Does Liberal Democracy Undermine Community?

Aristotle says that the polis or city is where a people come together for the sake of the good life. The kind of laws that a city has reflects its conception of how human beings should live, and how they should relate to one another. In the classical world, there was no such thing as a "neutral" political arrangement: all political arrangements are for the sake of bringing people together for the pursuit of some understanding of the human good.

Locke (and his predecessors, including Machiavelli and Hobbes) represent a break in this kind of thinking. To them, liberalism (by which I do not mean modern "leftism," although they are related, but the political and social inheritance of the Enlightenment) is a kind of "truce" between competing conceptions of the good life and human flourishing. Liberal democracy means individuals coming together to escape the uncertainties of the state of nature where no government exists, and agreeing, in large part, to stay out of one another's business.

For Aristotle, what brings a society together is its desire for survival, and what keeps it together is its communal pursuit of its understanding of the good life. For Locke and the heirs of the Enlightenment, people come together for the sake of survival and safety.

Out of this coming together, economies develop. As both Locke, and, more famously, Adam Smith saw, individuals pursuing their self interest leads in large part to mutual cooperation, economic development and the flourishing of the entire community.

The tendency of the market to encourage cooperation between actors (to build businesses, trade resources, etc) has been noted, and the underlying assumption that individuals acting in their own self-interest is a legitimate basis for building society is an idea embedded in Enlightenment liberalism.

But I would argue that self-interested cooperation is not the basis of true community. The kind of economic and political cooperation I referenced is ultimately about people pursuing their own self-interest first, which just happens to coincide with the self-interest of others.

For instance, the business owner hires an employee to work or cooperate with him. Do they have they have the same goals in mind? In one sense, yes. Both are ultimately looking to benefit the business so they can make money. More fundamentally, however, both are looking to benefit themselves, and the good or benefit of the business is simply a means to this end.

True cooperation involves two or more individuals working together for the sake of a goal outside of themselves. So a mother and a father cooperate in raising a child not for their own individual benefit, but for the sake of a child. Or a neighborhood volunteers to take care of a neighbor in distress, for the sake of the ailing neighbor.

I think this is what distinguishes true community from what could be termed an alliance. An alliance (such as a business) involves individuals working together for their own benefit. A community involves individuals working together perhaps in part for their own benefit, but also or primarily for the sake of something beyond themselves.

What does this mean? Liberal democracy is founded on a faith in the sufficiency of self-interested individuals to work together for their mutual benefit. It's founded on what I have termed an alliance. As such, by its understanding of human nature and what is necessary for its flourishing, it will tend to undermine true community, in which members seek a benefit beyond their own. For real community to take root, we must have an understanding of ourselves as part of something greater - whether it be a family, church, neighborhood, city, state, nation, etc - that lays claim on us, and commands our loyalty and devotion beyond mere self-interested calculation. This is something that liberalism, in emphasizing the chosen, contractual nature of our relationships with others, naturally undermines.

Avoiding the "Self-Esteem Trap"

One of the many blessings (and curses) of being unemployed is that it leaves you with a lot of time to think and to ruminate. Cruising LinkedIn all day brings up uncomfortable questions, especially: "How "good" am I at life? How successful am I, and how do I compare to others?" When we're confronted by someone who seems to be doing a better job of "winning" at life for whatever reason - maybe they're more put-together, more popular, farther along in their career, etc - our natural instinct is to compare ourselves. 

And if we find that we fall short, our next instinct can be to think of ways in which we're superior. Perhaps Tom has a great career, but at least I'm not a jerk like him! Gertrude may be smart, but I know I'm better looking! 

This is what I'm calling "the self-esteem trap:" when comparing ourselves to others, we focus on our strengths to console ourselves for our weaknesses. Life is a constant measuring and comparing and a sizing up of us against our "competition," hoping that by at least one measure, we can come out "on top."

But this is a never-ending cycle that only drives us to misery. By doing this, we make our happiness dependent upon other people, and how they compare to us. The secret to becoming a happy and successful person is not to compare yourself to others, it's to exhibit humility.

Humility, as you may have heard before, is not thinking less of yourself, but thinking of yourself, less. 

If you want to be truly great and truly happy, instead of constantly concerning yourself with others and their "stack rank," fall in love the world around you. Pursue the true, the good, and the beautiful. Seek the highest kind of knowledge, the most profound aesthetic experiences, and the deepest communion with God and neighbor. Real success and real happiness come from an interior disposition of wonder, gratitude, love, and all of the other virtues.

