One
can notice when reading the founding fathers – or reading about
them – a central concern these men shared: the selfish and
self-serving aspect of human nature. While they believed in forming
a republican, federalist system of government – one in which the
common welfare of the nation was paramount – they believed that the
resulting system had to account for the destructive power of
selfishness. How? That system needed to cast the interests of
separate segments of people, what one can call factions – against
the interests of other factions. This would be done by two
structural elements in this new republic: a check and balance system
within government (the division of power among the three branches of
government) and by an expanded republic in which a great number of
factions would exist, competing for governmental benefits. In such a
republic, no single faction or combination of factions could dominate
the politics of the nation.
This
whole balancing act reminds me of a biblical passage: “I send you
forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as
serpents” (Matthew 10:16). Or stated more directly, one needs to
be realistic when engaging in politics or any other interaction in
which monetary or other valuable interests are involved. That is
particularly true when dealing with people you don't know to be
honest or do not know very well. As I have stated before, trust
needs to be earned, not dispensed readily when important stakes are
“on the table.”
So
a tension is created when a civics curriculum is put in place that
calls on a moral code in which the interests of the collective are
promoted. The ideal of the code is one in which each of us is called
upon to work for the common good; to act in such a way that the
societal welfare becomes the standard by which actions are deemed to
be good, evil, or somewhere in between. Such things as honesty,
forthrightness, and loyalty are held as central values. And yet one
must, while promoting such values, be observant enough to see and
appreciate the possibility of dealing with those who don't hold these
values and the fact that these people are all around us. We must
deal with those who, by liberated federalist standards, do not live
by a socially based morality. Take for example Robert Greene.1
He suggests the following:
Conceal
your intentions: Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never
revealing the purpose behind your actions. If they have no clue what
you are up to, they cannot prepare a defense. Guide them far enough
down the wrong path, envelop them in enough smoke, and by the time
they realize your intentions, it will be too late.2
Greene
goes on to give the German leader, Otto von Bismark, as an example of
someone who illustrated this suggested duplicity. According to
Greene, this politician used a strategy of deception to gain power.
What Greene does not address is how a general governmental atmosphere
of mendacity weakens institutions – especially the democratic
institutions – and what role such lying had in laying the
foundation for what transpired in Germany during the twentieth
century. Oh, I know; Germany and Bismark is not the only case of
people engaging in deceit. As a matter of fact, we need to be wise
serpents in all places and in dealing with all sorts of people. And
when the prevailing political, mental construct is a natural rights
construct – as it is in the US – the advice is even more prudent.
That is, when a people hold to the notion that each of us is free to
determine what moral standards we choose to live by, then – and our
founding fathers would agree – we need to be on heightened alert.
When it is felt that schools, for example, have no role in promoting
a substantive moral outlook – even if such promotion is done not by
indoctrination, but through instructional strategies in which
students analyze value dilemmas – then the prevalence of
self-serving attitudes should not be surprising. And the occurrence
of deception will probably be more common than is healthy for our
general well-being.
1Greene,
R. (2000). The 48 laws of power.
New York, NY: Penguin Books.
2Ibid.,
p. 16.
No comments:
Post a Comment