The Creation of a Good Society

I see in the Pilgrims our true American heritage.  Today, they are largely ignored or ridiculed for their inconsistencies regarding religious freedom, but this stems from the notion that the concept of religious freedom was their biggest contribution to the world, whereas it is much more than that.  Ignoring or belittling the Pilgrims for what we perceive as inconsistencies does a great disservice to ourselves by blinding us to our true American heritage.  The Pilgrims were not so interested in the idea or principle of religious freedom as such.  They were more interested in the freedom to live their lives and to create a society based upon the principles they believed in, to create their own Good Society.  "Disgusted by the habits of a society which the rigor of their own principles condemned, the Puritans went forth to seek some rude and unfrequented part of the world where they could live according to their own opinions and worship God in freedom."  "These men possessed, in proportion to their number, a greater mass of intelligence than is to be found in any European nation of our own time [1830's].  All, perhaps without a single exception, had received a good education, and many of them were known in Europe for their talents and their acqui[sitions].  The other colonies had been founded by adventurers without families; the immigrants of New England brought with them the best elements of order and morality; they landed on the desert coasts accompanied by their wives and children.  But what especially distinguished them from all others was the aim of their undertaking....they [did not] cross the Atlantic to improve their situation or to increase their wealth; it was a purely intellectual craving that called them from the comforts of their homes; and in facing the inevitable suffering of exile their object was the triumph of an idea." (Democracy in America, Alexis de Toqueville) This idea was Puritanism.  Whether you agree with the Puritan ideal or not, they believed that the principles of the Puritan faith would establish a Good Society. Being unable to establish it or to live it freely in England, they set out to a new land in order to create their Good Society, founded on the principles of Puritanism (which helps explain the inconsistencies in religious tolerance we perceive today).  It is probable that never before in the history of the world had a group of educated people separated themselves from society with the conscious purpose of creating their own Good Society and constructing their own social contract.  This 'Social Liberty' was the freedom they sought (as opposed to religious freedom) and this is our true American heritage.

The creation of the United States of America is an extension of this noble heritage.  The American people were accustomed to being able to establish themselves in societies they preferred and shuddered at the idea that an island thousands of miles away would presume to tell them how to live.  Jefferson referenced this sentiment, citing an attempt on the part of the American colonies to reconcile themselves with Britain, when he wrote, "We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here." The American commitment to Social Liberty was so strong that they fought the strongest nation in the world hoping desperately to preserve it. 

Coupled with this commitment to Social Liberty, the seemingly endless frontier offered not only amazing natural resources, but a source of hope and inspiration; a 'new world' where anyone's Good Society could be established.  I am well aware of the resulting plight of Native Americans, and how their versions of a Good Society were unfairly trampled underfoot.  The Americans and Europeans certainly could've done much better in engaging the Native Americans.  However, focusing on this once again falls into the problem of focusing on one aspect of the times and applying our current points of view to it, at the risk of blinding us to all else that was good.  The lessons from the failures of the past must be learned, but it is also necessary to embrace the good so that we can determine its value to us today. The settling of the American frontier had its positive side as well as its negative.  These coincided remarkably with the settling of the East Coast.  There were two classes of settlers, adventurers and devoted intellectuals.  Adventurers brought with them drunkenness, disorder, and violence while devoted intellectuals brought with them vision, order, productivity, and experimentation.

The current political, economic, and social crises in America stem from an increasing polarization of the citizens.  As unique individuals, we all have a unique view of what constitutes a Good Society.  When the system doesn’t operate ‘correctly’ or when we see something happen and say, ‘That’s not right,’ we are comparing the reality which surrounds us with our own perception of a Good Society.  Though we are often not fully aware of what our own version of a Good Society is, we each believe in that version so strongly, so powerfully, so personally that we each believe we know what is most important, and that our particular view is the mold for the rest of the nation.  This perception, buried deep within us, is not unique to any individual, any party, or even any single faction within a party.  Parties and factions exist precisely because of our strong beliefs in our own perspectives.  However, the idea that anyone's beliefs (yours or mine) are correct for everyone else lies at the heart of the problems facing America. The majority of Americans today are educated, but there is no allowing for the expression of this education in the establishment of today's Good Societies. 

