DO NO EVIL
These excerpts are from a recent online interview by Stefan Molyneux of the fired Google employee James Damore explaining himself:
“Generally, I just really like understanding things,” he said about his reasons for compiling his argument. “And recently, through interactions with people, I have noticed how different political ideologies divide us in many ways. I wanted to understand what was behind all that.”
He described his crystallizing moment as: “I could see that all of us are really blind to the other side, so in these environments where everyone is in these echo chambers just talking to themselves, they are totally blind to so many things.We really need both sides to be talk to each other about these things and trying to understand each other.”
He critiques both the left and right for not working together: “The easiest way of understanding the left is: It is very open, it is looking for changes. While the right is more closed, and wants more stability. There are definitely advantages to both of those. Sometimes there are things that need to change, but you actually need a vision for what you want. There is value in tradition, but not all traditions should be how they are.”
“We create biases for ourselves. This is particularly interesting, when we talk about how it relates to reality,” he said.
“Both sides are biased in a way, they have motivated reasoning to see what they want out of a lot of things,” he continued.
“This happens a lot in social science, where it is 95% leaning to the left. And so they only study what they want, and they only see the types of things that they want, and they really aren’t as critical of their own research as much as they should. The popular conception is that the right doesn’t understand science at all, that the right is anti-science. It is true that they often deny evolution and climate science, climate change, but the left also has its own things that it denies. Biological differences between people — in this case, sex differences,” he explained.
He described the experience of diversity training at Google, which inspired him to write: “I heard things I definitely disagreed with in some of the programs. I had some discussions with people there, but there was a lot of just shaming. ‘No you can’t say that, that’s sexist, you can’t do this.’ There is so much hypocrisy in a lot things they are saying. I decided to just create the document just to clarify my thoughts.“
I have often recommended Jon Haidt’s research presented in his book, The Righteous Mind. It’s worth a read because much of what is happening in social and political discourse these days reflects a psychological pathology that should be completely unnecessary. But getting out of our own way in politics is a difficult challenge.
I find nothing particularly mendacious about Mr. Damore’s document or his intentions to clarify what is basically an empirical puzzle concerning gender differences. Of course, this was all blown way out of proportion because it challenges some unscientific political agenda.
As a scientist, I assume that all empirical phenomena should be open to skepticism and challenges. I’m not sure how we progress intellectually any other way. The attack on Mr. Damore is an attack on science and for me can only reveal an indefensible political agenda. This is sad, if not dangerous, to say the least.
My own approach in this blog has been to suggest analytical frameworks to help understand how human behavior aggregates up into social behavior that defines our civilization; past, present and future (see Common Cent$). The universe is constantly changing, and survival depends on successful adaptation. Unsuccessful adaptation leads to extinction. Thus, the problem for all species is how to successfully adapt.
It seems to me our knowledge-base in the biological and social sciences, and in the arts and humanities can help us humans out here and I can’t understand why anyone who wants to survive would ignore or discount anything we can learn from that wealth of knowledge. Yet, some would choose to ignore anything that might challenge their world-view, even when they know it is false. G–gle seems to have succumbed to that pressure. That’s a shame, but not a path any of us have to accept.
What’s G–gle’s motto again?
If there’s one thing I’ve learned this election season, it is the increasing degeneration of political discourse in our society. Probably everyone in America these past few months has experienced this phenomenon, and either jumped into the mudpit or turned away in disgust. Unfortunately, there is nowhere to turn.
Democracy, as an institution of social choice and self-governance through voting, relies on compromise to resolve divergent interests. This compromise, or middle ground, is often depicted as serving the interests of the “median voter” in election models. Our electoral system seeks to reward candidates or parties who can appeal to this median “center.” The idea of the centrist is one who moves away from the extremes to find common ground. The problem is that we have obliterated the center in our national politics.
How did this happen?
Some have blamed the two-party system that has divided us into red vs. blue and subsequently conquered us as we squabble over ideological trivia. Others have decried our lack of choice between the parties of Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, sometimes using the catch-all term the Republicrats for the political class. Still others blame the systemic bias of the media in their desperate bid to remain politically and economically relevant in the digital world.
All of these factors have contributed to our political degeneration. However, I would say the problem is less about only having two parties than about how the parties abuse the system to divide us. I’ve written repeatedly about how the parties and the media benefit from our dysfunction and promote it every chance they get. It is true of Obama, as it is true of Congressional leaders of both parties. It is true of the mainstream media as it is of FOX News and Talk Radio. If we’re looking for relief, it won’t come from these sources.
It will come from us, and there’s the rub.
My own experience as a political commentator illustrates my point. A few weeks ago I wrote that I will vote Neither…Nor in this presidential election for reasons explained here.
