The Tyranny of Equality

Part 6: Healing A House Divided

Our country is more divided than perhaps anytime since the Civil War. Is there any common ground that Judeo-Christian Traditionalists and Progressives can agree upon to avert the inevitable fall that comes with “a house divided against it self?”  As a Libertarian Christian I can agree with many of the goals of Progressives in their quest for particular equality.  I also believe that the past sixty years since the War on Poverty and other well-meaning programs designed to create material equality have been a miserable failure.  No time in our history have we had more people on government assistance programs, a lower employment participation rate, a greater inequality between the have’s and the have-nots, or more race, social or class division.  If insanity is doing the same thing expecting a different outcome than why do we continue to seek to expand government, its laws, rules, and regulation while diminishing Personal Liberty and Responsibility in the hope that the next thirty trillion dollars will do the trick?  As of this writing, the United States is over 18 trillion dollars in debt, has over a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, while the average American between the ages of 55 and 65 has saved only $12,000 for retirement.   Millennials are saddled with a mountain of college debt and degrees that do not translate into jobs, and our schools spend more money per student than any time in history and yet graduation rates and competency levels continue to decline.  I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.  The path we are on is not sustainable economically, politically, and certainly not for personal liberty.  So what is the solution? 

I wrote earlier about “inclinations” that all humans share that have their origins in the Natural Law.  These inclinations can unite or divide.  I have already discussed how two of those inclinations divide us, but they and the others can unite both those of the Athens-Jerusalem Tradition and Progressive persuasion. 

We all seek “to preserve ourselves in existence,” and to “make provisions for our children.”  Both these inclinations can be much more readily achieved when our nation is free, secure, prosperous, and harmonious.  We are not there, and I propose that every American, whatever their political persuasion, has a vested interest in working together preserve the republic not just for ourselves, but especially for our children. 

We also share the inclination, “To use our intellect and will—that is, to know the truth and to make our own decisions.”  Although there are some for whom their Materialistic or Religious Determinism makes “to make his own decisions” irrelevant—and for them I have nothing to suggest.  For the rest of us, I would like us to examine the wisdom from a Professor of Educational Theory and Practice from the University of Georgia.

I don’t often quote Marxist Feminist professors, but when I do its usually Dr. Elizabeth St. Pierre:

“…when we are entrenched in a particular way of thinking about the world, one in which we have been trained, one that seems to suit our ends and our dispositions, it is very difficult to hear others, to be willing to hear them.  But if we are really working any epistemology for all it’s worth, we will inevitably come up against … the boundary where thought stops what it cannot bear to know, what it must shut out to think as it does.  At this boundary, ethics comes into play, because we are not just rejecting another epistemology to shut out critique and keep our own intact, we are also rejecting the people who live that epistemology” (St. Pierre, 2006, p. 257).

I believe Dr. St. Pierre’s has exactly diagnosed where we are in our culture.  I suspect that I may have lost some readers already who found what I had to say too “difficult to hear,” and others who might not have been “willing to hear” it.  This is not to suggest that we have to agree with one another, but I concur with Dr. St. Pierre that we must work our “epistemology for all it’s worth” and most people simply don’t know how to do this, are not willing to take the time to do it, or are afraid of where this rabbit hole might lead them.  This is the value of “doubt” in any epistemology as it makes one questions not only the deductions based upon the foundational assumptions, but the assumptions themselves.  Doubt acts synergistically with faith and can be a catalyst for personal growth.  But doubt is just the first step in working out epistemologies; there are intellectual “virtues” that are necessary to continue the journey, these include: curiosity, honesty, and courage.  It takes curiosity to seek to understand not only the epistemology itself, but also our psychological predisposition that make us receptive to adopting it, perhaps even uncritically.  It takes honesty to examine an epistemology for its internal coherence, that is, can its explain reality as it really is and what type of moral person and society would result from its application in the lives of those “who live” it.  And it takes courage to push through “the boundary where thought stops what it cannot bear to know, what it must shut out to think as it does,” and then having done so, to stand at the precipice of unknowing. 

We should all do this, those of us who hold the Athens-Jerusalem Tradition and the Progressive; we need to work our epistemologies for all they’re worth.  And we should do it often.  This is part of the Athens tradition that we all should share, that is, to Know Thyself, which more than anything else, is to know our own thoughts, the worldview and ethics they create, and why we have come to believe it.  This is the beginning of the path towards Personal Freedom.   I have known such people and I strive to be like them.  They are characterized by their intellectual humility.  They listen and ask questions; they do not shout down those who do not think like they do.  They may challenge, but they do not mock.  They seek common ground and reconciliation, but when this is not possible and they must “reject another epistemology,” they do not reject the “people who live that epistemology.”   They respect the space of Personal Liberty and Responsibility and allow, as much as the Common Good permits, for the other to go their own way.  As a Libertarian Christian this is the path that I have chosen to follow.  And if I can do this, then I can have a reasonable expectation, that others can respond to me in like manner. 

So this is my solution.  It is not a new government program. It is not more laws, rules, and regulations. In fact it is not the job of the government at all.  It is the job of each and every citizen.  It is the reconstruction of civil society.  Those of us who continue to hold to the Athens-Jerusalem Tradition might look forward to the day when we have the votes to roll back the Progressive agenda as they have rolled back ours.  As for me, I will trust in the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit to change mind and hearts.  I will follow my Libertarian inclinations and support those politicians who seek to expand the sphere of Personal Liberty and Responsibility by reducing the role of government and its laws, rules, and regulations.  It is my hope that this essay might provide some food for thought for Progressives and that they will recognize the danger of constricting the sphere of Personal Liberty and Responsibility and direct their efforts in achieving Particular Equality towards the Private sector and not towards expanding the power of government.  It is also my hope that my Christian brethren will also stop directing their efforts to create a moral nation through the levers of government.  Such efforts can be equally utopic, and quixotic as the Progressive’s quest of achieving Particular Equality.  Both efforts are doomed to failure and will just continue to constrict Personal Liberty and Responsibility.

So what are the chances of either side backing down in this civil war of ideologies?—Probably negligible.  Yet, if we don’t make an effort our nation will become so polarized that the chance of reconciliation may be lost.  We are going to have to look squarely at the issues that divide us, listen to each other without demonizing, sometimes compromising on some of our most strongly held positions, quit using the levers of government (the legislative and judicial systems) to impose on will on those who do not think as we do, and expand the sphere of Person Liberty and Responsibility while opening up again the Public Square to the civil exchange of all ideas.  As a Libertarian Christian I place my confidence in the power of the Gospel to change hearts and minds and not in the power of government to coerce. I only ask for that which is guaranteed by the Constitution, that is, free participation in that portion of the sphere of Personal Liberty and Responsibility known as the Public Square. Here, I will share that which I hold to be True, Good and Beautiful with, I hope, fair-minded citizens of both like and different minds so that we may have a civil and fruitful discourse.