The Laughing Wolf

The Choice We Face

Despite what you may think, the upcoming election is not between Bush and Kerry. Nor is it between any slate of local or regional candidates. As I noted before, we are now in the midst of the keystone battle of the Enlightenment for our generation. The choices we make on 2 November will have consequences that will shape our world for a generation or more – not just for a four year term.

The Enlightenment is the true philosophical cornerstone upon which the Great Experiment that is America is founded. While Judeo-Christian concepts influenced individuals and helped shape the Enlightenment, they did not necessarily do so as most people believe. To better understand the choices we face, some background is needed.

The Enlightenment is a broad historical period beginning in the 1600s and culminating in the late the 1700s. It was revolutionary for its day, and was treated as such by many established powers ranging from various religious institutions to autocratic rulers. A good example of the latter was Tsarina Catherine of Russia who banned all discussion and dissemination on the topics, a decision that affects world politics to this day. This is important because in Western Civilization, the Enlightenment was discussed by and aimed at all levels of society, not just a particular elite.

All of this could be said to originate with Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), who postulated the first modern concept of the theory of the Social Contract. In broadest terms, such theories attempt to lay out the duties and obligations between people, with a focus on levels of authority. The emphasis is placed in all on the need to play by the rules on all parts, so that society functions smoothly. It was Hobbes who proposed the radical idea that an absolute ruler was needed, but chosen by consent rather than divine right, and thus laid the foundation for the modern republic.

His work was picked up and expanded by John Locke (1632-1704), who developed a new model of the Social Contract and provided what was to become the philosophical base of the Enlightenment. That base is a tripod: reason, nature, and progress. This work was further expanded by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), who literally wrote the book on the Social Contract. In addition, the Enlightenment includes an evolution of thought through the works of George Berkeley (1685-1753), David Hume (1711-1776), and Immanuel Kant (1724-1804).

Some historical context is also in order. During the 1600s, the world was in a great deal of turmoil as wars of empire and religion rolled across Europe. The remnants of the Holy Roman Empire clashed with England, Sweden, and others while the Roman Catholic Church sought to regain monopoly by force. Various forms of Inquisition were in progress, and these were not limited to the Church of Rome. Kings and aristocracy were also fighting to retain divine right and to preserve the idea of nobility as natural leaders over lesser peoples. Amidst this, a revolution in science was underway, with Newton and others leading a successful challenge to Aristotle. Add to the mix the spread of the printing press and a growing literacy rate, and it is quite safe to call the times interesting. For those who would like some fun context, allow me to recommend Eric Flint’s 1633 series.

It was amidst this turmoil that the Enlightenment developed. At its heart is the radical notion that people, individuals, of all types can make informed and reasoned decisions for themselves, and that it was possible to understand the world around us. With knowledge and reason, progress – making a heaven on Earth – was not merely possible but probable.

This notion was not necessarily well received, because it was fundamentally opposed to the concepts of divine right and aristocracy. It also challenged all religions, not just Christianity, because it said holds that the world operates by a set of laws and not on magical whim. In short, it mounted a direct attack on the established order. What makes this different from most revolutionary philosophies was that it allowed and encouraged attacks upon itself by including the concept of growth based on new knowledge. As a side note for now, that helped shape the governance of America because the Founding Fathers included provisions for changing our government as knowledge grew and situations altered based in part on this premise.

To my mind, Locke lies at the heart of the choices we face. It was his concept of tabula rasa that has laid the foundation for modern thought, modern education, modern juvenile justice, and modern socialism and communism. It also provides the philosophical heart of the “its for the children movement,” a topic that deserves a much fuller discussion later. A very gross summation of this concept is that all people are born blank, that what they become depends upon the education they receive and the experiences of early life. In short, all men are created equal and with certain natural rights that include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

What grew from Locke’s work was the idea that all people could be taught reason, based on logic and science, and given the proper information arrive at good decisions for their life. The key points were the concepts of tabula rasa, education, and humanism. In this sense, humanism was not atheism, but rather placing a human-centric rather than diety-centric view of the world in the mind of man.

All of this is important to us because it did lead to the philosophical concepts that are socialism and communism. The quick version is that the Enlightenment has spawned two very different world views. In one, individuals are fully rational, capable of making their own decisions, and capable of self-control and self-governance. The other takes the concept that people are not capable of self-control and self-governance, and require the state to run their lives and ensure proper order. With proper indoctrination (education), people will recognize this and use what might be termed social logic to do what is best for the whole, not for the individual. This is one reason that socialists and communists have always focused on education, so that they can plant proper thought into the tabula rasa. Again, how this applies to education in America (and elsewhere) today is the topic for another day.

What this boils down to is that three different schools of thought have been at war for more than 200 years. You have the individual-centric view of the “classical” Enlightenment in the form of America as it existed in 1776. America is referred to as The Great Experiment because it was and is literally a scientific test-bed for those concepts. You have the concepts of socialism, fascism, and communism that are outgrowths of the most radical schools of thought of the Enlightenment. Finally, you have the autocracy/theocracy school, which is essentially the old world view of divine right and divine rule.

What we have had are the concepts of socialism, communism, and fascism at war among themselves and with “radical” America and pre-socialism Magna Carta England; a war between religions and humanism in all forms; a war between classical humanism and atheistic secular-humanism; and, a war between autocracy/theocracy and the combined concepts of the Enlightenment. At different times, this war has been fought with words, deeds, and armaments. On 2 November, it will be fought with votes.

The most obvious choice is between autocracy/theocracy and the Enlightenment. You have radical Islam out to convert by sword and bomb, versus the rest of the world. (The concepts of Islamification by assimilation and population growth is yet again the topic for another day) On the one hand, you have Bush who is prosecuting this as a war of armaments and ideals, literally attacking the leaders, bases of operations, and bases of support. The basic idea is simple: remove leadership; eliminate safe-havens and the ability to arm; remove the fight from American soil and in the process (fly paper) eliminate the most radical of enemy fighters; and, establish bases of philosophical assault by bringing basic concepts of the Enlightenment to the enemies homeland. There is a reason for the frantic and terrified efforts by the enemy to destroy the fledgling governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. On the other hand, you have Kerry who sees this as a law-enforcement issue at best and who has failed to articulate a clear plan other than that he would do better.

Yet there is another choice to be made. What we are voting on is also a choice between socialism and republic. The fact is, Kerry is representative of the socialist movement, of big government and the concept that a central authority is required to ensure that people act in the best manner for the whole. Would that I could say that Bush is for the opposite, but he is not. He is for a lesser socialism, but is just as married to the idea of a big central government as his opponent. As a result, the choice is between greater socialism and lesser.

This is a very brief summation, and as such it can be assaulted with justification for being overly simplistic and lacking in precision. Such points have validity in a philosophical plane and make for great academic arguments. Such arguments, no matter how fun and entertaining, do not diminish the ultimate fact.

Your vote this year is between autocracy/theocracy and the views of classical liberalism, between at least the rudiments of classical liberalism versus radical. The first choice should be relatively easy; the second may not be so easy for many. Think about the real choices we face, then educate yourself and vote as a responsible citizen. Remember that it is much more than a vote for an ephemeral party or candidate, for it is literally a vote for your philosophical and practical future.

LW