Differing views of a Good Society easily come into conflict on the national level.  It is easy to see a great variety of opinions on all topics and if we are all to remain members of the same society, we must either be continuously in conflict against each other or we must somehow be reconciled.  The United States is currently in a state of perpetual conflict because we are all trying to tell each other what the Good Society should be, rather than recognizing that there are vastly different conceptions of the Good Society.  When one considers the number of citizens, the free exchange of ideas, and political representation, among many other factors, it can be difficult to imagine the country any other way.  Hence, party politics has assumed a level of dominance in America, even during Washington’s presidency.  It can be truthfully said that the persistence of the United States as a single body politic or as a single society in the face of ongoing internal conflict is a uniquely American triumph. However, this perception that our particular view is best and needs to be imposed on the national level is intolerant and, if realized, destructive of the very diversity we praise, leading to the creation of a 'centralized administration' to impose that will on the rest of the nation.

In his work, "Democracy in America", M. de Toqueville commented on the dangers of centralized administrations. "[A] centralized administration is fit only to enervate the nations in which it exists, by incessantly diminishing their local spirit.  Although such an administration can bring together at a given moment, on a given point, all the disposable resources of a people, it injures the renewal of those resources.  It may ensure a victory in the hour of strife, but it gradually relaxes the sinews of strength.  It may help admirably the transient greatness of a man, but not the durable prosperity of a nation.... However enlightened and skillful a central power may be, it cannot of itself embrace all the details of the life of a great nation.  Such vigilance exceeds the powers of man.  And when it attempts unaided to create and set in motion so many complicated springs, it must submit to a very imperfect result or exhaust itself in bootless efforts.... [Centralization] easily succeeds, indeed, in subjecting the external actions of men to a certain uniformity, which we come to love for its own sake, independently of the objects to which it is applied, like those devotees who worship the statue and forget the deity it represents.... it excels in prevention, but not in action.  Its force deserts it when society is to be profoundly moved, or accelerated in its course; and if once the co-operation of private citizens is necessary to the furtherance of its measures, the secret of its impotence is disclosed.  Even while the centralized power, in its despair, invokes the assistance of the citizens, it says to them: "You shall act just as I please, as much as I please, and in the direction which I please.  You are to take charge of the details without aspiring to guide the system; you are to work in darkness; and afterwards you may judge my work by its results."  These are not the conditions on which the alliance of the human will is to be obtained; it must be free in its gait and responsible for its acts, or (such is the constitution of man) the citizen had rather remain a passive spectator than a dependent actor in schemes with which he is unacquainted."

Sadly, the history of the United States only shows an increasingly centralized administration through which the party in power may impose its will on the rest of the nation, creating an increasingly homogenous society, while leaving hostility and apathy in its wake. The dynamic strength of America is being sapped. I for one would prefer to see this level of conflict turned to productivity and a flourishing in society (a sort of societal eudaimonia) rather than the current levels of hostility and apathy.  I would rather see tolerance and coexistence and a sharing of ideas towards productive resolutions of problems than to see our country as a miracle because it hasn't imploded on itself. 

By no means do I intend to offer some utopian society without government, as both political extremes advocate.  Some communist utopia is as illusory as some free-market/free-society utopia.  These extremes are clearly unrealizable, and the slightest amount of reflection only shows their absurdity.  Government is necessary and good.  However, I would argue that much is to be gained by recognizing that far fewer values than we might expect are truly "fundamental." Those values which are Constitutionally guaranteed throughout the Nation, should be those which arise necessarily from the mutually dependent relationship between individuals and society. All else, like it or not, is subject to local flavor.