Now that we’ve dissected "democracy," let’s take it another step.
Something else we say we’re fighting for, wherever we may happen to send troops in this world, is "freedom." And I guess in almost any situation, we can argue that someone’s freedom is been furthered by what’s going on, but it’s not always the best word. In the Revolution and in some ways the Civil War, yes. To some extent in World War II — although it was a lot more complicated than that — and Korea and Vietnam, in the sense that we were fighting totalitarian systems in all those cases. Sometimes, we send troops so that people can eat (Somalia), sometimes just to keep them from killing each other (Bosnia), sometimes to keep our treaty commitments and keep the oil flowing (the 1991 Gulf War).
But we always send them in the name of some value or interest we hold dear, or combination of such. We can argue all day about whether the value or interest is truly being served, but the stated reason is generally based in some cherished value or pragmatic interest. (Even when it’s a matter of national survival, we speak of surviving in order to maintain our bastion of freedom.)
The truth is that American values and interests are a lot broader than that word, "freedom," as cherished as that ideal may be. I always thought the French were onto something with their liberté, égalité, fraternité — at least it acknowledges that there is more than one concept at stake in what you want your republic to stand for.
Something that we don’t discuss overtly, although it is implicit in many of our political discussions, is the fact that these three things do not naturally coexist — or perhaps I should say, they don’t naturally flow from each other, and sometimes one militates against the others. I’ve thought about this a lot over the years, but never really set it out in writing. I was reminded of it over the weekend when I was watching a documentary series about Napoleon on DVD. Napoleon had a thing about upholding égalité, at least in principle (of course, the emperor was more equal than others), because of his own rise from humble beginnings. But he put no stock in liberté. And yet he presumed to stand for the revolution (how he got away with that pose as long as he did still surprises me).
In this country, we talk about freedom, but only some of us — the libertarians — would always put it above the other two. Others would elevate equality to the point that it overrides other concerns — from Jim Clyburn trying to use government resources to lift up his impoverished district, to the Bush administration insisting that "no child be left behind" even to the point that a school is seen as "failing" when special ed students or kids whose first language isn’t English don’t pass the same test as everyone else.
Me, I’m a fraternité man, if forced to state a preference. Being a communitarian, I’m concerned with the brotherhood of the full community. I realize that living in civilization requires marginal curtailment of some liberties (such as the liberty to swing one’s fist), and that equality of results (as opposed to inputs) are probably a bridge too far for most societies. We should balance those concerns in a way that the community as a whole is served, and bound together in a common interest, emphasizing common values. In other words, I tend to think that liberty and equality are best served when we can find a way to do so that underlines our commonalities — our brotherhood. Brotherhood, of course (as libertarians will tell you) can’t be legislated. But if we construct our policies and legislation (on the limited range of things that can be legislated, that is) in a way that emphasizes our common American values and interests, we’re most likely to achieve something that respects and furthers freedom and equality as well. In other words, fraternité is less something one creates than something one builds upon.
That’s my model, anyway, and it occurs to me that this is the basis for an interesting discussion. I propose that we agree that all three republican values — freedom, equality and brotherhood — are essential, and that we’d love to see all three enshrined to the maximum degree possible. But recognizing that almost any specific policy will emphasize one of these more than the others, which do you lean toward? If there has to be an imbalance, which would you consider best — or perhaps I should say, the least bad?
Related Posts
The liberty part of the equation is pretty straight-forward. I should be allowed to do anything that does not harm others.
But the other two are virtually impossible to put into practice. It essentially comes down to who decides what is sufficiently equal or what is the common good. Is a space program really a legitimate common good? Is it in the common good to ban video poker, even if that significantly infringes on the liberty of individuals to enjoy the games? How much do we make our tax system progressive to make living standards reasonably equal?
In the end I believe we should weigh this about 60% liberty, 25% equality and only 15% for the common good. Examples of issues where I would decide in favor of liberty would be: no military draft, legalize video poker and pro-choice. Equility issues that I would favor include a high minimum wage, public education and national health insurance. The common good areas would come down to those areas that simply cannot be handled any other way such as clean air, highways and a very, very limited use of military assets to protect American soil. (A strict interpretation of this would preclude all the senseless wars that we’ve suffered with since the end of WW II).
I’m a “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” kind of guy, so my vote’s with liberty, recognizing that there must be some curbs on it in the name of community.
The least important would be equality in the sense of wealth or artificially created opportunity. The only equality essential being the equality originating from the fundamental truth of the equal value of each person’s life and his or her right to equal treatment before the law. Law is restricting and the polar opposite of liberty, therefore law is only useful for creating the foundation for the necessary (but hopefully very limited) curbs on liberty.
The goal should be maximum personal liberty possible consistent with the need for a sufficiently harmonious community controlled by laws applied and enforced equally. The objective should be a community (or state) in which the most advantage possible can be made by each person of his or her liberties in the pursuit of their individual desires with the least amount of interference from others.
Liberty first, equality second, community third.
Let me be free to be myself, so long as I don’t impinge upon that right for you.
Let the government treat you and me the same, no matter how different we are.
And, finally, let all of us work together to make life easier, longer and more fulfilling for all of us.
Sounds easy, doesn’t it?
I would rephrase them as Freedom, Justice, and Conscience.