Skip to main content

Let's all remember our John Locke

Yes, it's seventeenth century time. Back in 1689, the English philosopher John Locke published his two Treatises of Government. I bring up a writer who's been dead for more than 300 years because I believe that his understanding of government is more relevant today than ever. For those of you who care, Locke has recently come into the limelight as the result of Steven Pinker's new book on the Enlightenment and the resulting criticisms of it (one, in fact, in last week's Wall Street Journal). I'm happy to go into this in more detail if you would care to do so. For the moment, however, let's stick to Locke's essays and their current relevance.

Ok, so way back when, Locke argued that human beings, whereas they may have tendencies to selfishness and egotism, are generally reasonable, endowed with goodwill toward others. In other words, like you and I think of ourselves. This being so, people established governments to cooperate with each other and facilitate social life. As such, they established a social contract with their rulers. Governments existed to protect the liberties of the governed, not restrict them. If rulers failed to live up to the expectations of their citizens, they had violated the social contract, and could be replaced by the people.

Doesn't sound like rocket science, does it? Just the same, it struck a blow at what had been up until that time the traditional theory of government. For the longest time in Europe, several hundred years at least, political theorists and defenders of the social order argued for a closely structured society defined by birth. The underpinning of these arguments was the immutable will of God. If it was God's will that someone be king, that person was born into a royal household. Obvious, right? If you were born dirt poor, that's the way it God wanted it, baby. That's where you were supposed to stay.

I am tempted at this point to break into a Monty Python dialog: "supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not some farcical aquatic ceremony." No, wait, hold on. On the face of it, the traditional way of looking at the world made a good deal of sense. It offered an explanation of society and gave the individual a tidy, simple way of understanding his or her place in the great scheme of things. Unfortunately, it was also first and foremost a tool of control. People were beat over the head with it to make sure that they kept their place, never questioned authority, and never attempted to create a better life for themselves or their children. There's also one other thing wrong with it, but we'll come back to that.

The bad news is that the "God's will crowd" appears to be making a comeback, so it would behoove us, now more than ever, to remember our John Locke. We make excuses for our elected leaders, dismiss their weaknesses and mediocrity, all the while lessening our expectations for decency and integrity in public life. Lately, we hope somehow that our elected officials are going to grow into their positions. By what right? We're not talking about some first-time local town council member who has limited power and authority (although there's no excuse for ineptitude at the local level, either). If people don't belong in public office, they need to go.

Don't let anyone tell you that the stupefying level of public discourse is the new norm, the new way of doing business. Rabid radio personalities, TV talking heads, porn stars, and unscrupulous politicians want you to buy that. If you do, it excuses their own bad behavior. The last person they want to face is someone with any kind of ethics or morals. They elected to make bad choices in life, maybe even profited by them. If you make them, too, we'll all be on the same level. They can better justify their own sorry behavior. The dirtballs can get away with being dirtballs.

This brings me to the last thing wrong with the "God's will" crowd. It takes away our agency. That is an especially sorry state of affairs in a republic of free individuals, such as the United States of America. It's about time we did something about it. If it sounds wrong to you, impolite, rude, nasty, it is. No TV commentator or political pundit should be able to explain it way. Your morals and ethics aren't the problem. Theirs are.

Let's start cleaning up the mess, one election at a time. Voters can make mistakes, but we can also correct them. Let's start to set the bar a little higher. Before you know it, the social contract might have some value again. We might even end up with enough people of integrity and character that politicians might be forced to think of themselves as public servants again. Wouldn't that be something?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An opportunity as we fight off the global killer

We live in hard times. We must contend with a silent killer that forces us to lock ourselves up in our houses, keeping us away from friends, family, and the greater community at large. We can't go out to a ballgame, a restaurant, a movie, or even to a house of worship. The stock market tanked in an awful hurry, with the Dow Jones Industrial Average losing 35 percent of its value over the course of five weeks in February-March. That's a big blow for folks who were planning to retire this year. An astounding 3.3 million Americans filed for unemployment the week of 16-20 March, nearly five times the previous record. Hard times, indeed. You know all this because you're living it, too. Nevertheless, what none of us need is someone telling us that the wheels are coming off the wagon. It's disappointing that the Washington Post chose to do just that in an article on Monday, 23 March, entitled, "Pandemic tests whether America can rise to the occasion." Disguised

Why things are the way they are

Never let it be said that I can't write a blog post in less than eight months. One of the benefits of writing this blog infrequently is that I have the chance to think about long-term trends without getting bogged down in the moment.   I hope this is of value to you as well. Blogging regularly or, worse, tweeting every few minutes, is a full-time job.   I've already got one of those.   Of greater relevance, it seems to me that harping on up-to-the-minute events is very much like beating the proverbial dead horse.   How is today's bad behavior any worse than yesterday's?   Focusing on the moment also prevents folks from making sense of why things are the way they are; they're too busy devoting their energy to the very latest insult or outrage (which is strikingly similar to the one they harped on the day before). Let's take as an example the criticism of the behavior of the Republican leadership in Congress.   If you read The New York Times and The Was

Why I'm here (this blog's raison d'etre) - Part I (of II)

Is the United States in terminal decline, or is the American Republic so durable and its institutions so well-created that nothing can undo it? If the answer is the latter, this blog will have a short existence. As soon as I get a little more evidence for it, I will close up shop and occupy my time some other way. If it's the former, it's about time "We The People" did something about it. On the face of it, this is a question for historians, who, by virtue of their training, can (or ought to be able to) see long-term trends. Much of what we experience today, after all, has been seen before. That's why George Santayana remarked, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." This is a point lost in our 24/7 media frenzy, whose purveyors promote the novelty and urgency of the most minute and trivial of events as though it's all new and of the greatest import. I will say more about this at some future point. For now, a lot of peo