In this post on his blog, Keith Burgess-Jackson states there are four different ways to achieve a desired end. Says Keith:
The first is to use force. The second is to use coercion (i.e., the threat of harm). The third is to use manipulation (e.g., deception). The fourth is to use rational persuasion. Only the fourth is respectful of persons, which is a moral imperative. I would argue, from a consequentialist point of view, that only change brought about in the fourth way has any chance of long-term success. The first three means generate resentment, alienation, and backlash. Many people who accept the ends reject the means. Eventually, they come to identify the end with the means and reject the end itself. When that happens, what has been accomplished? Precisely nothing. Indeed, things are worse at that point than they were at the outset.
For some reason, reading this immediately got me to thinking about what passes for a political process in our country these days.
At the risk of gross oversimplification, the political landscape today seems to be a battle between two value sets: (1) egalitarian values, as generally espoused by the left side of the political spectrum; and (2) conservative/traditional values, as espoused by those on the right. Both sides seek to use the power of government to impose their value set upon society. Democrats, for example, want to implement universal health care and a wide range of other programs intended to correct various social injustices. Conversely, Republicans wish to legally define marriage as being between a man and a woman, and they want people to take individual responsibility for themselves rather than rely on government (although the spending and voting records of Republican congressmen these days might suggest otherwise).
The use of the power of government to engineer society according to a particular value set equates to the use of force, in Keith’s model above. If Hillary Clinton’s universal health care plan were put into action, for example, you would be required by law to participate. It would not be optional. You would, in effect, be forced into an egalitarian situation, regardless of whether or not you happen to subscribe to that particular value set.
To get control over the power of government so one can use it to engineer society requires that one first get elected. I think most of us would agree that a fair amount of manipulation occurs as part of this process. Politicians “triangulate” so as to broadly appeal to as many voters as possible. They also often change their positions — or at least the way in which they present their positions — based on what group they are speaking to, and based on whether it’s the primary (where they must appeal to the diehards and extremists within their own party) or the general election (where they must appeal to everyone, both within their party and outside of it).
In accordance with Keith’s model, any change brought about by the use of government to engineer society is never successful in the long-term, and generates resentment, alienation, and backlash. As Keith says: “Indeed, things are worse at that point than they were at the outset.” *cough*war on poverty*cough*
Ours is a pluralistic nation — a nation comprised of people with widely varying value sets. So it would seem to be an extremely unlikely prospect that the rational persuasion method could be used to win people over to a single value set. If our current political process continues, we will be ever more in a situation where half the country is being forced to live under an imposed value set with which they do not agree. This in turn exacerbates the political battle over control of the government for purposes of imposing the chosen value set. As a result, our nation is becoming increasingly polarized.
It would be far better, in my opinion, if the government took no role whatsoever (or more realistically, a minimized role) in engineering society according to any particular value set. Instead, just let society be whatever it ends up being as the aggregate result of the interactions of the free individuals who comprise it. You don’t like gay marriage? Fine, don’t marry someone of the same sex. You think poor people need more assistance? Good for you. Start a non-profit organization to provide charitable assistance to them. Just don’t expect the government to institutionalize your value set in the form of laws and programs.
A fair criticism could be leveled against this idea: namely, that the idea itself expresses a value that could best be described as “liberty” — the liberty to pursue your own value set and not operate under one imposed by government action. Thus the idea I’ve proposed, by the very act of prohibiting the government from engineering society, would force the value set of liberty upon society. I would argue that liberty is far less onerous than the alternative value sets, namely egalitarianism and conservative/traditional values, in that it still enables one to pursue either. But it robs one of the ability to pursue either in the political arena, whereas the same could not be said of liberty.
I would maintain that my idea is also consistent with the Constitution, whereas engineering society according to any other value set is not consistent with the Constitution (at least not if done at the federal level).
So maybe this makes me a Constitutionalist? Hmmm…. reading their “Seven principles,” I get to principle #3 — “Family: One husband and one wife with their children as divinely instituted” — and realize that they are just social engineers too. I’ve actually come to think of myself in recent years as a libertarian. But Keith Burgess-Jackson claims that libertarians are progressives, and I am most assuredly not a progressive. Maybe I don’t understand the use of these terms. Anyone care to help me out?
Tags: Ethics, Politics, Critical Thinking // 1 Comment »
Or, as detractors of our space efforts usually pose the question: “Why should we be spending so much money exploring space when we have so many problems to be solved here on earth?”