May 22, 2005
Big "R" Collectivism
JK just wrote about the principles behind the modern "D" and "R" parties, and how the Republicans have co-opted all of the popular ideas of the old Democrat party for their own. (No, he didn't actually say that but this is the gist of the matter.) Now I'll show you why it's true.
I realize that the President was making his remarks to the graduates of a Christian college, and he did say that "...ultimately, service is up to you. It is your choice to make." But this short commencement speech contains the nutshell version of what is wrong with the philosophy of President Bush and the faith-based Republican party.
On an occasion where the leader of the free world is giving advice to those about to "...take your rightful place in a country that offers you the greatest freedom and opportunity on Earth" he advises them to, "...use what you’ve learned to make your own contributions to the story of American freedom." What contributions does he have in mind? Invent the next cotton gin? Find a cure for cancer? No. Instead he advises them, "...we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America."
The President claimed, based in part upon the writings of de Tocqueville, that:
Our Founders rejected both a radical individualism that makes no room for others, and the dreary collectivism that crushes the individual. They gave us instead a society where individual freedom is anchored in communities. And in this hopeful new century, we have a great goal: to renew this spirit of community and thereby renew the character and compassion of our nation.
This simple phrase lumps individual accomplishment with the horrific failures of communist and socialist societies, and is an affront to the sacrifices of those who fought and died for the ideals this country truly represents - chief among them, liberty. Individual freedom is anchored not in "communities" but in capitalism, property rights and objective law. To say it is based in "communities" is little different than the collectivist mantra that our duty is to "the state" or "our comrades."
Again, there is nothing wrong with voluntary charity and assistance to others, provided that the individual doing the giving has made a judgement that doing so is of personal value to himself. And the President isn't seeking to make such "service to others" mandatory, at least not yet. But the message is clear: Service to others is more important than service to yourself and your own family.
For all of this president's virtues, this philosophical weakness is deeply troubling. It's what has me leery of his judicial appointments, although Janice Rogers Brown gives me great hope.
UPDATE (23 May, 3:08 pm): Emphasis in sixth paragraph added in response to JK's comment.
Philosophy Posted by JohnGalt at May 22, 2005 10:26 AM
Methinks the blogger doth protest too much. I know you are an earnest man who cares about philosophy in politics. You wrote up a nice post, and even linked to one of mine -- least I can do is pick a fight.
I understand your predisposition against altruism, but I really think that you are carrying it too far. Private charity IS okay. Really. And while you see it as a slippery slope toward mandatory charity, the President and I see it as a transition to a more efficient and moral, non-coerced community charity. If these young graduates will do more to care for the needy in their community, we will need less government wealth redistribution.
Compared to the President of PepsiCo insulting the United States in a commencement address, I found W’s sleepy little speech rather innocuous.
Posted by: jk at May 23, 2005 12:14 PMMy calling W's philosophical weakness "deeply troubling" is considered "protesting too much?" I didn't call for his head, you'll notice. On balance he's doing it right, as you write above, but what are friends for if not to point out your mistakes?
You wrote, "If these young graduates will do more to care for the needy in their community, we will need less government wealth redistribution." My answer is that "we" don't "need" ANY wealth redistribution. It is "sleepy little speeches" like this that convince well-meaning people otherwise.
If these young graduates will do more to provide for themselves and their loved ones then we will have less "needy" neighbors in our communities.
"Radical individualism?" Hardly. I make plenty of room for others, just not in my home or in my wallet.
Posted by: johngalt at May 23, 2005 3:21 PM | What do you think? [2]