Immediately I was accosted by partisans of both sides claiming I was really favoring the opposing candidate. So Democrat liberals accused me of essentially supporting Trump and Trump Republicans of putting Clinton into office. Obviously both can’t be true, but that seems beside the point.
What’s going on here is the desire to paint the issue in black and white and castigate one for joining the wrong side. Identity politics, the growing cancer on democracy, almost forces this dynamic. The tactic is truly the last resort of dirty, rotten scoundrels, but let me explain. What I’m referring to is a typical debating tactic of winning the debate by delegitimizing your opponent (not the argument, but the person). This tactic can take several different forms.
The most extreme way is to simply condemn your opponent’s moral character: a racist, a bigot, a crook. A related way is to impugn your opponent’s motivations: greedy, power monger, predator. Next up is to question one’s intelligence: ignorant, uneducated, low IQ. A more subtle, less aggressive method is to accuse one of being a willing victim of misinformation and propaganda. Sometimes this can be accurate in this corrupted media world, but it’s often used as a blanket dismissal of opinions, views, or facts one disagrees with: I see, you listen to FOX News or read the New York Times.
So, I call this the last redoubt of a scoundrel because it is a feint away from the issue that must be resolved or compromised, and the scoundrel merely realizes that the just compromise with the stronger rationale is not the one they favor. Hence the desire to intimidate and throw one’s opponent on the defensive in order to win an argument. It tosses democratic compromise into the lion’s pit of do or die.
I’ve written here how this silly finite game of winning an election is overwhelming the more important infinite game of democracy founded on the principles of liberty and justice. Scoundrels do damage to justice and to liberty. Yet too many of us have succumbed to the emotional appeal of winning at all costs. Unless we stop this and start to legitimize our fellow citizens’ preferences (we’re really not debate opponents), our discourse will continue to degenerate and lead to ever increasing dysfunction with disastrous results.
The politicians won’t do this for us. Heaven help us on November 9, because this election is merely the canary in the coal mine.
I watched an interesting debate aired by PBS over political polarization in American politics. The debate actually focused solely on the partisan/ideological divide as it pitted “right against left” in its panels and choice of participants. You can view the debate here.
I found some truths and falsehoods presented on this issue. First, I would agree with George Will that partisan opposition is fundamental to the design of the US electoral and governing system. We have two parties so that issues can be reduced to simple dichotomous choices where the choice that prevails can be said to represent a majority of the nation’s citizens and thereby claim a mandate, whether that be weak or strong. Polarization today is evenly matched in a 50-50 nation, which makes elections highly contentious and volatile. It also makes it hard to claim a mandate, and rightly so.
The left-liberal argument seems to be that electoral polarization causes government dysfunction, but this is exactly the purpose: to challenge one side’s view of “good” government by forcing majorities and supermajorities in elections and governance. One discussant claimed that gridlock did not express the “will of the people” because of large scale disenfranchisement of minority groups. Whether disenfranchisement is salient or not, this is not what the data show to be driving polarization. In fact, if one controls for race, for instance measuring only white people, we find the same polarization patterns exist.
Matt Kibbe argues that the system is experiencing upheaval due to information technology that opens the political process in many ways that challenge the old guard. In other words, the political and media elites no longer control the show and are understandably upset with their loss of hegemony. This paints our political dysfunction as an insider-outsider, populist-elite conflict that has tilted toward the outsiders. I’m not sure it has, beyond informing the outsiders just how outside the process they are. The apparent result has been widespread dissatisfaction with the governing status quo, but that doesn’t drive polarization as much as blame-gaming.
But the debate focused on the narrow ideological differences between left and right, whereas most of the polity does not adopt pure ideological or partisan identities. The fastest growing group of voters identify as independent and non-affiliated. So, we are still left with the question of what is driving polarization and we need to answer that question before we have a chance of understanding it. One problem is that the proffered answers usually support one’s political agenda rather than truth.
One need only to look at the correct maps of election results to understand that polarization exists and it is largely a geographic phenomenon. The Red State-Blue State narrative is not quite accurate as the real divide is obviously urban-rural, as illustrated by county election maps. This is confirmed with robust statistical results from recent presidential elections. As one moves from the urban core to the rural periphery, the share of the vote by county moves monotonically from Democrat to Republican. This fact has given rise to those bizarre and amusing subcultural characteristics of opposing voting groups: Republicans own guns, go to church, drive pick-up trucks, and listen to country western, while Democrats drink lattes at Starbucks, drive hybrids, and listen to rap and hip hop. There’s some truth to these stereotypes that feed our amusement, but these lifestyle choices do not drive political preferences, they coincide with political preferences. There’s a big difference, because when identity drives politics, there is little room for compromise.
