I read a piece today by Patrik Jonsson of the Christian Science Monitor about what the "tea party movement" really wants. Jonsson writes: "The movement, in its essence, is about safeguarding individual liberty, cutting taxes, and ending bailouts for business while the American taxpayer gets burdened with more public debt. It is fueled by concern that the United States under Mr. Obama is becoming a European-style social democracy where individual initiative is sapped by the needs of the collective." I generally agree with his summation. I also agree that it's time for progressives, liberals, and those who do favor European-styled social democracy to stop denying that that is our ultimate goal. Let's just put it out there and, ultimately, the country will either accept it or reject it. I don't know which way it will go.
But, here's what has been nagging at me for some time and which I've only recently begun to distill into (what I hope is) a coherent theory: at its core the ideal of libertarian individualism says the wants/needs/hopes of the individual should remain superior to the needs/wants/hopes of the collective. I get that. On the other hand, in families and close-knit neo-family structures, we routinely place the needs/wants/hopes of the "collective" over the needs/wants/hopes of the individual. More than that, we encourage this sort of selflessness in the family structure. We praise family members who forego their individual path (either temporarily or sometimes permanently) to help the entire family. Fathers and mothers who work jobs beneath their intelligence or potential so that their children will have greater opportunity are generally seen as heroes and their sacrifice is praised.
My question to the "tea party movement" and to Libertarians, generally, is this: why is placing the wants/needs/hopes of the whole over those of the individual when done in the family or neo-family structure praised and held up as an example of what makes families and the familial structure so special and so necessary, when that same principle is not just undesirable, but a motivation-sucking evil when looked at in the context of the individual and society as a whole? In other words, selflessness is the cornerstone of family, whereas selfishness is the cornerstone of liberty.
As someone who belongs to a neo-family structure where individuals have frequently gone without for the benefit of the whole, I agree with the praise of this ideal and behavior. I also do not see that it sucks from individual members the desire to achieve. It's simply that the desire to achieve is tied to a desire to see the family flourish and thrive. And in that flourishing family, the individual almost always finds fulfillment that is otherwise lacking when the focus is solely upon the self.
What I cannot understand is the insistence by conservatives, Libertarians, and those sympathetic to the "tea party" ideals and/or opposed to European-styled social democracy that applying the principles of self-sacrifice and selflessness to society as a whole will inevitably lead to sloth, reliance on "hand outs" and no ambition. I might agree with that if I believed one can only be motivated by selfish interests - the notion that if I cannot personally and directly benefit, I have no desire to do it. To me, that is a strikingly grim assessment of human nature. The fundamental premise of that belief system is that people are so inherently selfish and self-interested that if they cannot amass great personal gains from their efforts, they will simply do nothing and let others work. I really just don't buy that. I also don't buy the "all or nothing" concept. Would Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Dolly Parton really be lazy people lacking in ambition and motivation to achieve if their efforts weren't met with such enormous monetary rewards? Do tea partiers and Libertarians really believe this? I think some of them do. I also think some of them base their worldview on their own selfishness and project that upon everyone else.
Now, I understand that what I'm suggesting is that individuals are/can be/should be (take your pick) motivated by something more than personal gain in order to be ambitious and to achieve. Many will say, "Well, yes, that's just human nature and if you deprive people of that they will eventually jettison their innate self-reliance and resort to relying on others." But we already rely on others and others rely on us. It happens every day in the family or neo-family structure. And many of the same conservatives and Libertarians who vehemently oppose socialistic democracy uphold that as a fundamentally good thing. I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. I believe that the individual members of society will be happier if the focus of his or her efforts is not, first, what benefits "me" but, first, what benefits "us all." There can be tremendous benefit to the "me" AND benefit to "us all" and they need not cancel out one another.
At the end of the day, I find I am a happier person when I am helpful to others. I do not like needing assistance, but I accept that sometimes I do and I am grateful that my family is there for me. This leads me to favor the concept of European-styled social democracy. Finally, to those who would answer that they don't like or want the government imposing generosity upon them and that if left to their own devices they will be generous and voluntarily give to the collective, so the result will be the same and the state is not part of the equation, I say, respectfully, bullshit. Look back to the time when the U.S. really was a "sink or swim" country with no meaningful social safety net or government benefits. If people did not have family to support them, they were simply left to fend for themselves and if they failed, they died. Period. It happened. Personally, I find that an unacceptable way for a society that considers itself even somewhat advanced to conduct itself. But, that is my right and my opinion.
