LiveWire

A post by Maynard

PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF LEV. XXV X.

— inscribed on the Liberty Bell (citing Leviticus 25:10)

I’m reading Youngblood Hawke, another novel by the amazing Herman Wouk. Written in 1961, it’s about a young novelist who rises to fame and fortune during the early 1950’s.

Wouk is compellingly readable. More than that, his books are memorable. He mixes a gripping tale with the sort of thought-provoking dramatic dilemmas that leave me pondering long after I put down the book.

As I write this, I’m thinking of one of the minor characters, a Marxist editor who is being called to testify before the Congressional House Un-American Activities Committee during the McCarthy era. The nation faced then, as it faces now, the question of how to protect our freedoms against a ruthless enemy without surrendering those freedoms in the act of defending them. There’s no simple answer to this.

Aside from the political issues, there’s the underlying question of how it is that intelligent people become advocates of tyranny and enemies of liberty. I appreciate Wouk’s books for illustrating wrong-thinking characters with great clarity. His purpose is not to make the reader sympathetic to, for example, Marxist ideas. Rather, it’s a challenge for us to think in a deeper sort of way about why we believe what we do.

In this case (and it’s not fair for me to summarize, but it can’t be avoided), the Marxist looks at the chaos and oppression of the so-called free world, and decides there is no future for mankind unless it can be controlled and ordered by leadership that is absolute. Indeed, don’t we all sometimes get the sense that people are too mean and stupid to govern themselves? Is freedom a workable system? Wouldn’t a (hopefully) benevolent dictatorship be better?

I’ll summarize the conflict by citing two competing slogans. The motto of the French Republic is “Liberty, equality, fraternity (brotherhood)”, and the slogan of the French Revolution was “Freedom, equality, brotherhood, or death!”. Contrast this against the American national motto (which you’ll see, for example, on all our coins) of simply “Liberty”. This is (or at any rate, was) the highest ideal of this nation. We see it on the Liberty Bell, citing the Bible (please don’t tell the ACLU). We heard it in Patrick Henry’s plea, “Give me liberty or give me death.“

Where are we, as a people, going? Do we still value liberty as a paramount national ideal, or do we demand that liberty be tempered by equality? Once upon a time, the Americans favored liberty (freedom) and the Europeans tilted towards equality (socialism and other ism’s). Both choices present their problems, and you can’t have it both ways.

When I look at the excesses of capitalism, and the associated inequalities, I can understand why Europeans sneer at us. If I prefer freedom in spite of its shortcomings, it’s not because I believe we’re worthy or deserving of it. Perhaps it’s a point of dogma rather than reason, but I think the highest aspiration of the communal state is to build the perfect anthill. Without liberty, the ideal of Mankind is forgotten, and we’re merely another random earthly life form, and a rather nasty one at that.

I’ll also claim it was the rabid pursuit of “equality” that brought about the various evil ism’s that arose from the European intellectual cauldron and brought so much misery and death to so many people. In spite of their noble proclamation of ideals, the European track record of the 20th century is not one to be proud of.

As we gear up for the next election, that’s a question I’d like to address to any and every candidate: Where do you stand? Liberty? Or Liberty, Equality, Fraternity? As far as core philosophy goes, what more do I need to know?