My understanding of the founding of the United States, by which I mean the “1776” founding as opposed to the “1619” founding, is that the European Enlightenment inspired our founders to build a new democratic nation upon the fundamental values of freedom and equality. In the Declaration of Independence Jefferson wrote a line that has resonated throughout American history encapsulating these core beliefs — “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 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.”
Clearly, within what was a new experimental American democracy the standard of equality was unambiguously spelled out. Also, the phrase, “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”, spoke to individual freedom and liberty. Can it be interpreted in these words, or anywhere else in this esteemed document, or for that matter in the overall founding endeavor itself, that one democratic value is considered more moral or weightier or more important than the other? I suggest not.
It seems evident to me that the founders concluded that for a democracy to function both freedom and equality were not only required, but were inseparable and equivalent in scope and magnitude. These principles were two corresponding pillars upon which rested the ideology and conviction of the new nation. We were to be a people who honored the right to exercise individual free will throughout the course of our lives while simultaneously respecting that this right is to be extended to all individuals.
Of course, the founders were flawed leaders despite their unique ability to systematize selected philosophical thoughts from Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Charles Montesquieu, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Despite their infatuation with the concept of a social contract to encourage individual freedom and equality, the founders nevertheless lived prosperously under a social system that permitted slavery, Native American genocide, and concentrated power in the hands of property owning males at the exclusion of women.
These failings however, should not take away from the ideational benefits which the founders debated and documented and left for generations of Americans and other lovers of democracy around the world to ponder and use as a guide from which societies can operate honorably. As Winston Churchill famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others that have been tried.” It is reasonable to say today in the twenty-first century Churchill’s words still ring true.
Nonetheless, there is one troubling consequence which arises in matching the significance of freedom and equality. It comes in realizing there is a natural disengaging tension between the two. We are unable to optimize and to enjoy the fruits of both freedom and equality simultaneously and in similar measure. Let me explain.
When we allow individual freedom to be maximally expressed we soon discover a troubling reality settling in. A sorting of society’s individuals occurs like the pecking order of chickens in a barnyard. Wealth and power become concentrated among a self-professed elite group. The rationales for this aggregation may be centered on race, ethnicity, tradition, or generally perceived merit, but the result is always the same. A lack of social equality is the inevitable effect. Equality becomes diminished.
Similarly, an escalation of equality can lead to detrimental impacts. There can come a point in a social assigning of equal measure to each individual in a society when an over-homogeneity results. This can be characterized as a socially stultifying blandness in which people are pressured to all act the same and not drift from rigid social behaviors and thought patterns. Difference and innovation are reduced to being oppositional and uniformity is elevated to unnatural heights. Freedom becomes diminished.
We have a conundrum. As described above, freedom and equality are both of identical importance. But when each is augmented as much as possible an essential conflict emerges. Their shared power cancels out the advantages derived from each. What is to be done?
To start, we have to accept that each value carries with it great possible reward, but also great potential hazard. So instead of seeing co-nullification as an inevitable consequence when society attempts to practice the two virtues in tandem we can rather view them as keeping each other in check. It is a type of symbiose in which democracy needs both to survive. Yet a balance needs to be achieved in order to derive as much benefit and as little downside as possible.
In America, this striking of equilibrium is practiced by the two major political parties. One, the Republicans, seek to advance the cause of freedom over equality, while the Democrats vigorously promote equality above freedom. The outcome of this tug-of-war is the closest this society comes to a consensus of the freedom-equality strain of priorities. If the electorate sees too many disadvantages from an overemphasis of one side or the other, then election cycles should right the ship, depending on the pertinent issues of the day. So, if one is a diehard partisan, one has to learn to live with the heuristic that you win some and you lose some.
The greater problem, which America and other democracies are now facing, is when one political persuasion or the other decides to change the rules of the game. When striking the delicate balance between freedom and equality is thought of as too difficult to achieve or if impatience to get one’s way becomes too unmanageable such that undemocratic tactics become justified, then democracy is in trouble. When the arts of compromise and persuasion are abandoned in favor of a raw takeover of power leading to autocratic governance, then democracy ceases to exist and an unpleasant form of fascism or communism takes over.
I am writing this piece days before the 2022 U.S. midterm election. In other words, I and my fellow countrymen and women are both observing and participating in one big case in point. On the ballot, so to speak, is the question concerning whether or not American democracy, and its history of attempting to conduct free and fair elections, is to be continued, suspended, or abandoned.
The Trump-fueled right wing insurrectionists and their supporters, i.e., the Republican Party, sound as if they feel justified in canceling the electoral tradition. They are angry American society isn’t functioning the way they want it to. Of course, they are free to have their political leanings, even if their leanings are Euro-White-Male-dominated. But why is their grievance so pronounced that overthrowing free and fair elections can be considered just?
Sorry. I don’t see it. Coming of age during the 1960s I have seen social and political unrest. It is surely an experience of social disequilibrium. And it unquestionably both agitates and frightens significant segments of the culture. There can be both sound and absurd claims made by people. But that’s life in a democracy, isn’t it?
Things not going your way? Wish more of us would adopt your view of reality? Then be persuasive! Convince us! Don’t change the rules to suit your own narrow interest. Who the hell do you think you are?!
Hopefully, I am needlessly worked up. The next several days will be instructive. How the 2022 midterms are conducted will portend the activism of the next couple of years. A satisfying endgame would be to see this MAGA movement as but one of several social-political episodes that occur periodically throughout American history. Like other unruly digressions of the aggrieved, it will soften and diminish, but nevertheless leave its mark on policy making for some time to come.
Long term, these societal spasms are likely necessary if democracy is to survive for centuries. However, they are weighed against other constants such as unconstrained elections and the tussle between freedom and equality. Striking a necessary balance between freedom and equality is truly an exercise in making sausage. It leaves democracy messy. However, let us not forget. Despite its innate churn, democracy contains within it the most civilized and just conception of how people are to live together that has ever been devised. Let us agree that its fundamentals should not be messed with.
