For all its existence America has been torn between two political positions. Originally the two were represented, mostly, by Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, although neither was a simple partisan of the positions at issue here.
Hamilton had been a supporter of the revolution but also quite sympathetic to big government, even to monarchy in the British style (not absolute but relatively limited). Jefferson, in contrast, supported the polity implied by the Declaration of Independence (which he largely authored), although he was no libertarian, not even like Thomas Paine who came quite close.
The two positions differ mainly on how much a country should entrust its ideals to government. The Founders general thought that once the king has been deposed, one could live with government comfortably enough, although Jefferson had uttered some sentiments that suggest he was beginning to find government altogether problematic. “That government is best that governs least” shows no enthusiasm for even limited government, the sort one associates with the classical liberal tradition, although the logical implications of the principles Jefferson included in the Declaration, mostly derived from John Locke, were pretty close to the libertarian minarchist theory, the kind of government that is committed to nothing more than the protection of the citizens’ basic rights to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness and whatever is consistent with these (mostly the right to do anything that’s peaceful). So this faction of America’s political legacy does not so much support a small as a limited scope type government. (Who can tell ahead of time how large an organization devoted to securing our rights would have to be to get its job done!?)
The second position, which one may fruitfully associate with Hamilton, is far more trusting of government, at least of the democratic or representative kind. In any case, this faction of the American political tradition eventually gave rise to the idea that government must be proactive, support various undertakings that the citizens may not take up themselves. So such institutions as banking would be nearly like they had been in Europe, if not state run than at least heavily supervised and regulated by the state. This is the approach that in time gave rise to central banking, the Federal Reserve Bank. It is also the approach that ended up more generally distrusting the capacity of the citizenry to address many of the problems that arise in a society. Education, for instance, would be entrusted to government, as would the protection of wildlife, to mention only two spheres that have become nearly completely a matter of public administration. And it is also this kind of political economic thinking that would in time lead to the invention of positive rights or entitlements, which is certainly not part of the Lockean view or follow the ideas of the Declaration. (BTW, the general welfare does not imply entitlements, only the need to protect all citizens’ rights to pursue their welfare individually or corporately.)
In our own time this divide has turned into something almost fundamental and more destructive, than even the one about preservation of the union. We now see many politicians and nearly the entire intellectual community–media editors, educators at all levels of school and especially in the social sciences and humanities (excepting economists)–siding with the view that government must have a large scope of influence and authority in the country, with only few features left to the private and personal sphere. Having been supplied with political ideas mainly from Europe for the last 150 years, the influence of the classical liberals began to abate a good deal. As in Europe, so in erudite America, most folks believe government must be a supplier of goods and services, not merely the protector of rights. As if they came to believe that referees at a game should become and more more involved in playing it rather than making sure the players obey the rules.
One matter needs to be kept in mind in order to find a silver lining in these developments. This is that the governmental habit which had been cultivated for centuries nearly everywhere, is difficult to break. But not impossible. In time it may just happen and right now there appears to be some hope on the horizon that many Americans are doing exactly that (though not as consistently as they should).
December 16, 2010
We are delighted to present Lessons in Freedom, essays by Dr. Tibor Machan, for your pleasure.
Dr. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E.
Visit his web site here…
Another great essay Professor Machan.. Your “Lessons in Freedom” essays are always most constructive and may I extend to you our most sincere Bahamian thanks..
Nevertheless, I must question you reference to economists and specifically economics.. It always has been my understanding that economics is a branch of the Social Sciences discipline as opposed to the other two academic disciplines the Physical Sciences and the Humanities.. Why the Social Sciences are commonly referred to as Science is beyond belief as human behavior is both dynamic and often defies logic and rationale.. The principles of scientific method and analysis have little application in the study of human behavior dynamics..
Your current essay, America Divided, brings to mind the last speech by the great Virginian and Statesmen Patrick Henry who uttered the words “United we stand, divided we fall”.. Today his words are as true now as they were then.. Patrick Henry often waffled between the republican democracy of Jefferson and the Federalism of Hamilton.. I believe in this case he was supporting the Federalist position against the Virgina Convention in 1799.. I wonder if Patrick Henry could be considered a true Libertarian given his fundamental freedom of thought??
Two hundred and ten years later the political issues of collective thinking (big government) vs free individual thinking have not changed.. America is as divided today as it was back then.. Yet America back then was consolidating into what was to become a great nation state.. Today it is quite different for the first decade of the 21st century is being called “the decade of American decline”.. Will the second decade be known as the decade of America’s self-destruction?? Only time will tell.. Yet we may be sure that a divided nation will parish but a nation united can bond together and overcome adversity.. I only wish that the new Congress in Washington would read and discuss the values and insights in your timely essay which you shared with us..
Thank you again and hoping someday you will visit us in Nassau and lecture at the Nassau Institute..
I am in a rush but I will say this much: America is not declining but the rest of the world is improving significantly enough so it looks like it. There are elements of decline in the USA but also improvements, whereas around the globe there is a more intense movement toward freedom–especially in Africa and Eastern Europe (Hungary, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic). It is like it was the America’s dream basketball team that used to beat others by 40 some points but then the other got better and now it is no shoe in any longer. Or think of a foot race where the leader keeps up a fast pace but the second and third position is gaining on the leader. It doesn’t mean the leader is slowing down!