This coincidence has become salient because both parties have tailored their party platforms to appeal to rural or urban voters. In other words, the parties have created political identities, not voters. We can observe the reality in the suburbs, where cultural caricatures are harder to apply. The true divisions in American politics these days are pretty much the same as those divisions that have existed over the past two hundred plus years: rural regions have different policy preferences than urban, metropolitan regions. The data show that these preferences also correlate with household and family formation, specifically marriage vs. singles and single heads of household. Population density of the county along with the share of married and female heads of households explains roughly two-thirds of party voting preferences in elections today. These differences in preferences have existed in societies throughout history and across countries, so they don’t present any different challenge to our democracy today. The real problem lies in the final third of the explanation for polarization, which is ideology or political philosophy.
Unfortunately, this conflict is usually misrepresented by self-interested parties. So the real challenge we face are the myths promoted by those elites who study and propagandize politics. This would include both parties, the political class, and most of the mainstream media elites. It would also include self-interested parties that exert great influence over the funding of politics, such as major corporations, the banking system, and public unions. This PBS debate exposes the tendency of experts to perpetuate these myths for reasons best known to them.
Mr. Will is correct that the driving force of the polarization we speak of today is ideology over the proper role of government in democratic society. I would have to say that the burden of proof on this rests with the pro-government advocates on the left, as the status quo ante for the US has been limited government that is constitutionally proscribed. The burden of small government proponents has been to meet the demands of democratic society without shifting the sphere of private life to the public sector. One cannot merely say such demands are illegitimate because legitimacy is a function of what a democratic polity demands within the constraints of constitutionalism. If voters demand economic security, the task is to help meet that demand in the most efficient and just manner possible, which usually doesn’t mean creating another universal entitlement program. An old Chinese proverb illustrates this perfectly: better to teach a hungry man to fish than give him a fish to eat.
Eric Liu seems to understand this, though he also appears too willing to fall back on the default of government-driven solutions by expanding public goods. Instead of really addressing the issue Mr. Will presents, the opposing discussants resort to claiming the question of bigger or smaller government is a false dichotomy. Intellectually, perhaps, but practically it seems to be the simple dichotomy that our political system was designed to distill and resolve. The petty and personal nature of our political conflict is merely a manifestation of this inability to reconcile these opposing positions. Personally, I am convinced it can be done, but it starts with understanding the true nature of our politics that puts to the test many of the belief systems we hold so dear.
Who said there’s no such thing as a FREE lunch?
FREE eBook download for *Two Days* only. This weekend, April 12&13, download a FREE copy of In God We Trust: A Novel of American Politics from Amazon.com (a $10 value):
Okay, so it won’t feed your belly, but maybe it’ll satisfy your soul…
Click here or the book cover to go to Amazon…
A chronicle of our times based on real events, In God We Trust is a story of political intrigue, religious and Freemason conspiracies, and the corruption of money. It’s the story of Dante Jefferson Washington, a young, black, religious conservative and Deputy Chief of Staff to South Carolina Senator Winston J. Sinclair. Dante’s ambitions for public service soon become entangled in the unholy alliance of money, politics, and religion that define our national political dysfunction. His journey echoes that of his Italian namesake in The Divine Comedy.
Dante pursues his Beatrice in a former college classmate, a beautiful immigrant medical student caught between her British Christian and Pakistani Muslim heritage. Their lives and those of their two closest friends are torn apart by the disaster of 9/11 and the war that follows.
The author is a prize-winning political scientist and economist. The political narrative is informed by recent research into national partisan polarization that challenges and dispels some of the popular myths and ideological stereotypes promoted by both party extremes.
What is this book about?
On the plot level it’s about our current political dysfunction seen through the eyes of a “coming-of-age, loss of innocence” protagonist. It is also a mystery of conspiracies of Freemasons, religious orders, and backroom politics. On a timeless, philosophical level it’s about whether the social order should be derived from the laws of a higher power or from the laws established by man’s reason. Even if one rejects the idea of a higher power, the religions of the Book then reflect the wisdom of the ages, so the question is to what extent man’s enlightenment improves or supplants that wisdom of the ages. The answer is unclear and worth contemplating…
Today through Saturday (Nov. 26-30) the first book (Millennium) of my new novel on American politics, In God We Trust, is available as a ***FREE*** Kindle download. [Click on cover to go to Amazon page.]
The full book is also available in print and eBook for Kindle, iPad, Nook, and Android devices.