So, I am going to stop mincing words and avoiding the direct question: Do I favor European-styled social democracy over individual-based libertarianism? Yes. Yes, I do.
But, here's what has been nagging at me for some time and which I've only recently begun to distill into (what I hope is) a coherent theory: at its core the ideal of libertarian individualism says the wants/needs/hopes of the individual should remain superior to the needs/wants/hopes of the collective. I get that. On the other hand, in families and close-knit neo-family structures, we routinely place the needs/wants/hopes of the "collective" over the needs/wants/hopes of the individual. More than that, we encourage this sort of selflessness in the family structure. We praise family members who forego their individual path (either temporarily or sometimes permanently) to help the entire family. Fathers and mothers who work jobs beneath their intelligence or potential so that their children will have greater opportunity are generally seen as heroes and their sacrifice is praised.
My question to the "tea party movement" and to Libertarians, generally, is this: why is placing the wants/needs/hopes of the whole over those of the individual when done in the family or neo-family structure praised and held up as an example of what makes families and the familial structure so special and so necessary, when that same principle is not just undesirable, but a motivation-sucking evil when looked at in the context of the individual and society as a whole? In other words, selflessness is the cornerstone of family, whereas selfishness is the cornerstone of liberty.
As someone who belongs to a neo-family structure where individuals have frequently gone without for the benefit of the whole, I agree with the praise of this ideal and behavior. I also do not see that it sucks from individual members the desire to achieve. It's simply that the desire to achieve is tied to a desire to see the family flourish and thrive. And in that flourishing family, the individual almost always finds fulfillment that is otherwise lacking when the focus is solely upon the self.
What I cannot understand is the insistence by conservatives, Libertarians, and those sympathetic to the "tea party" ideals and/or opposed to European-styled social democracy that applying the principles of self-sacrifice and selflessness to society as a whole will inevitably lead to sloth, reliance on "hand outs" and no ambition. I might agree with that if I believed one can only be motivated by selfish interests - the notion that if I cannot personally and directly benefit, I have no desire to do it. To me, that is a strikingly grim assessment of human nature. The fundamental premise of that belief system is that people are so inherently selfish and self-interested that if they cannot amass great personal gains from their efforts, they will simply do nothing and let others work. I really just don't buy that. I also don't buy the "all or nothing" concept. Would Bill Gates or Warren Buffett or Dolly Parton really be lazy people lacking in ambition and motivation to achieve if their efforts weren't met with such enormous monetary rewards? Do tea partiers and Libertarians really believe this? I think some of them do. I also think some of them base their worldview on their own selfishness and project that upon everyone else.
Now, I understand that what I'm suggesting is that individuals are/can be/should be (take your pick) motivated by something more than personal gain in order to be ambitious and to achieve. Many will say, "Well, yes, that's just human nature and if you deprive people of that they will eventually jettison their innate self-reliance and resort to relying on others." But we already rely on others and others rely on us. It happens every day in the family or neo-family structure. And many of the same conservatives and Libertarians who vehemently oppose socialistic democracy uphold that as a fundamentally good thing. I don't see them as being mutually exclusive. I believe that the individual members of society will be happier if the focus of his or her efforts is not, first, what benefits "me" but, first, what benefits "us all." There can be tremendous benefit to the "me" AND benefit to "us all" and they need not cancel out one another.
At the end of the day, I find I am a happier person when I am helpful to others. I do not like needing assistance, but I accept that sometimes I do and I am grateful that my family is there for me. This leads me to favor the concept of European-styled social democracy. Finally, to those who would answer that they don't like or want the government imposing generosity upon them and that if left to their own devices they will be generous and voluntarily give to the collective, so the result will be the same and the state is not part of the equation, I say, respectfully, bullshit. Look back to the time when the U.S. really was a "sink or swim" country with no meaningful social safety net or government benefits. If people did not have family to support them, they were simply left to fend for themselves and if they failed, they died. Period. It happened. Personally, I find that an unacceptable way for a society that considers itself even somewhat advanced to conduct itself. But, that is my right and my opinion.
So, I am going to stop mincing words and avoiding the direct question: Do I favor European-styled social democracy over individual-based libertarianism? Yes. Yes, I do.
