The Center Worth Seeking

For a long time in history people believed that they could only achieve a great life through individual action on their own behalf. As a meme said, “I don’t know who needs to hear this, but whatever you’re going through, it’s your own fault.” Increasingly, however, our culture ties life outcomes to external sources beyond our control. Race. Socioeconomic status. Sexuality.

Individualism, or the idea that each person should be free to act in their own self-interest, has fallen completely out of style. While some might point to increasing scientific research in human behavior, the shift should be understood as the result of the dominance of Marxism, the philosophy underpinning communism, and other anti-moral frameworks that perceive the world to be all about power and oppression.

Within their worldview, people who seemingly act for themselves are really playing out roles that are predetermined by their place in life, and they have no power of choice at all. They are simply held down by other people in other levels of power. These power structures hold everyone to their positions. The best solution for Marxists, then, is to throw down all current hierarchies and level everyone out to be perfectly even, and live together in a state of communal sameness.

The word “equality” is attractive because we associate it with fairness. If, however, it has become twisted to mean sameness, then it no longer is fair.

Family living is the perfect microcosm for studying the possibility of individualism within righteous collectivism. In a successful family, the power structures foster safety, responsibility, and growth. The individualism of each member flourishes as it finds connection, and builds strength and overcomes weakness. Forgiveness, understanding, and compassion all facilitate fairness, where each member is deeply valued and loved.

Once I heard about a mom who wanted to teach her kids that fairness did not mean treating each person the same. She pretended that one of the kids had been in a terrible accident. She wrapped him in Ace bandages and all kinds of first aid treatments. Then she announced that the next kid had a paper cut. She began to apply the same medical care to the second kid, announcing that she needed to be fair and treat everybody the same. Within their family, then, they learned that although they might not each receive the same treatment, they are cared for as individuals and as their needs might dictate. This sounds like an ideal way to treat each other.

There are those that dismiss any suggestion of collectivism as anti-freedom. In his book, The End of All Evil, Jeremy Locke argues that “Collectivism teaches that good things can come from compulsion. It teaches that people can be forced to accomplish things ‘for their own good.’ It pirates the love people have for their neighbors and twists it to authority’s demands. Slavery is the result. If an individual will not choose a thing, then it is not good for him. Force crushes human spirit. Choice enables life.” (p.42) Thus he concludes, “No human being who understands the fullness of their own worth would ever accept the notion that someone ought to rule over them.” (p.44) (As an aside, I might, in future columns, cite Locke in the positive, since I find some of his ideas very insightful, just not this conclusion in this instance. Remember- we are critical thinkers all!)

Taken in the absolute, then, we see this loyalty to complete individualism rejects any and all authority. Along this thinking, if any human freedom is taken by the rule of law, it is illegitimate and evil. So people can only live in communities that are held together by the loosest of threads. Anarchy is preferable to tyranny.

According to the author Cleon Skousen in The Five Thousand Year Leap, the founding of America was not set out to find a balance between left and right, a political spectrum that would have been unrecognizable to them. If you head far enough down either end of our liberal/conservative spectrum you have tyranny (that of the communist leaders like Mao and Stalin, or on the “other side” the fascists like Mussolini or Franco).

We can see this today, as we feel exhausted by the use and abuse of American forces abroad to protect the interests of banksters and globalist capitalist elites, or on the other hand as we suffer under the crushing lunacy of the bureaucratic pandemic emergency monopoly. Both smack of the same abuse, regardless of their supposed political opposition on the left/right spectrum. Stuck in the middle of these two extremes you have the supposed “undecided” voters, the “moderates” who allegedly could go either way, but under this paradigm we can see they are just dodging the shackles from both sides, hoping to stay safe.

The founders opposed tyranny, as they experienced under the monarchies of England. On the other end, they saw anarchy, or the world imagined by Locke above where each person followed their own freedom beyond any cooperation. Navigating these extremes, they sought to build a government striking a perfect balance in the middle.

We should support movements today that move us back toward that ideal, where we live collectively in a country free from chaos, but also free of total governmental control. If we re-center on the personal liberties, balances, and ideals of the founders we can, like a good family, flourish as we value each individual and live with them in peace. That is a center worth seeking.