A chronicle of our times, In God We Trust is the story of Dante Jefferson Washington, a young, black, religious conservative seeking to make his mark on the Washington D.C. political stage. As Deputy Chief of Staff to South Carolina Senator Winston J. Sinclair, his lofty ambitions for public service soon become entangled in the web of partisan tribal conflict, religion, backroom conspiracies, and money that defines our national political dysfunction.
A social misfit because of his race and political ideals, Dante pursues his soul mate in a former college classmate, a beautiful immigrant medical student caught between her British Christian and Pakistani Muslim heritage. Their lives and those of their two closest friends are torn apart by the disaster of 9/11 and the war that follows.
What is this book about?
On the story/plot level it’s about our current political dysfunction seen through the eyes of a young “coming-of-age, loss of innocence” protagonist. It is also a mystery of conspiracies of Freemasons, religious orders, and backroom politics. At a timeless, philosophical level it’s about whether the foundation of social order should be derived from the laws of a higher power or from the laws established by man using reason. Even if one rejects the idea of a higher power, the religions of the Book then reflect the wisdom of the ages, so the question is to what extent man’s enlightenment improves or supplants that wisdom of the ages. The answer is unclear and worth contemplating…
I’m reprinting this here because in the ten years I’ve been studying and researching this political dysfunction, it only gets worse. And I rarely read or hear any rational analysis – only one-sided arguments. The media has really misguided America because they write narratives and don’t study hard data.
Red-faced or Blue-blooded: Exploding the Myths of American Party Politics
In recent years American politics has become highly polarized, making democratic governance less amenable to compromise and more gridlocked. After a generation of conflict and heightened partisanship during the Obama presidency, as we careen from budget battles to periodic government shutdowns, we seem no closer to bridging the gap. One reason for this impasse stems from a misunderstanding of our politics driven by a popular media narrative that perpetuates cultural stereotypes, political myths, and partisan hyperbole.
The narrative appears to have emerged during the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, when the media colored the states red and blue in their visual props in order to better represent the Electoral College races. This was actually instructive because there was an obvious clustering of red states and blue states: blue in the Northeast, along the coasts and the Great Lakes regions; red in the south and throughout most of the Midwest. The media explanations for such clustering focused on exit poll survey data that was based on voter identities and preferences, including race, ethnicity, gender, age, church attendance, etc. And therein lies the problem: analysis based on identity is going to come up with identity-based answers, yet the very fact that the pattern is geographic (red and blue states) means that a spatial factor has to be at work.
Urban vs. Rural
Of course, media pundits had a ready answer for the geographic state pattern: red states in the South represented a racial bias while those in the Midwest demonstrated a fundamentalist Christian bias. Thenceforth, the narrative of party polarization in American politics settled on the cultural and personal attributes of voters, claiming that party affiliations and voting patterns were being driven by race, gender, ethnicity, religious belief, and lifestyle preferences, such as the type of car one drove or the music one listened to. Closer inspection of the hard data, however, exposes the fallacy of this narrative.
If one looks at a more accurate map that breaks down voting patterns into smaller units, of counties or Congressional districts, a more nuanced geographic pattern reveals itself. Blue voters are shown to be concentrated in urban areas, while red voters dominate rural areas. The suburbs represent the swing voters or the purplish middle ground, with inner suburbs voting more blue and outer exurbs more red.
The advantage of county voting data is that we can compare it with county census data on race, ethnicity, age, gender, income, household formation, population, etc. Comparative statistical analysis then shows which of these factors most accurately explains voting patterns. What we find is that the most significant factors are the population density of the community and the number of married households vs. female heads of household. All other factors turn out to be relatively insignificant, including, surprisingly, race.
One might ask, “How can that be? We know that there’s a racial divide where blacks predominantly vote Democratic and whites vote Republican.” (Actually, that’s only half true; whites are much more evenly split.) Certainly race had an impact on the 2008 election, but the novelty of voting for the first non-white president was less of a motivating factor in 2012. Exit polls do show that black voters vote Democratic by overwhelming margins, but the fact that they live in urban areas and have a high correlation with Female Heads of Household (.8 in the 2000 census) means that these two other factors trump their racial identity.
If we take black voters out of the analysis completely, and thus remove any racial bias, we find the same results are even stronger among the non-black population: urbanites mostly vote blue, rural residents mostly red, while suburbanites are mixed. Married households lean red and single households lean blue.
There is a self-selection process that reinforces these results because single voters tend to live in large cities and married couples choose to move out of the city into suburban and rural communities in order to raise families. These two factors—population density and family formation—help explain the majority of these red-blue voting patterns. (We’ll address a third factor when we get to ideology and religion.)
