Maggie's Farm

This is a repost from 2006 (so you need to right-click on the links)

What if the part of human nature which wants paternalism, or maternalism, in the State is sometimes, or often, stronger than the part that wants freedom, autonomy,  self-reliance and self-determination?

What if we are wrong to imagine, as Bush claims, that an aspiration for freedom lives in the hearts of all mankind?

What if that aspiration is a simple error of a uniquely American culture, which combined northern European Calvinism which rejects any hierarchy in church or in life; a personal relationship with God; Lockeian liberalism; a distinctly northern European moral code in which honor, reliability, hard work, personal responsibility, generosity, and integrity are the measure of a person; a frontier attitude which expects life to be difficult but remains optimistic, and an innate distrust of government and politicians - is a very strange brew?

Maybe a strange brew which permits people to make the most of their lives and their "inner lives" - or the least of them, if they so chose -  but requires more practical and psychological independence and liberty than most humans desire. Maybe?

We know that our revolutionary ancestors were in the minority, here in the colonies. The most vociferous, for sure. But most were Loyalists until the tide finally turned. Zogby polls would not have supported rebellion against the Crown. Neither King George, nor Lord North, were evil people, by any means. Well-intentioned, but confused by the new American spirit.

These are hardly original questions, but they come up because of a series of bits that stuck in my mind. One was a piece at Daily Pundit, about the Russian comfort with Putin's moves towards autocracy. A piece by Callick at TCS asks Is the world moving beyond liberal democracy? Another was a piece also posted on Maggie's about the blue-ification of my once-granite-ribbed New Hampshire, where I own the ancestral family farm, and where I live Thursday night-Monday morning. Also, Dr. Sanity's piece, which said it better than I could: Come for the Equality, Stay for the Bestiality and Tyranny.

As a shrink and a psychoanalyst, I am philosophically - and spiritually - biased towards the idea of an environment in which people can find their own way, and discover and use their strengths and individual gifts and talents in life. I am fond of telling my psychiatry students that "reality is always on your side."

But I also know that, in the big world, this view is often odd, blasphemous, antisocial, or rebellious. After all, few cultures even would embrace the notion of Erikson's idea of individuation - much less his notions of development. For us, the independent individual is King - but not so everywhere. Our Western near-sanctification of the individual is unusual, unique perhaps.

The revolutionary notion of the Individual As King is why we have guns, and private property, and educational chances for all, and a zillion places of worship, and clubs, and blogs, and a million volunteer organizations and charities and land trust and conservation organizations. And why we rely on our families before anything else, and why we distrust what the experts say. And it is why we have opportunity - not material equality - but opportunity for all, to make our own choices and decisions as grown-ups about how to plan a life. Economics is just one of many considerations in life, for most (not that we all would not welcome a bit more money).

Europe has embraced state parentalism - little different from its monarchical past: the fantasy that smart, powerful persons know best, or deserve power over us, is a piece of our childhood which we are reluctant to give up. A left-over from the time of nobility and serfdom. Our American culture may label that "childish," but probably most do not. Since psychosocial development is driven by the need to adjust to reality, the endurance of the parental fantasy must distort development for many people, similar to what happens commonly to the kids of the very wealthy.

Give me liberty or give me health care and more freebies: The American Left has similar aspirations, and a similar condescending attitude towards the human potential for autonomy and self-determination on the part of its policy-makers. "We'll take your money you earn, and fix it for you - because we care." AKA "It takes a village." (And, by the way, in my opinion it does "take a village" - but not a federal government.) The classic and revealing argument of the Left for idolizing the thug and murderer Castro is "But they have free health care."  It's close to what they always said about Mussolini: "He made the trains run on time." (And that is saying a lot, in a place like Italy.)

State parentalism is one step from totalitarianism. And not just psychologically, but also in reality. First, you get the people used to the idea that they can depend on the government to take care of you and to solve your problems (rather than simply to defend you, and to keep life reasonably fair), and, having slowly softened them up, you build on that until you can't smoke a cigarette in your car without getting fined, or find a decent fried chicken take-out in NYC. 

I always thought that Jack Kennedy's "Ask not..." (listen to it) was a fine call to maturity, and Reagan often echoed JFK in his speeches. The more powerful government becomes, the more the people will tend to regress psychologically, just as the more of their money you take from them, the less motivated they will feel to work hard, and to be inventive and creative with life. Necessity is the mother of invention, and a thoughfully planned life is necessary for most of us.

Happy human cattle is my nightmare. And yet every human is prone to the regressive, almost gravitational, pull, to childhood and relative helplessness. We must thank God for the adolescent rebel which lingers in all of us, however mature and effective in the world we may or may not be.

The bottom line is this: What if most humans do not feel that they have what it takes to handle life in freedom, and to deal with their own basket of challenges in life? What if most of them, both in the US and abroad, do not share my Yankee ideals? What if most people do not want to be kings of their own domains? Then what?

Image: Time Magazine named Joseph Stalin "Man of the Year" in 1939 and 1942.