By doing this and avoiding the rat race of comparative success, you can find peace, because your self and your status are no longer the center of your world. By accepting that your happiness is dependent not on your social or career status, but on the kind of concordance with reality that comes from seeking the true, the good, and the beautiful, you will not only be happy, but you will be truly successful.

V-Day

A word of advice to all the frugal lovers out there -

The wise man celebrates Valentine's Day on February 15 of every year, having taken advantage of the post-Valentine's Day clearance sales on chocolate and flowers available at his neighborhood Kroger. 

The Future Belongs to the Past

One of the reasons that the GOP was helpless in stopping the rise of Trump is that they failed to realize that a huge portion of their voters don't operate in the language of the "Reagan Revolution." The "buzzwords" of the Republicans since the time of Reagan have been words like "freedom,"individualism," "personal responsibility," "opportunity" and "liberty." In the shadow of the Soviet Union, these were an appealing set of principles for conservatives to unite behind. 

Trump has shown us, however, that these values are not the currency that the Republican base trades in. It's not freedom that so many of these disenfranchised voters yearn for. 

On the right, so many voters, especially lower-class whites, feel that their way of life is under attack. "They find their religion, their hobbies, their music, their culture, consistently mocked and looked down upon by elites. On the left, there is a growing concern with the way that traditionally marginalized communities are treated and respected. These are people who are seeking honor.

The alt-right has gained power.  White identity politics - while nowhere near the power of other forms of identity politics - has come out of hiding. This is in response to the left's emphasis on identity politics on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. It's no coincidence that this comes as families, churches, and local politics and loyalties are weaker than ever. These identitarians are seeking community.

People identifying less and less with older forms of community - churches, families, one's state or locale Instead, they're fighting tooth and nail for the advancement of the new communities and causes they've attached themselves to. The influence of Enlightenment liberalism and an increasingly all-encompassing politics has hallowed its traditional sources, and so many voters find contemporary politics to be a source of meaning.

Enlightenment liberalism promised to end the pointless feuding of differing sects and polities. It came to liberate the individual from oppressive social constraints, and it came to create a free space where individuals can pursue their own wills, rather than being subjected to the sovereign's idea of meaning.

The pre-Enlightenment values of honor, community, and meaning, are making a comeback. Trump gained power in part because he speaks to these concerns Whichever party can read the times and speak to these values will own the political future.  

Virtue and Capitalism

Whatever its flaws, capitalism is an incredible mechanism for giving people what they want. Even the more left-wing among us have to admit that when it comes to creating wealth, capitalism is hard to beat. Every TV show, car, restaurant, toothpaste, and diaper comes in countless different brands at countless different price ranges, reaching a wider market than ever before. Whatever your tastes or desires, the market has created a product to meet them. Or at least it's trying.

The problem is that people don't always want what's good for them. That's why the same mechanism that has banished hunger in most of the developed world and allowed regular people to travel from New York to California in just a few hours, has also blessed us with reality TV, twinkies, and cocaine.

And it's also why now, more than ever, virtue is required by market participants. I think that some people, heirs to the Enlightenment, believe self-interest is enough to make the economy function: people will figure out what's good and bad for them, and they'll adjust their decisions accordingly. There's no need for culture - or worse, government - to curtail or channel these desires.

But as we all know from our own attempts to kick our bad habits, and also in watching the cycles of self-destruction that people around us sometimes engage in, humans don't always learn from their mistakes, and they don't always act to their own benefit. Sometimes, it's precisely the opposite.

The bottom line is this: if capitalism is going to give us what we want, then we better want the right things. Otherwise, the economy will only be providing us with the means of our own self-destruction.

Introduction

Howdy, pardners! Welcome to my blog.

This blog will be a place where I share what I hope are insightful ruminations on philosophy, politics, theology, and life in general. It's named after a work by the 17th century scientist and philosopher and all-around wise man, Blaise Pascal. 

My hope is for a tone that is civil and reflective, and that emphasizes insight over rhetorical fireworks. We live in partisan times, however, and so I'm writing under a pseudonym inspired by two of my heroes, George Washington and Edmund Burke.

This isn't a full time job, so I intend to keep these thoughts - "pensees," in French - short and to the point. If you want to learn more about these subjects in depth, there are more insightful authors than me to be read at length. Still, I hope that you come away from this with something learned, and something to think about.