Revisiting the 20th Century

The world’s history book is speckled with experiments that failed, though generally not much is remembered about them.  Etruscan civilization had many appealing features, but Rome almost managed to wipe its memory entirely from the history books.   From the lost colony of Roanoke to the state of Franklin, America has its own set of vague recollections about things that might have been, but just didn't pan out.    Now it appears that the whole 20^th century is being reexamined to determine whether it was a success or failure, and either way, who deserves the credit and who the blame.  In a December speech to the Russian parliament, Vladimir Putin tried to depict the 20^th century as a temporary triumph of Western barren and neutered “so-called” tolerance that was nothing but a slide into immorality.  He proclaimed Russia’s role as a bulwark against such tolerance and a model for “the organic life of different people living together within the framework of a single state.”  In such a view, Western “anything goes” tolerance, liberty and democracy are merely paths to inevitable decline.  One could imagine a similar speech being given in ancient Sparta about the inevitable failure of Athenian democracy.

One way of examining the 20^th century is to see it as an enactment of the democratic ideals proposed in the 19^th by thinkers such as Mill and Arnold, and the struggle of those ideals against the traditional ideals of governance by elites, whether they be a nobility, a plutocracy or a Communist party.  The fall of the Soviet Union is seen in this light as the final great victory over elite governance as an ideal.  Not so fast.  The current critique by Putin is a renewed attack on democracy itself as lacking the order, aesthetic values and moral values provided by the imposition of elite ideals.  An unwitting ally of Putin is George Will, who recently created a small flurry in the Washington Post letters to the editor by attacking democracy from the other direction, arguing that democracy is the enemy of liberty.  To Will and his gang of fellow libertarians, unrestricted personal liberty is the basic promise of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution – though the Preamble to the Constitution only mentions liberty in its final clause as providing blessings which must be secured.  Instead, the Preamble to the Constitution refers to the collective ideals of forming a more perfect union, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare and securing those blessings. 

That is consistent with the idea stated later by J.S. Mill that true liberty is a collective value requiring responsible participation by all.  To Mill, liberty without responsibility is simply another name for anarchy.  He criticized the libertarians of his time for desiring a purposeless individual liberty with only negative value.  And his idea itself was an echo of the earlier ideas of Hobbes, a thinker well known to the founding fathers, who regarded the limitless and irresponsible liberty available outside civilization as accompanying a life “nasty, brutish and short.” 

Hobbes, and Mills to some extent, were arguing for civilized, collective behavior, not necessarily against elite governance.  They were, after all, living in a monarchy.  It was Matthew Arnold who pointed out that society consists of groups and social classes with differing visions and values who must act together to make society work.  That requires some shared values and a lot of compromise.  Arnold’s vehicle for making that happen was the English public school system, which he had a major hand in founding.

 In America, Jefferson had held the same educational vision later espoused by Arnold in England.  Jefferson felt that a good education was a cornerstone of liberty.  And that is where our democracy needs work today.  There was some truth about what Putin said regarding “Western tolerance” sliding into immorality.  We have only to read the papers or watch TV to confirm it.  A democracy where “everything goes” and everyone is following their own bliss without regard to the needs of others is not a pretty sight.  The dystopia depicted in the movie “Her” is not a pleasant prospect.  Putin’s solution was regulation by elites, the Communist Party and the KGB.  The 20^th century has already proved that doesn't work.  A better approach is to go back to Jefferson, Mills and Arnold and teach our children the requirements and responsibilities of liberty.  A common literary canon used to help tie us together, but has fallen victim to divisive arguments about which reading is most, or least, important.  Restoring a core canon of readings on liberty should be a goal of the public education process.  Responsible behavior and respect for others – including the need for avoiding unnecessary offence, conflict management and the other arts of democracy, ought to be a part of every curriculum.  That is not necessarily the responsibility of our schools only.  A public service requirement for all, like that found in other countries, would be of great benefit.  A citizenship test for high schoolers like that administered to applicants for citizenship would be a good approach.  There’s no reason any citizen should know less about our government than those newly admitted.  Responsible citizens open to each other and to the future should be the norm, not the exception.  And there is no reason our society should merely copy the anarchy or oppressions of the past.  We have learned from the 20^th century enough not to repeat it.