Tom Friedman, a few
years ago in The World is Hot, Flat
and Crowded, remarked that if he could be dictator for one day, the
problems of managing climate change could be readily solved. He could have added “Dangerous” to that book title
and generalized the remark to cover a number of topics and been even more
correct. In all major global problem
areas, solutions are known to exist, but no one has the power to take the
needed actions. In a world filled with terrorism, disease, ethnic hatreds,
unknown challenges ahead from climate change, growing income inequality and
global recession, there is a longing for the security in knowing that someone
knowledgeable and wise is in charge who knows just what to do and has the power
to get it done immediately. Popular
demand has just forced the White House to name an Ebola Czar. The President has
quite responsibly called him a “point person” – a coordinator – but the message
is clear: benevolent dictators are all the rage. And police are arming
themselves like small armies, equipping themselves in advance for totalitarian
rule.
How did the country
that valued Liberty above all else – even above Life according to Patrick Henry
– come to ignore Ben Franklin’s warning that “the nation that values security
above liberty will soon find it has neither”?
It seems to me that it is because we have forgotten that Liberty itself
has demands. Along with Jefferson’s price of eternal vigilance comes an even greater
one – constant responsible action. We
have adopted the libertarian ideal of unrestrained freedom of action as our modern
definition of Liberty. We are free to do
anything or nothing at all so long as some minimal law does not require
otherwise. We are free to go routinely above the speed limit, to resist paying
taxes to maintain the roads we use or to drive low-mileage SUVs in the face of pollution and climate change.
We are free to deny civil rights to others, we are free to buy or sell radar
detectors, assault rifles, etc., we are free to hop on a plane for a shopping
trip to Cleveland while under Ebola watch, because no one told us we shouldn’t. When the results become immediately and
visibly catastrophic, we then want to appoint someone to tell us to do
otherwise. We want a stern parent – the kind we avoid being at home these days.
Long ago, when I was a
child, we had this weird course called Civics class where we were reminded of
our responsibilities as citizens, and we had citizenship prizes to reward us
for being good ones. Our society was wrong on many things back then, but we knew
fixing them required our participation and the efforts ranged from civil rights
marches to buying savings bonds to plain old voting. We had writers such as the
Italian Giuseppe Mazzini to remind us that satisfying our obligations to others
was just as important as protecting our own rights. We still have government classes in our high
schools but they seem more concerned with the mechanics of government than with
its spirit. Our Constitution is partly
based on the writings of Montesquieu. He, for example, inspired the idea of the
three equal branches of government and the bicameral legislature, and his 1747 The Spirit of the Laws argued that
the most important element of a democracy is the spirit of responsible participation
in governance among its citizens. Without that, a democracy is dead. But the
view of government as the enemy is more rampant now than it was during Reagan’s
time, and good citizenship is seen by many as finding ways to destroy
government, not support it. Perhaps,
these days, an appropriate addition to the SATs would be a section containing
case studies on responsible citizenship.
I don’t often agree
with the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer. But the other day he said, approximately,
that the political processes of democracy involve balancing a continuing tension
between the needs for executive action and for individual liberty, and he was
right. Right now, the tilt is far toward
individual self-interest, and our democracy is sick. The center of the
political spectrum should be promoting ways of achieving responsible liberty,
and it is not there. We lack community.
The problem of course is that communities exclude, unless they can see
beyond themselves, and we are seeking more and more as a society to be
inclusive. But global terrors are interrupting our individual partying, and the
pressures are rising for a fortress America that can party on forever. Only it can’t.
We need a national
dialogue about the responsibilities of Liberty. We need positive regulation
that rewards responsible action instead of just punishing law breakers. For
example, in Australia, gun laws permit the purchase of any gun, EXCEPT for the
purpose of self-defense – that is a police responsibility. That enables
hunting, recreational target practice, etc., but excludes such things as
assault rifles. It recognizes both individual rights and community responsibilities, And the Australian gun homicide rate is one-tenth the
per-capita rate in America. I've
mentioned before laws that decrease food inspection requirements for businesses
with extended periods of non-violation. And we need citizenship training that
emphasizes responsibilities for graduation from high school. Right now, new
immigrants to this country seem to have a better sense of responsible
citizenship than our average high school graduate. A mandatory public service
requirement as is found in other countries may be an idea whose time has come. In short, as citizens, we need to get our act
together. We live in dangerous times.
No comments:
Post a Comment