Barry Goldwater once wrote, in his book “The Conscience of a Conservative,” that “Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being.” He went on to say: “Conservatism’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?”
For those of us who consider ourselves conservatives (with a small ‘c’), a certain degree of independence and privacy is essential to enable us to become “artisans of (our) destiny.” POPULORUM PROGRESSIO (On The Development Of Peoples) Pope Paul VI. Where we would disagree with Barry Goldwater is that we instinctively realise that the idea of ‘maximising‘ our freedom is completely at odds with granting an equal level of freedom and respect to others. When his philosophy is acted out in the day to day world, it becomes one where the strong do what they wish and the weaker are forced to acquiesce.
In any case, what his viewpoint overlooks is, that this individualistic description of human nature does not reflect the reality of the human person as we know it. We are not completely self-sufficient supermen. We are relational creatures, deeply, deeply interconnected with one another. Every decision we make is influenced by its social context — by those around us, by culture, and by history. In fact, the classical economic model of society is based on fantasy people. Who do we know, or who have we ever met, who is completely efficient, rational, or utility-maximizing - to use the economic jargon?
We are defined by bonds of family (even where we try to reject them), by our attachments, and by our social networks, to name but a few influences which shape us. Inevitably our individual behaviour reflects the dynamic impact of all them. We do not create ourselves. We are not "free"; we are autonomous, deeply interconnected individuals, dislike it and deny it as we might.
There was a time - and it wasn’t that long ago - when the majority of people regarded themselves as part of a greater unity of country, culture and history to which they willingly gave their allegiance, even though they may well have disagreed over many internal aspects. It was regarded as natural to feel comfortable with the idea of being British, or French, Italian - or European. People felt that it was perfectly normal to love ones country, and to appreciate the sophisticated checks and balances of democracy, which enabled them to live in relative security.
But the two world wars, the Cold War, the Vietnam war and all the endless string of modern conflicts have disheartened us and made us feel increasingly insecure and uncertain of our place in the world. The greatest challenge to our sense of who we are is the loss of the idea of Truth in social and political discourse. To speak out in support of even the idea of virtue is now regarded as naïve and unsophisticated, or as a cover for our private selfish agendas. “Spin” is the final killer blow to all that we held dear, because it magically transformed our world into a horrific hall of mirrors, where sleight of hand and cynical manoeuvring has left us in a permanent state of disorientation.
Spin is everywhere. Once the prerogative of political parties, it is now the prevalent newspeak of our modern, technological world. Everything has become some form of propaganda - biased, manipulative and deceptive, and this is a real problem for all democracies because it masks untruth and feeds us with the poison of distorted information. How does it work? There are certain rules:
Incorporate unclear phrasing into every statement, written or spoken, so that its exact meaning becomes hard to pin down.
As a matter of course, manipulate the words of your opponent and misrepresent what has actually been said.
Speak in euphemisms to sound less offensive, disturbing or troubling. When you call up 30,000 additional troops for your war, don't call it an escalation. Use the word "surge," or “peacekeepers” which dampens concern.
As the news media usually repeat the wording from a press conference / press release verbatim, without questioning the aptness of the phrase, it is a very useful way of perpetuating both your message and whatever preconceptions you might wish to embody within it. Constant use of a phrase or a word legitimizes it.
Of course, we are all guilty to some degree, and we all do this to a greater or less degree. We simply call the process "lying", or "bending the truth". But now that the very existence of truth is questioned in so many fields, many begin to wonder if is it really possible, or even worthwhile, to identify which body of knowledge should be transmitted? Society as a whole has lost its confidence that it has anything worthwhile to protect and pass on to future generations. So schools and universities have taken the easy solution and have decided to opt out of the very purpose for which they were originally created. Now they teach students to 'learn how to learn' rather than deal with the difficulties and challenges of teaching traditional subjects or encouraging skills of critical appraisal and discernment. Some even consider that ‘places of learning’ should take on the role of simply delivering the values of the 'Big Society' we now live in, and thus become policing agents of political correctness?
What to do? I think that our only hope is courage and endurance. We must find a way to always speak the truth, and then endure the inevitable results. Instinctively we know that this is the only way - but to do so is to set oneself up to be demonised. But it must be done if there is to be any change in the world and if we are to be ‘children of the of the light and… not the darkness’.
I do not agree with everything that Henry David Thoreau wrote, but I do with this:
“In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they (citizens) put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. ….. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens.
Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God.
A very few ….serve the state with their consciences also, and so … they are commonly treated as enemies by it.”