Rural–urban splits in American politics are nothing new and are driven by a natural divergence of economic interests. The first regional party divide was between Hamiltonian Federalists (cities in the North and East) and Jeffersonian Democrats (farming interests across the South and near West). The next battle, over the Second National Bank of the U.S, pitted Jacksonian Democrats against the Whigs. Then, of course, we had the Civil War between North and South over slavery and tariffs. This was followed by another split over banking as McKinley Republicans fought against the Bryan Democrats over gold and silver-backed money. (The 1896 Electoral College map looks almost identical to that of 2004, but with reversed colors: the South and Midwest favored the Democrats, while the Northeast and coasts went Republican.)
Parties and Media
This begs the next question: “Why do certain regions now vote Democrat or Republican so consistently instead of mixing their ideological preferences?” The fixed pattern is an outgrowth of the two party platforms that were set in the 1950s and 60s, when Democrats began to appeal to urban voters with Great Society social programs and identity-group politics, while Republicans targeted rural and suburban voters with lower taxes and family-oriented policies. Consider the fact that the South was once solidly Democrat and is now solidly Republican. The agrarian South has been consistently traditional and conservative; it’s the parties that have flipped, not the voters. The parties have organized their platforms and campaigns to appeal to constituencies based on geography. And by pursuing these electoral strategies, the parties have become ideologically more pure, reinforcing the natural policy divide.
Recent Red-Blue patterns have become hardened for two additional reasons that stem from party and media incentives. First, both parties benefit from a polarization myth based on identity. Why? Because if voters identify strongly as either Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, their votes are virtually guaranteed and party candidates don’t need to spend campaign funds trying to win them over. This is why presidential candidates don’t bother to campaign in solidly red or blue states, but focus all their energies on swing states. (More pernicious is the fact that national Democrat candidates can pay lip service to the minority vote and suffer no real consequence, while Republicans have chosen to essentially write off minority voters.)
The second reason that Red-Blue patterns have come to be reinforced lies with the media. Mainstream media is centered in metropolitan areas and must appeal to these audiences or go out of business. Their reporters live in the same urban communities where they work, so their worldview is largely colored according to urban interests. These facts do not necessarily imply a deliberate political bias, but since mainstream media’s audiences have been heavily politicized (liberals read the big city papers and watch the three major urban networks), its coverage of politics has tended to exhibit a strong leftward, or urban, bias. As a consequence, alternative media has expanded to meet the preferences of non-urban audiences with a rightward bias. These media biases reinforce polarization in a vicious feedback cycle as people only tune in to the news that confirms their political views. For these two reasons—party and media incentives—we can’t expect that political polarization will be reduced by either of these institutions.
We need to understand that voting patterns are correlated with lifestyles because geography is also associated with lifestyle choices. But lifestyle choices do not determine political identities. This is an important insight that many of our national politicians consistently misread. We saw it when Barack Obama claimed that small town folks “cling to guns or religion” because they are “bitter” about their economic “frustrations.” On the Republican side, we witnessed a similar gaffe when Mitt Romney claimed that the 47% of Americans who “don’t pay income taxes…[and] were dependent on government” would always vote for the party promising them more benefits paid for by taxes on someone else. Both of these statements are gross caricatures of our political culture.
Religion and Ideology
This brings us to the last issue that colors our political divide: the thorny question of religious faith and practice. The proxy for religious faith, which is difficult to measure, is frequency of church attendance. Residents of red states go to church more frequently than residents of blue states. Thus, churchgoers are generally thought to represent the ideological Religious Right that votes Republican. This view concludes that religious faith is politically opposed to secularism.
This is not quite accurate, however, and contributes to yet another misreading of our politics and religion. Churches provide different functions within rural and urban communities. In rural areas the church is a communal meeting place where people gather for social purposes as well as to observe their faith. In an urban secular environment, this social need is more likely to be met by reading the Sunday paper at Starbucks.
What frequent church attendance does do is create an organizational structure for political messaging, wherein large numbers of voters can be reached efficiently and effectively. In this sense, churches have played the same role for the Right as industrial unions have played for the Left. Republican political strategists have taken full advantage of the growing evangelical movement as Democrats have suffered the decline of unionization. It is a mistake for the secular Left to confound religious attendance with conservative orthodoxy and attack political opponents for their faith instead of their politics. Religious belief is highly pluralistic in America, meaning there are many faiths and denominations that disagree on almost all aspects of religious doctrine and political preference. Attacking people of religious faith merely unites them in defense of that faith, even when they may not agree on much else.
