Home
/
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
/
We are a fractured nation, but there is still hope
We are a fractured nation, but there is still hope
Apr 26, 2025 12:32 AM

The Founders worried about “factionalism” ing tyranny, but thought the nation so large and scattered that it would be impossible for the “like-minded” e together for evil ends. But modern social and mass media have helped turn citizens into mobs determined to destroy their political enemies. Do we have anything mon anymore?

Read More…

It’s e monplace observation that while we are indeed a divided nation, we have been divided before and, some claim, in much worse ways.

The first part is undoubtedly true, while the second seems more debatable, and this particularly in light of a recent ing from the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) at the University of Virginia that shows roughly half of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum seriously indulging fantasies of secession. Along those lines, and more disturbingly, even higher percentages of respondents viewed members of the other party as presenting a “clear and present danger” that will likely result in “personal loss or suffering.”

I’m not familiar with any polling data extant during other periods of divisional crisis, but the fact that roughly half the country would make no effort to keep the other half from seceding—indeed, would happily defenestrate them—ought to make one nervous. This nervousness intensifies when one considers that the CRP poll claims that 62% of Biden voters and 88% of Trump voters would support “a powerful leader” who would “destroy the radical and immoral currents prevailing in society today.” Those “currents” will have names and faces, making it hard to imagine how such destruction could be plished without violence.

The dissolution into factional violence, as the writers of our Constitution realized and feared, has always been one of the dangers that dog republican systems of government. Since, as Madison observed, “the seeds of dissension are sown into the nature of man,” and such sowing is a “reflection on human nature” that doesn’t admit of alteration without “liberty [being] lost in the pursuit,” our constitutional system attempts to manage and even channel disagreement in constructive ways. The extension of the sphere of politics, both demographically and geographically, would make our politics more temperate and make the formation of tyrannies that “vex and oppress” others unlikely.

One wonders what Madison would make of the age of mass and social media. plex system the Founders developed assumed that people of similar interests would be unlikely to find each other and discover their particularconception of the good that would have a greater claim on their allegiances than mitment to mongood. Not only geographic separation but the plications of munication would mean, Madison argued, that “by their number and local situation” partisans would be “unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.” The capacity to tyrannize thus dissipated, the regime could actually be maintained and stabilized by the clash peting interests. It is obvious by now that bination of hypermobility, extant settlement patterns, and the toxic media environment have rendered the constitutional system largely toothless in its ability to both guard our liberties and buttress any mitment to a mon good.

It’s difficult to imagine how mitment might be reanimated. I recently argued that our failure to produce leaders who could bridge our divides reflects our more fundamental inability to maintain a shared culture. Only by borrowing on that shared culture was Lincoln able to appeal to “the better angels of our nature” that would allow us to recognize each other as “not enemies, but friends.” A just regime, Aristotle observed, demanded a mode of civic friendship wherein individuals could, when required, sacrifice their personal goods and interests in favor of the whole. Such favoring requires an understanding of the whole and one’s place in it, as well as a love for it. Liberal regimes place an additional burden on its citizens: namely, a skepticism concerning one’s own ability to understand what is best, and a itant generosity toward an opponent’s ability to understand. Without such self-doubt and “malice toward none with charity for all,” American democracy es vicious.

Those virtues are rarely on display in our contemporary politics. Americans increasingly live separated lives wherein they have little interaction with people who disagree with them, allowing them convenient caricatures of their opponents. We selectively read media sources that confirm our biases rather than challenge them, and we live in social media echo chambers that, we are finding out, have a capacity to destroy lives and livelihoods, deepening the fear we have of one another. We have increasingly settled into blue regions and red regions. Even seemingly benign social markers indicate our divides: Tell me what someone watches on Netflix or show me how that person spent the weekend and I’ll tell you how that person voted in the last election.

The CRP study reinforces what the Pew Foundation discovered previously—namely, that it is OK for politicians to regard opponents not only as misinformed but also as anti-American and even evil. Our ideas of patriotism have devolved in troubling ways such that in the imperative to “love the whole,” we can’t agree on what that whole is, or what part it should play in the larger whole of the so-called global society, which itself has e a source of serious political division. If indeed globalization is an ineluctable force that divides America into winners and losers, that force will likely strain domestic politics to a breaking point. When Americans are taking less pride in their country than are Germans, French, or Brits—and take less pride than we used to—we might well ask what, if anything, might hold us together.

