|
in·d
in·di·vid·u·al·ism
(3)
n.
1.
a. Belief in the primary importance of the individual and in the virtues
of self-reliance and personal independence.
b. Acts or an act based on this belief.
2.
a. A doctrine advocating freedom from government regulation in the pursuit
of a person's economic goals.
b. A doctrine holding that the interests of the individual should take
precedence over the interests of the state or social group.
For a second, after reading William Hudson’s American Democracy
In Peril, one almost starts to look at individualism in a bad light.
One reads words such as radical, pathological, obsessive and begins
to doubt. Will this stand unchallenged? It surely will not.
One of the major problems Hudson cites is American ‘radical individualism’.
He argues, citing Bellah’s Habits of the Heart that American radical
individualism causes Americans to define and think of themselves in
increasingly strictly individual terms. Hudson claims also that individuals
have a moral obligation to societal institutions that have supported
and, in a way, given them the opportunities they have enjoyed. To illustrate
the repercussions of this line of thought in familiar terms, consider
the following dialogue:
Patrick Henry: “Damn British, taxing us without representation,
looking down their noses at us every chance they get, telling us what
to do, why I’ve got half a mind to stop following their orders
and support a new government for my friends and I.
William Hudson: (dressed up as a tory) “Now wait just a second
there Mr. Henry, you’ve got a moral obligation to the British Empire.
After all, they’ve provided virtually all the institutions that
make up the structure of your colony here. Without them, you’d
be living un-educated, un-fed in the forest. You owe them for this so
be a good British citizen and just scurry on.”
Patrick Henry: “Well gosh, I never thought of it that way. I’ll
just go home, run up the British flag and wait out front for the tax
collector with money in hand.” (Patrick Henry begins to walk off)
William Hudson: “Hehe, owned.”
(Thomas Jefferson walks across Patrick’s path)
Thomas Jefferson: “Hey Pat, what’s up? You coming to the party
tonight? A bunch of us are going to write a letter to the English king
telling him in no uncertain terms what we think of the job he’s
doing here. And then, who knows, we might think up all sorts of other
stuff to do.”
Patrick Henry: “Well, I’d love to Tom, but you see, I’ve
got this moral obligation to……wait just a second.” (Patrick
Henry walks up to William Hudson and gives him a stiff punch in the
face) “Sure Tom, I’d love to come.”
In Hudson’s critique of libertarianism, he comes away with the
conclusion that a libertarian philosophy prevents one from avoiding
the tragedy of the commons. Without delving too far into his reasoning
processes, let the following question be posed: What innate quality
of classical libertarianism prevents cooperation? If I (under a libertarian
philosophy) believe that cooperation will benefit me, as it clearly
would the farmers in the tragedy of the commons example, would I cooperate?
The answer is plainly yes. What Hudson then must be railing against
is citizens not cooperating when they feel it’s not in their interest,
when they don’t want to. This analysis seems to suggest that Hudson
would have America give up one of its most defining elements, dissent.
American’s willingness and even revelry in telling off those who
would dictate ‘what is good’ to us is one of the most unique
facets of our nation. So the thought goes: a healthy lack of respect
for authority is always good. In favor of the public good, Hudson’s
line of thought leads one to say, when confronted with something one
would deem wrong, one should back down in the face of what has been
defined as the public good.
Another consequence of radical individualism, Hudson claims, is a loosening
of ties to macro-society. An obvious indicator of one’s level of
ties to macro-society is how often they bother to vote. A quick examination
of voter data (from 1948 to present)(2) shows a few key facts that are
quite detrimental to Mr. Hudson’s case. For congressional elections,
recent turnout rates (rates used are voter percentage per eligible voter)
are within one standard deviation of over half the rates from the last
half-century. For presidential turnout statistics, the picture is a
bit less sunny but still far from the drastic slide suggested by Hudson.
The `96 rates are low, but still within one standard deviation of many
of the examined rates. The 2000 rates however show absolutely no cause
for alarm as they are within one standard deviation of the easy majority
of examined rates.
If Hudson’s assertion was accurate and the American dedication
to radical individualism was eroding its civil democratic character,
one would expect to see a steady decline in voter turnout. But, lo and
behold, what one finds when they examine the statistics is nothing more
than the regular ebb and flow of a complex system.
In addition to these facts, one sees that what decline has been shown
in recent years is not a phenomenon localized to the United States.
Take, for example, the numerous social-democratic states in Europe.
These seem to be precisely what Hudson is arguing for, less separation
of powers and more constraints on individual liberties in their ‘more
radical’ form. These are countries that run a parallel course to
that which Hudson would have us run, so I believe it would be instructive
to examine them and compare them to the United States. Turnout rates
in major Western European countries including The United Kingdom, Ireland,
Germany, and France have taken a downturn in recent years along a very
similar curve to that of the American downturn (2). This suggests that
the factor causing the minor ebb in American voter turnout is not a
uniquely American factor. This is precisely opposite what Hudson claims.
If it were ‘radical individualism’ causing the slight downturn
in turnout in American turnout, one would certainly not expect to see
virtually the same downturn in nations that embody what Mr. Hudson advocates.
What Mr. Hudson is really writing against is not ‘radical’
individualism but practiced individualism. He says, in effect, that
having individualism around is all right as long as we don’t have
to tolerate the Jack Kevorkians, Charlton Hestons, Larry Flynts, Malcolm
X’s and the like. I encourage you to look back at the definition
provided at the beginning of this essay and ask how many of those tenants
Hudson describes as ‘radical’. I think you’ll find that
the answer is each and every one of them. That said, there’s certainly
nothing wrong with encouraging community, civil spirit and the public
good but putting that encouragement at odds with the spirit of individualism
and individual rights is a grave mistake. Once we seriously cross that
line, where does the line of intolerables reach? To Larry Flynt? To
Malcolm X? Perhaps to Martin Luther King Jr.? Almost certainly to Patrick
Henry. To underscore my counter-theme to the arguments of Hudson, I
leave the reader with a quote from my civic hero, not a visiting Frenchman
but, as you may have guessed, one of our ‘radically individualistic’
founding fathers:
“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Sources cited:
1) Hudson, William E.; American Democracy In Peril. New York, Seven
Bridges Press. 20012) The International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance (www.idea.int)
3)
Dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com)
|