The most salient split for our politics lies in the ideological differences between orthodox and unorthodox belief. This applies not only to religious belief, but to the secular world as well. Another way to put this is that in our society we have secular fundamentalism as well as religious fundamentalism, and they both influence our ideological preferences. Fundamentalism is defined as strict adherence to orthodox doctrines. We might categorize fundamentalists politically as one-issue voters. So, on the Right, we have cultural conservatives, evangelicals, pro-life, creationist, pro-family groups, while on the Left, we have environmentalists, liberation theologians, pro-choice feminists, and same-sex marriage advocates. Moderates of all stripes are those who occupy the middle ground of our politics. Politically, the focus on ideology becomes too complex to really draw any hard conclusions. For instance, where are the conservationists? Do they side with environmentalists or with traditional naturalists? And where are the libertarians?
The ideological divide has often been characterized as a split between traditionalists and modernists, but I don’t think such a classification fits American politics very well. Instead, I would suggest a different label to describe the majority of Americans who are neither conservative, liberal, nor radical.; They are “tolerant traditionalists,” rooted in the past but willing to embrace change at their own pace. They are bound by faith but amenable to reason. They are not really polarized on the big issues, but they do have different political and policy preferences based on geography, family formation, and ideology. These differences need to be negotiated through democratic politics with the goal of reaching acceptable compromises and creating a more coherent political society—much more cohesive and functional than we have witnessed in recent years.
The real picture: Between 2000 and 2012 not much has changed, only gotten worse…
2004 Election by Congressional District
Maps are by Robert J. Vanderbei and can be found here.
Great address delivered by Lady Thatcher at Hillsdale College in 1994. We ignore such historical wisdoms these days.
The Moral Foundations of the American Founding
History has taught us that freedom cannot long survive unless it is based on moral foundations. The American founding bears ample witness to this fact. America has become the most powerful nation in history, yet she uses her power not for territorial expansion but to perpetuate freedom and justice throughout the world.
For over two centuries, Americans have held fast to their belief in freedom for all men—a belief that springs from their spiritual heritage. John Adams, second president of the United States, wrote in 1789, “Our Constitution was designed only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.” That was an astonishing thing to say, but it was true.
What kind of people built America and thus prompted Adams to make such a statement? Sadly, too many people, especially young people, have a hard time answering that question. They know little of their own history (This is also true in Great Britain.) But America’s is a very distinguished history, nonetheless, and it has important lessons to teach us regarding the necessity of moral foundations.
John Winthrop, who led the Great Migration to America in the early 17th century and who helped found the Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared, “We shall be as a City upon a Hill.” On the voyage to the New World, he told the members of his company that they must rise to their responsibilities and learn to live as God intended men should live: in charity, love, and cooperation with one another. Most of the early founders affirmed the colonists were infused with the same spirit, and they tried to live in accord with a Biblical ethic. They felt they weren’t able to do so in Great Britain or elsewhere in Europe. Some of them were Protestant, and some were Catholic; it didn’t matter. What mattered was that they did not feel they had the liberty to worship freely and, therefore, to live freely, at home. With enormous courage, the first American colonists set out on a perilous journey to an unknown land—without government subsidies and not in order to amass fortunes but to fulfill their faith.
Christianity is based on the belief in a single God as evolved from Judaism. Most important of all, the faith of America’s founders affirmed the sanctity of each individual. Every human life—man or woman, child or adult, commoner or aristocrat, rich or poor—was equal in the eyes of the Lord. It also affirmed the responsibility of each individual.
This was not a faith that allowed people to do whatever they wished, regardless of the consequences. The Ten Commandments, the injunction of Moses (“Look after your neighbor as yourself”), the Sermon on the Mount, and the Golden Rule made Americans feel precious—and also accountable—for the way in which they used their God-given talents. Thus they shared a deep sense of obligation to one another. And, as the years passed, they not only formed strong communities but devised laws that would protect individual freedom—laws that would eventually be enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Freedom with Responsibility
Great Britain, which shares much of her history in common with America, has also derived strength from its moral foundations, especially since the 18th century when freedom gradually began to spread throughout her society. Many people were greatly influenced by the sermons of John Wesley (1703-1791), who took the Biblical ethic to the people in a way which the institutional church itself had not done previously.
But we in the West must also recognize our debt to other cultures. In the pre-Christian era, for example, the ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle had much to contribute to our understanding of such concepts as truth, goodness, and virtue. They knew full well that responsibility was the price of freedom. Yet it is doubtful whether truth, goodness, and virtue founded on reason alone would have endured in the same way as they did in the West, where they were based upon a Biblical ethic.
Sir Edward Gibbon (1737-1794), author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, wrote tellingly of the collapse of Athens, which was the birthplace of democracy. He judged that, in the end, more than they wanted freedom, the Athenians wanted security. Yet they lost everything—security, comfort, and freedom. This was because they wanted not to give to society, but for society to give to them. The freedom they were seeking was freedom from responsibility. It is no wonder, then, that they ceased to be free. In the modern world, we should recall the Athenians’ dire fate whenever we confront demands for increased state paternalism.
