And to the Republic for which it stands…
The United States — A Collective
If we look at “the people” of the United States as a large collective then perhaps we can apply lessons learned from democratic circles functioning on a smaller scale. Consider this quote from Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry:
“There is a misconception that because collectivism is based on honesty, equality, and shared ideals, group dynamics will always be loving and supportive. The opposite is true. Collectivism actually allows people to voice their dissent…Conflict is absolutely essential to the process of hashing out concepts and plans. Ideas have to be thoroughly and honestly considered.”
Should this be true, then Trump being elected in 2016 is the result of our democracy working, not malfunctioning.
Our collective is far too large to have an effective and efficient direct democracy — conceivably limited by current access, or lack thereof, to decentralized, consensus-building technology. To make the larger collective easier to manage we elect representatives: at a municipal level, state level, and federal level. Our representatives listen to opposing views found within their respective constituency and make decisions that, theoretically, will be in the best interest of the collective; key decisions are made among representatives after reaching a consensus. All decisions are vetted to ensure they do not infringe on the personal freedoms obligated by the nation’s founding documents.
The Future: A Global Collective?
Isn’t it fascinating that nearly all popular “futuristic” depictions of our world involve machines or advanced technology, space exploration, or some version of post-apocalyptic high-tech dystopia/utopia? There are no grand predictions or visions of our world just staying the same; we are perpetually evolving, our capabilities inextricably linked with our ability to innovate.
We are becoming a more connected world, a global collective, and we will need to arrive at a consensus on how to govern ourselves without centralized governments or government fiat money. We will need to put aside nationalism and consider the trajectory of our collective future.
Liberalism vs. Coerced Consensus
Americans have unintentionally perverted “liberalism”, equating liberalism to socialist economic and political ideas, a globalist agenda, or virtue signaling.
Most people don’t even realize Trump is a liberal because he is also a crude, cold, businessman. Trump, and other corporate cronies, manipulate the U.S. legal system to the fullest potential for personal gain. These character traits and tendencies make Trump unlikable by most who would consider themselves liberal and overshadow his political maneuvers, even if they are in the liberal’s best interest.
However, Trump also despises “the man”, which is probably what makes him relevant at a time when people’s satisfaction with the U.S. government’s performance is not very high i.e. the emergence of populism.
Liberalism can be distilled down to the idea of natural liberty, that individuals have the right to exercise sole control over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
The concept that a political system can be “liberal” can be traced back to the writings of Adam Smith:
“All systems either of preference or of restraint, therefore, being thus completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men.” — Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations Book IV: On Systems of Political Economy
According to Adam Smith, in the system of natural liberty the government has only three duties:
- protect the society from violence and invasion of other independent societies
- protect, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice
- erect and maintain certain public works and certain public institutions which it can never be for the interest of any one individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain
This concept of liberty was adopted in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Libertarians, arguably the most liberal platform in the U.S. would essentially eliminate the federal government. Ironically, most self-proclaimed “liberals” believe larger government with more control would make our economic and political system more fair and equal.
One could argue that placing more importance on the rights and liberties of the individual will ultimately create a fair and egalitarian society. Conversely, majority oppression or collective consensus by force has enabled totalitarian societies and military dictatorships.
Globalism vs. Nationalism vs. Authoritarianism
United States foreign policy has more to do with globalization vs. nationalism than “left” or “right.” As we become a more connected world, we will have to balance individual rights, the global economy, and national autonomy.
The United Nations is a major humanitarian effort formed after World War II with the intent to:
- practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and
- unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
- ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
- employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples
The U.N.’s effectiveness is solely dependent on the cooperation of its member states and their willingness to uphold the Charter. While the group of nations is “united” within the organization around a humanitarian mission, this does not guarantee that national interests won’t prevail, that human rights won’t be undermined, or that trust will not be violated by secret agendas.
NATO membership is a good indicator of geopolitical alliances, whose purpose is “to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.” Of course, this alliance does not include Russia or China.
Trump’s main criticism of NATO is that U.S. cost sharing of NATO (the U.S. provides the most funding) is not proportional to the benefits the U.S. is receiving from the membership.
Trump tapped into the fact that the U.S. is an international power broker and felt empowered by the nationalistic belief that our political clout and military might should be utilized to further and maximize our national economic interests — hence, the slogans “America First” and “Make America Great Again.”
Trump is used to wielding power unobstructed. It’s no wonder Trump seems to admire Russia’s and China’s effective Communist government, where the chain of command is clear and the Commander-in-Chief is not questioned or second guessed. Good thing we don’t live in an authoritarian country and have a representative democracy with checks and balances.
The Future is Liberal, Globalized, and Mechanized
I think most of us would agree that the global collective should not be authoritarian or nationalistic, although this is possible because history tends to repeat itself. If we regress, we’ll become more tribal. If we progress, we’ll become more global. Should nothing change, some parts of the world will remain liberal and nationalistic and others will remain authoritarian and nationalistic.
Based on our collective vision of the future, the world will be more connected and high-tech — perhaps, it will even be more fair and just. As for the robots, they are already here.
