Grappling for the Helm of the Titanic
I will paraphrase what Chuck Todd of NBC’s “Meet the Press” asked somewhat rhetorically in analyzing the slide below:
With poll numbers like these, how will this country come together when this is what the two political parties think of each other?
I ask in response: Why is there any expectation that the nation will “come together” politically or that the people must act in unison within the institution of government?
The legacy political parties are polarized because the expected benefits of “compromise” are unilateral: One party benefits from government action with the expectation that (nearly) all costs and material sacrifices will be borne by some class of unrelated and oftentimes geographically removed “others.”
Successful cooperative effort requires mutualities of commitment, contribution, AND benefit. Where those mutualities exist, disparate parties will come together voluntarily in order to advance their common interests and mutual benefit, and government involvement in those transactions or relationships is likely superfluous or even counterproductive. In the absence of those mutualities, however, no amount of government involvement is likely to make the endeavor successful. Nevertheless, one party is often motivated to utilize the coercive and compulsory powers of the state in order to force a reluctant or nonconforming party (whose participation is necessary or integral for the policy or program to be successful) to engage in a transaction or relationship, which the coerced party likely deems disadvantageous or inconsistent with its own interests.
Government is not a mechanism to foster cooperation, compromise, collaboration, or consensus. It is instead an instrument of brute force whereby an electoral majority (or controlling voting bloc) seeks to impose its self-serving will upon a reluctant and disfavored minority (or other group). There is rarely, if ever, anything more moral or noble in the machinations of the state.
Therefore, it is unlikely that there will be any “coming together,” so long as the benefits are perceived as unilateral and the resulting costs and sacrifices are imposed by force upon some class of “others.” The would-be beneficiaries do not seek cooperative effort. They do not seek to be rewarded commensurate with their own contributions. They seek capitulation and subjugation.
In order to make their forced takings (which occur effectively at the point of a gun or upon threat of incarceration) seem more moral, just, and fair, they seek to interpose government between the takers and the objects of the takings. In denominating the forced takings a “tax” and their exercises of power “social justice,” they seek to recast as moral or even necessary patently immoral acts, which likely would be illegal of undertaken by individuals themselves. The resulting government (or collective) actions, which are taken at the behest or for the supposed benefit of a numerical majority, are tantamount to institutional theft and involuntary servitude; nevertheless, the would-be beneficiaries act with a perverse moral certitude, which they mistakenly believe can be derived solely from their number.
It is not a matter of having the wrong person in the wrong office. It is a matter of expecting too much from government. It is commanding of government things, for which the institution is ill suited. It is expecting the Leviathan to act entirely contrary to its bestial nature. The only way to limit the destructive potential of government is to limit the power afforded to the state. As power trends toward absolute, so does the certainty for corruption, and with corruption come abuse, oppression, and tyranny.
Our species is not inclined to self-sacrifice. We shall not quickly condemn ourselves to martyrdom or commit ourselves to being pawns within the collective. Therefore, the poll numbers are entirely indicative of human nature. They represent the controlling rule rather than a rare exception. Any policy or program, whose success depends upon persons acting contrary to their inherent nature, is almost certainly destined to failure. It may not be immediately obvious, but the adherents of both legacy parties are right: An unrestrained state, with a government unhinged from the limitations and restrictions of the Constitution, will destroy America, no matter which person or party is at the helm.
On the same program, it was noted that roughly 2/3 of BOTH Republicans and Democrats would vote for “their” party’s designated candidate, even if that candidate had a pronounced “moral” shortcoming. The talking heads on the program proceeded to discuss how we could “return” morality to “democracy.”
Morality is an individual trait, and institutions, including government, have no moral compasses of their own. Instead, institutions tend to reflect the moral inclinations of their constituent members. Government is not an effective arbiter of morality. Collective action tends to gravitate toward groupthink and tends to exacerbate and magnify the baser traits of our bestial species. The “moral” inclinations of government tend to reflect the interests of the parties, who hold the reigns of power at a given point in time. Even when a “democratic” government acts at the behest of an electoral majority, that self-serving numerical majority often embraces a perverse moral certitude, which it mistakenly believes can be derived solely from its number.
There is absolutely nothing in the makeup of a numerical majority, which implies, much less assures, that its preferred actions are necessarily in the long-term best interests of that majority or of the collective as a whole, and the proposed actions would be routinely adverse to the interests of disfavored minorities or nonconforming individuals.
Government, therefore, should be “amoral.” That is not to say that government should undertake “immoral” acts in order to advance the interests of favored constituents; however, government should not be motivated by the “moral” inclinations of individuals. A government, which is committed to enforcing a less-than-universal moral code, is effectively a theocracy. In this case, the tenets need not be limited to theistic faiths, but the descriptor fairly includes Humanism and its denominational offshoots of: Collectivism, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism.
In a theocracy, there can be no room for dissent. Law becomes dogma, and dogma cannot be questioned. Those who refuse to abide the law are deemed heretics, apostates, and infidels … or worse. Adherents and those, who are tasked with divining “truth” and protecting the faith (i.e. the Political Classes), are emboldened and empowered to subdue and eliminate all “nonbelievers.” Such a government is increasingly authoritarian, and it is inconsistent with individual liberty and incompatible with personal freedom.