To cite a more recent lesson in the importance of moral foundations, we should listen to Czech President Vaclav Havel, who suffered grievously for speaking up for freedom when his nation was still under the thumb of communism. He has observed, “In everyone there is some longing for humanity’s rightful dignity, for moral integrity, and for a sense that transcends the world of existence.” His words suggest that in spite of all the dread terrors of communism, it could not crush the religious fervor of the peoples of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
So long as freedom, that is, freedom with responsibility, is grounded in morality and religion, it will last far longer than the kind that is grounded only in abstract, philosophical notions. Of course, many foes of morality and religion have attempted to argue that new scientific discoveries make belief in God obsolete, but what they actually demonstrate is the remarkable and unique nature of man and the universe. It is hard not to believe that these gifts were given by a divine Creator, who alone can unlock the secrets of existence.
Societies Without Moral Foundations
The most important problems we have to tackle today are problems, ultimately, having to do with the moral foundations of society. There are people who eagerly accept their own freedom but do not respect the freedom of others—they, like the Athenians, want freedom from responsibility. But if they accept freedom for themselves, they must respect the freedom of others. If they expect to go about their business unhindered and to be protected from violence, they must not hinder the business of or do violence to others.
They would do well to look at what has happened in societies without moral foundations. Accepting no laws but the laws of force, these societies have been ruled by totalitarian ideologies like Nazism, fascism, and communism, which do not spring from the general populace, but are imposed on it by intellectual elites.
It was two members of such an elite, Marx and Lenin, who conceived of “dialectical materialism,” the basic doctrine of communism. It robs people of all freedom—from freedom of worship to freedom of ownership. Marx and Lenin desired to substitute their will not only for all individual will but for God’s will. They wanted to plan everything; in short, they wanted to become gods. Theirs was a breathtakingly arrogant creed, and it denied above all else the sanctity of human life.
The 19th century French economist and philosopher Frederic Bastiat once warned against this creed. He questioned those who, “though they are made of the same human clay as the rest of us, think they can take away all our freedoms and exercise them on our behalf.” He would have been appalled but not surprised that the communists of the 20th century took away the freedom of millions of individuals, starting with the freedom to worship. The communists viewed religion as “the opiate of the people.” They seized Bibles as well as all other private property at gun point and murdered at least 10 million souls in the process.
Thus 20th century Russia entered into the greatest experiment in government and atheism the world had ever seen, just as America several centuries earlier had entered into the world’s greatest experiment in freedom and faith.
Communism denied all that the Judeo-Christian tradition taught about individual worth, human dignity, and moral responsibility. It was not surprising that it collapsed after a relatively brief existence. It could not survive more than a few generations because it denied human nature, which is fundamentally moral and spiritual. (It is true that no one predicted the collapse would come so quickly and so easily. In retrospect, we know that this was due in large measure to the firmness of President Ronald Reagan who said, in effect, to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, “Do not try to beat us militarily, and do not think that you can extend your creed to the rest of the world by force.”)
The West began to fight the moral battle against communism in earnest in the 1980s, and it was our resolve—combined with the spiritual strength of the people suffering under the system who finally said, “Enough!”—that helped restore freedom in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union—the freedom to worship, speak, associate, vote, establish political parties, start businesses, own property, and much more. If communism had been a creed with moral foundations, it might have survived, but it was not, and it simply could not sustain itself in a world that had such shining examples of freedom, namely, America and Great Britain.
The Moral Foundations of Capitalism
It is important to understand that the moral foundations of a society do not extend only to its political system; they must extend to its economic system as well. America’s commitment to capitalism is unquestionably the best example of this principle. Capitalism is not, contrary to what those on the Left have tried to argue, an amoral system based on selfishness, greed, and exploitation. It is a moral system based on a Biblical ethic. There is no other comparable system that has raised the standard of living of millions of people, created vast new wealth and resources, or inspired so many beneficial innovations and technologies.
The wonderful thing about capitalism is that it does not discriminate against the poor, as has been so often charged; indeed, it is the only economic system that raises the poor out of poverty. Capitalism also allows nations that are not rich in natural resources to prosper. If resources were the key to wealth, the richest country in the world would be Russia, because it has abundant supplies of everything from oil, gas, platinum, gold, silver, aluminum, and copper to timber, water, wildlife, and fertile soil.
Why isn’t Russia the wealthiest country in the world? Why aren’t other resource-rich countries in the Third World at the top of the list? It is because their governments deny citizens the liberty to use their God-given talents. Man’s greatest resource is himself, but he must be free to use that resource.
