|A Pre-revolutionary Situation||The Ghosts of Liberal Pieties|
by Christopher Chantrill
June 19, 2012 at 6:00 pm
IN HIS LEARNED excursus on American history in Cleveland last week, President Obama made a big deal about the things we Americans have done together: railroads and highways, the Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate Bridge.
We got where we are today not by telling everybody to fend for themselves, but by coming together as one American family, all of us pitching in, all of us pulling our own weight, said the president. The president used the word together ten times in his speech.
Its a pity that almost everything the president has done in the last three years has divided Americans and replaced together with big government and special interests. Maybe its time we thought about what together really means.
It just so happens that the life work of Americas only woman Nobel economist, Elinor Ostrom, who died last week, had something important to say about this together. Ostrom, who was not an economist, did groundbreaking research into the ways that humans manage common resources, a.k.a. the tragedy of the commons. In other words, she worked on the science of together. She asked the question: How do humans manage things that they own together?
Ordinary humans, it turns out, have succeeded in managing common resources like common grazing land and common fisheries despite the tragedy of the commons. They have done it with systems of shaming and rewards. Good people, who do the right thing, get praised and honored in their communities; bad people, who sneak off to fish or graze more than their share, get named and shamed. I suspect that a critical part of this system is frequent community meetings, where members of the community know that they have to face their neighbors in a public forum.
You can see why we moderns talk about the tragedy of the commons. We look down on guilds and village councils that together used to reduce the freedom of their community members. Instead of naming and shaming we prefer the impersonal hand of the regulator and the bureaucrat. But politicians and bureaucrats arent very good at managing common resources from Washington DC. Under their management common resources suffer waste, abuse and neglect.
Elinor Ostrom represents a generation of scientists that has been doing yeomans work in exposing the noble lies and oversimplifications of the last two centuries, the sort that politicians like President Obama use to justify increased government power. You could run human society purely on the basis of utility, said the utilitarians: happiness of the greatest number. You could run society as a communal village writ large, said the socialists. You could run society with rational educated experts, said the Progressives and the Fabians. You could even run society as an evolutionary survival of the fittest, said the entrepreneurs, but everyone agreed that was social Darwinism.
But just as we know now that the design and operation of the human body is complex and sophisticated far beyond our imaginings, we are coming to understand that our life as social animals has a depth of complexity and sophistication beyond the naive simplifications of the philosophers and political activists. For instance Alan Page Fiske in the early 1990s developed a four-dimensional relational model of human society, humans doing things together as social animals. There is Communal Sharing, which was Elinor Ostroms area of specialization. Then there is Authority Ranking, President Obamas favorite approach to together. Then there is Equality Matching: thats the idea of taking turns, of returning favors, of tit-for-tat. Finally there is Market Pricing; we know all about that.
The reality of humans as social animals is much more complicated than a four-dimensional model: of course it is. At least the model shines a light on the horribly cramped and bigoted philosophy of President Obama, whose together means liberals inventing bureaucratic programs and calling it community as they force everyone onto a one-size-fits-all idea that just happens to create easy, lifetime-employment, supervisory roles for educated liberals.
Let us celebrate President Obamas use of family togetherness, for he is paying tribute to the conservative vision, that there is something more than politics and programs. As Catholics believe in subsidiarity, conservatives believe in civil society, the empowerment of the little platoons in society in which everyone can make his or her responsible contribution to society.
Its a shame that the president and his political party really dont really believe in together outside of presidential framing speeches. A stimulus program filled with moneys for the presidents supporters isnt together. A top-down bureaucratic monster health care program isnt together. A green energy program doling out favors to the presidents contributors and issuing draconian regulations to shut down coal production isnt together.
Maybe the president and his top aides should spend a bit of time reading up on the science of human sociality. Then they might learn how very far the program of President Obama and his political party is from together.
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists, she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican
Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050
For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008
Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists
conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values
[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.
But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family.
Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[T]he way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,
Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District
A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is merely relative, is asking you not to believe him. So dont.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy
Paul Dirac: When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated
by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that
I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion.
However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and
inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he
suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.
John Farrell, The Creation Myth
Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization