America's Modest Philosophical Foundation

Consider the following essay a search for common ground in today’s political landscape. Is there any idea on which we can all, as American citizens, agree?

I believe that there must be, and that it exists in the founding philosophy of America— a philosophy born in reaction to a time of historic violence and political turmoil. In short, that common idea is classical Liberalism.

Classical Liberalism is the most primary of all American ideas, but one that is not often spoken of anymore. I want to resurface it here, as it can be a useful starting point for reestablishing a shared understanding of our country.

N.B. Throughout, I will be using the terms Liberal, and Liberalism. Wherever they appear, know that they are being used as classically defined, and not in their modern connotations.

- Ian

What is proper to man? What is human nature? What does it mean to live a good life? These are the questions philosophers and theologians have been seeking to answer for centuries.

In pre-Enlightenment Greek, Christian, and other traditional Western societies, there existed strong opinions about the answers to these questions. In these societies, human nature was ideally directed toward a single, broadly understood Good. A proper Greek citizen or Christian followed the virtues of their respective societies. A Christian aimed himself at the ideals defined in scripture and concerned himself with humility and the judgement of his soul after death. A virtuous Greek citizen sought perfection by a “…full dedication to one’s city…full dedication to the common good.” (Strauss, p.36). To adhere properly to each tradition meant to follow a deeply opinionated vision of what was Good. Not adhering to that opinionated vision was often unlawful.

These societies placed the question of human nature ahead of all other concerns. Their politics and way of life were formed around the answer to that question. In his book The City of Man, French Philosopher Pierre Manent writes:

“Classic thought [Greek and Christian]…maintains that the human world…should be founded on or, better, guided by what is proper to man, by what sets him apart from the animal, which should be always in the forefront."

This philosophical absolutism dominated the pre-Enlightenment world. Wherever society emerged, a lawful conception of what it meant to act virtuous emerged too. As a result of the enforcement of virtuous behavior by law, and the naturally divergent beliefs of what exactly was virtuous among people, conflict was inevitable. Much of the conflict that preceded the Peace of Westphalia, and indeed the entirety of the Middle Ages, can be attributed to these differences in opinions on the nature of man.

During the Enlightenment, Western societies recognized the untenable nature of dogmatic political foundations, and abandoned them. Manent writes further:

“The early moderns separated law from The good because they had come to the conclusion that it was no longer possible for the ends of man to have a place in the law. Men had ideas about ends that were too incompatible; these disagreements easily degenerated; what mattered was above all to avoid civil war, which is the greatest of evils.”

And so, after centuries of forming societies where law and the Good were inextricably linked, the question of human nature was abandoned within the context of politics. It was a necessary step backward from classical thinking, taken in order to eliminate a recurring tendency toward violence.

Perhaps the most prolific Enlightenment thinker on the matter of human nature and society was philosopher John Locke, often called the ‘Father of Liberalism’. Locke asserted that the question of human nature had no answer. He believed that what is proper to man, and what are the desirable ends for man, are fundamentally ‘unknown and unknowable’. In his essay The Straussian Moment, investor and intellectual Peter Thiel writes:

“In the place of human nature, Locke leaves us with an unknowable X. This awareness of ignorance provides the low but solid ground on which the American Founding takes place...And so, in a somewhat paradoxical manner, the unknowability of ‘X’ leads to classic liberalism and the very strong assertion of the different rights that belong to the unknowable ‘X’: the freedom of religion, for we cannot ever know what people are truly thinking in the temple of their minds; the freedom of speech, for we cannot irrefutably criticize the way people express themselves; the right to property and commerce, for we cannot second-guess what people will do with the things they possess.”

Locke’s assertion was deeply influential on the Founding Fathers, and it echoes clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence.

“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

In the Declaration, the Founding Fathers state the rights of citizens to define and pursue their own ends— to pursue Happiness however they see fit. This founding principle is then formalized in the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. It is from this neutral foundation– that all humans are beings with rights, that all humans are equal, and that all humans may choose their ideal ends– that American liberal democracy follows. It is worth remembering how significant a departure from the opinionated foundations of classical political society this is.

But do Americans still value, or are they even aware of, this rare philosophical axiom on which our modern state rests?

In today's America I suspect we have forgotten, or never even really understood the core tenet of Liberalism. I think this is because to take Liberalism seriously is very difficult, and requires maintaining a nearly contradictory set of ideas. Again, I turn to Manent for support:

“Modern democratic man has the very acute sense that no one has the right to prevent him from seeking his good according to the idea he himself forms of it in sovereign fashion. At the same time he sincerely thinks that he has no right to compel his neighbor to engage in this search in the way he does himself, to evaluate the things of the world has he does, or to think as he does. My neighbor is as free as I am myself; I will his liberty by the same movement I will my own. Thus in this way my neighbor becomes my equal and we recognize each other as equally human…The more we recognize and affirm the equality and likeness of men, the more my equal’s liberty acquires authority in my eyes. From that point on, if my good cannot be law for him, will there remain any truly commanding demand for me?…Why would I not abandon or at least treat lightly what my neighbor, my equal, has the right to dismiss.”

In this excerpt, Manent describes how man must act in a world that places the equality and liberty of each individual as primary. He argues that if we are to truly embody that belief, we must necessarily subordinate our own conception of the Good to our belief in the freedom of each man to define for himself what is Good. “At the same time he… has no right to compel his neighbor…to think as he does.” We must value our neighbor’s right to believe what he wants more highly than we value what we believe is Good. Put bluntly, we must first be liberals, followed by whatever else it is we want to be. This is what I mean by 'nearly contradictory'.

This concept has some famous examples, perhaps none more so than the 1977 Skokie Affair, in particular, David Goldberger’s involvement. Goldberger was a Jewish member of the ACLU who argued in defense of a Nazi group’s right to demonstrate in a Chicago suburb. He wrote about the case in an article in 2020. The whole article is well worth reading, but this excerpt speaks most profoundly:

"At my parents’ synagogue, a rabbi gave a sermon excoriating me for defending the free speech rights of Nazis. Fortunately, my parents were not present at the time."

As if it needs to be said, he subordinated his personal conception of Good to the ideals of Liberalism. His example is extreme, but perfectly represents that contradiction required to maintain a functioning liberal society.

Today, I think that America has forgotten how to exist in this contradictory state. Many Americans believe they must ‘compel their neighbor’ toward whichever ends they assert are Good. In these instances, Liberalism is subordinated– illiberalism reigns. I am sympathetic to this behavior, as living in that nearly contradictory state is not easy. However, when we stop placing the principles of classical Liberalism first, we start to encode our personal, illiberal ideals in law. History tells us that this is an inevitable path toward violence.

I wrote this essay in order to find the common understanding of our country on which all Americans should agree. That stable ground is the belief in the equality of man, and the autonomy of all to pursue their own ideal ends. If we are to avoid violence, we must remember that individuals will inevitably develop strong opinions about what is proper to human nature, but that governments must not.

I will close with this quote from Karl Popper's great work, The Open Society and Its Enemies, which summarizes the argument elegantly:

"...of all political ideals, that of making the people happy is perhaps the most dangerous one. It leads invariably to the attempt to impose our scale of 'higher' values upon others, in order to make them realize what seems to us of greatest importance for their happiness;  in order, as it were, to save their souls....the attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell. It leads to intolerance. It leads to religious wars."