In his recent encyclical, Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul I1 addressed this issue. He wrote that the collapse of communism is not merely to be considered as a “technical problem.” It is a consequence of the violation of human rights. He specifically referred to such human rights as the right to private initiative, to own property, and to act in the marketplace. Remember the “Parable of the Talents” in the New Testament? Christ exhorts us to be the best we can be by developing our skills and abilities, by succeeding in all our tasks and endeavors. What better description can there be of capitalism? In creating new products, new services, and new jobs, we create a vibrant community of work. And that community of work serves as the basis of peace and good will among all men.
The Pope also acknowledged that capitalism encourages important virtues, like diligence, industriousness, prudence, reliability, fidelity, conscientiousness, and a tendency to save in order to invest in the future. It is not material goods but all of these great virtues, exhibited by individuals working together, that constitute what we call the “marketplace.”
The Moral Foundations of the Law
Freedom, whether it is the freedom of the marketplace or any other kind, must exist within the framework of law. 0thenvise it means only freedom for the strong to oppress the weak. Whenever I visit the former Soviet Union, I stress this point with students, scholars, politicians, and businessmen—in short, with everyone I meet. Over and over again, I repeat: Freedom must be informed by the principle of justice in order to make it work between people. A system of laws based on solid moral foundations must regulate the entire life of a nation.
But this is an extremely difficult point to get across to people with little or no experience with laws except those based on force. The concept of justice is entirely foreign to communism. So, too, is the concept of equality. For over seventy years, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union had no system of common law. There were only the arbitrary and often contradictory dictates of the Communist Party. There was no independent judiciary. There was no such thing as truth in the communist system.
And what is freedom without truth? I have been a scientist, a lawyer, and a politician, and from my own experience I can testify that it is nothing. The third century Roman jurist Julius Paulus said, “What is right is not derived from the rule, but the rule arises from our knowledge of what is right.” In other words, the law is founded on what we believe to be true and just. It has moral foundations. Once again, it is important to note that the free societies of America and Great Britain derive such foundations from a Biblical ethic.
The Moral Foundations of Democracy
Democracy is never mentioned in the Bible. When people are gathered together, whether as families, communities or nations, their purpose is not to ascertain the will of the majority, but the will of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, I am an enthusiast of democracy because it is about more than the will of the majority. If it were only about the will of the majority, it would be the right of the majority to oppress the minority. The American Declaration of Independence and Constitution make it clear that this is not the case. There are certain rights which are human rights and which no government can displace. And when it comes to how you Americans exercise your rights under democracy, your hearts seem to be touched by something greater than yourselves. Your role in democracy does not end when you cast your vote in an election. It applies daily; the standards and values that are the moral foundations of society are also the foundations of your lives.
Democracy is essential to preserving freedom. As Lord Acton reminded us, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If no individual can be trusted with power indefinitely, it is even more true that no government can be. It has to be checked, and the best way of doing so is through the will of the majority, bearing in mind that this will can never be a substitute for individual human rights.
I am often asked whether I think there will be a single international democracy, known as a “new world order.” Though many of us may yearn for one, I do not believe it will ever arrive. We are misleading ourselves about human nature when we say, “Surely we’re too civilized, too reasonable, ever to go to war again,” or, “We can rely on our governments to get together and reconcile our differences.” Tyrants are not moved by idealism. They are moved by naked ambition. Idealism did not stop Hitler; it did not stop Stalin. Our best hope as sovereign nations is to maintain strong defenses. Indeed, that has been one of the most important moral as well as geopolitical lessons of the 20th century. Dictators are encouraged by weakness; they are stopped by strength. By strength, of course, I do not merely mean military might but the resolve to use that might against evil.
The West did show sufficient resolve against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. But we failed bitterly in Bosnia. In this case, instead of showing resolve, we preferred “diplomacy” and “consensus.” As a result, a quarter of a million people were massacred. This was a horror that I, for one, never expected to see again in my lifetime. But it happened. Who knows what tragedies the future holds if we do not learn from the repeated lessons of history? The price of freedom is still, and always will be, eternal vigilance.
Free societies demand more care and devotion than any others. They are, moreover, the only societies with moral foundations, and those foundations are evident in their political, economic, legal, cultural, and, most importantly, spiritual life.
We who are living in the West today are fortunate. Freedom has been bequeathed to us. We have not had to carve it out of nothing; we have not had to pay for it with our lives. Others before us have done so. But it would be a grave mistake to think that freedom requires nothing of us. Each of us has to earn freedom anew in order to possess it. We do so not just for our own sake, but for the sake of our children, so that they may build a better future that will sustain over the wider world the responsibilities and blessings of freedom.