed June 10, 2019, https://www.iep.utm.edu/smith/ . 

[3] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide of the West:  How the Rebirth of Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American Democracy, 13 (Kindle edition, emphasis in the original).

[4] Ibid., 16.