A lot of political, social, and economic waters have gone
under the metaphorical bridge since John Locke gave us the first concise
argument of liberalism – the liberalism that promotes a moral code based on
natural rights.[1] In that code, liberty is its trump
value. This view has been viewed by
many, including myself, as encouraging, or at least enabling, a level of
individualism that is counterproductive to the long term interests of a
society. Since our society has opted to
adopt this view as its predominant perspective, I have tried to point out how
such a collective decision has deleteriously affected the welfare of our
nation. Of course, not all theorists
agree with this assessment. One such
thinker is Richard C. Sinopoli.[2] What I find as is the case of these defenders
is a good deal of reference to John Locke.
The problem is that he wrote in the late 1600s, and a lot has happened
since then.
Let me contextualize my comments a bit. I agree with some of what Locke had to offer. His analysis of rights was necessary at a
time when the chief enemy of federalist ideals was the lingering class of those
privileged groups who inherited their privilege from the feudal legacy that
still existed, albeit seriously challenged.
By advancing a sense of a social contract, it bolsters the federalist
call for a binding covenant or compact to establish a polity. The “natural” aspect of rights, as Locke
wrote of them, in its way, leads one to assume a form of equality. The binding process relies on free consent, a
central quality of a covenantal or compacted union. As such, individuals who so agree are
consenting to the provisions of the agreement and swear (affirm) to such an allegiance. The theoretical parting of the ways has to do
with what the legalistic boundaries of such arrangements are. Liberalism, legally (if not socially), gives
the individual a license to pursue any course of action he/she chooses short of
offending or prohibiting others from the same options. Under this regime of constitutionalism, one
is free to adopt whatever morality one chooses:
one can follow a strict Calvinistic code, a pragmatic code, or a
licentious code. The only limit,
legally, is that one does not interfere with others’ choices. Laws are, in part, limited to guaranteeing
such ground rules. I write “in part” in
that the view allows laws to maintain security – a good question is: does liberalism promote, tolerate, or ban compulsory
military service? Those laws that
guarantee rights tend to be negative laws; i.e., laws that tell us what we cannot
do legally – such as, steal. They avoid,
almost to total exclusion, positive laws; i.e., laws that tell us what to do –
such as serve in a socially geared program such as the Peace Corps. I write “almost” since we do find a few
exceptions such as insisting people send their children to school if they are
under a certain age. The general
disposition of this view when it comes to laws is: let people do what they want to do.
I have two reactions.
One, Locke was not so “live and let live” in his outlook. I would argue that what I just expressed
above is the product of general liberal ideals being in effect after several
centuries of political, social, and economic history. Locke was highly opinionated about how people
should live their lives and he extended such concerns over the content of
laws. For example, he argued for
“working schools” for the children of the poor so as to strip them of the
idleness which plagued their parents – why else would they be poor?[3] He wrote as a champion of the burgeoning
class of entrepreneurs who were burdened by the privileges of the idle nobility
and of the idle poor. He promoted laws
that would favor business interests and found any inherited advantages as
anathema to the common good. But this
moral disdain has been compromised beyond recognition, at least as it pertained
to legal matters (and I would maintain, many social matters as well). Today, the bias is, as good businesspeople
would be inclined to cater to consumer whims, do your own thing and, by the
way, my product will help you do it. The
forces of consumerism have not been limited to social domains, but have been
extended to legal matters. The one
example I listed above, the mandated requirement of education, is currently
under severe attack and I see charter schools as seriously undermining the whole
ideal of meaningful education for the masses.
Sinopoli offers three incidents or arguments people offer to
undermine liberalism’s concern for the common good. One, people who are socialized to believe in rights
– their view of rights having a mystical quality of being ordained as a natural
condition – tend to adopt a “rights illusion.”
That is, they view rights as the whole of morality as I have argued that
proponents have done, to a great degree, in our contemporary times (since World
War II). Two, people who come to believe
they have a right will pursue it because they have the right at the expense of
others’ welfare. And three, those who
meet with success tend to minimize or completely refute the role the community
(society) has played in their success.
Sinopoli contends that the conditions these arguments reflect are not
essential consequences of liberalism – as a matter of fact, these tendencies
can be found in other systems. But since
they do exist under liberalist regimes, they should be addressed. I will in the future review his treatment of
these arguments, but for now, let me point out that Western nations,
particularly the US, have significant portions of their populations that share
in these tendencies and that their frequency is increasing. I offer the trend in our political discourse
as primary evidence.[4]
[1]
Not a liberalism espoused by progressive
Democrats.
[2] Sinopoli, R. C.
(1992). The foundations of
American citizenship: Liberalism, the constitution,
and civic virtue. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[3]
Kramnick,
I. (1992). John Locke and liberal
constitutionalism. In K. L. Hall (Ed.)
Major problems in American constitutional history, Volume I: The colonial era through reconstruction (pp.
97-114). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath and Company.
[4]
For example, the surge of Trump in the polls and
his popularity among primary Republican voters is, to a great degree,
attributed to the attention the media has afforded this candidate. The media outlets, one can argue, are not
allocating that attention due to Trump’s positions on issues, but due to the
number of readers and viewers his outlandish behavior has attracted. The media is in the business of securing
ratings or selling print. Trump is a
godsend, albeit not, a priori,
anymore apt to secure the common good than any one of the other candidates.
No comments:
Post a Comment