Theorists often talk about America as an experiment in liberal democracy. We are all too familiar with the weaknesses of the democratic parts: mob violence, factional dissolution, gridlock, and instability. America’s success has partly hinged on the liberal elements of the equation, and here the CRP poll gives us a something of a blueprint for moving forward. The liberal tradition has long favored the demands of practical reason over theoretical reason, and this in the context of a pluralist situation where people will often disagree about the nature of the good itself. Given such disagreement, order is maintained by mutual forbearance, an unwillingness to use the instruments of coercion that you know can be used against you in turn. Where agreement about ends can’t be achieved, individuals and parties agree to “stand down” and, in so far as it’s possible, go their separate ways. When agreement can be achieved, the involved parties have all the liberty and energy at their disposal to move forward. Liberalism requires this sort of reasonableness as regards mutually beneficial exchanges and actions.

In other words, American constitutionalism works best when it focuses neither on ultimate ends and purposes or unduly on the self’s own demands. It works best when we are engaged in practical projects that reflect shared interests. Here, as I said, the CRP report gives us reason for hope, and also a playbook that parties might want to consult. The report (see Table 1) gives evidence of high levels of agreement concerning things that are demonstrably public goods: energy systems, infrastructure, and delivery of necessities such as clean water and food. This consensus begins to break down when we get to what have long been culture war sorts of battles: family life and education.

So long as Americans can remain focused on the material well-being of households, which are properly the germ of political life, there is hope in our perilous moment. Conversely, focusing on individuals or contesting ultimate goods will exacerbate our divisions. Those who insist on either e to regret the unleashing of the forces of violence with which they flirt.

Comments
Welcome to mreligion comments! Please keep conversations courteous and on-topic. To fosterproductive and respectful conversations, you may see comments from our Community Managers.
Sign up to post
Sort by
Show More Comments
RELIGION & LIBERTY ONLINE
How to Steal a Bike in New York City
Edmund Burke didn’t really say it, but it still rings true: All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. In a test of this maxim, filmmaker Casey Neistat tries to steal his own bike in several locations around New York City and finds that most people do nothing about it—even when it’s done right in front of a police station. I recently spent a couple of days conducting a bike theft experiment, which...
Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Threat to Freedom
Over at the Liberty Law Blog, there is an excellent post titled “Ronald Reagan, Whittaker Chambers, and the Dialogue of Liberty” by Alan Snyder. Snyder delves into the influence Chambers had on Reagan and how their worldviews differed as well. Many conservatives and scholars felt Chambers’ prediction that the West was on the losing side of history in the battle against Marxism collapsed after the fall of the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union. For many, the ideas of Chambers...
Integral Human Development
The Journal of Markets & Morality is planning a theme issue for the Spring of 2013: “Integral Human Development,” i.e. the synthesis of human freedom and responsibility necessary for the material and spiritual enrichment of human life. According to Pope Benedict XVI, Integral human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human responsibility. (Caritas in Veritate 17) There is a delicate balance between the material and the...
Lord Acton and the Power of the Historian
Looking through my back stacks of periodicals the other day I ran across a review in Books & Culture by David Bebbington, “Macaulay in the Dock,” of a recent biography of Thomas Babington Macaulay. The essay takes its point of departure in Lord Acton’s characterization of Macaulay as “one of the greatest of all writers and masters, although I think him utterly base, contemptible and odious.” As Bebbington writes, “Acton, a towering intellectual of the later 19th century, was at...
Italy’s Tax Man Takes Aim at the Vatican
Kishore Jayabalan, the Acton Institute’s Rome office director, was interviewed by the Zenit news agency in an article titled, “Is Taxing the Church a Real Solution for Italy?” In the article, Jayabalan discusses the history of the Italian state and its imposition of property taxes on the Roman Catholic Church’s land holdings, residences and non-profit businesses. Sometimes in the past, particularly under Napoleonic rule and before the Lateran Pacts, the institution of property tax was often a subject of state...
Obamacare’s Religious Rubes
The White House has a plan to mobilize prayer vigils in front of the Supreme Court in defense of Obamacare. It was reported that the administration met with leaders at non-profit organizations and religious officials who support the new health care law. The court takes up the constitutional test of the health care mandate in a couple of weeks. The mandate has now been challenged in 26 states. Cue the same stale big government religious prophets who confuse statism and...
Constitutional Cases and the Four Cardinal Virtues
Should virtue be a consideration in judicial decisionmaking? Indiana Law Professor R. George Wright makes an intriguing argument for why the four cardinal virtues could be useful in interpreting constitutional cases: Judges typically decide constitutional cases by referring to one or more legal precedents, rules, tests, principles, doctrines, or policies. This Article mends supplementing this standard approach with fully legitimate and appropriate attention to what many cultures have long recognized as the four basic cardinal virtues of practical wisdom or...
How to Love Liberty More Than a Libertarian Economist
I have a deep and abiding love for liberty—which is why I find myself so often in disagreement with libertarians. Libertarians love liberty too, of course, but they tend to love liberty a bit differently. I love liberty in an earthy, elemental way. I love liberty because I need it—like I need air and food—for human flourishing. In contrast, the libertarians I’ve encountered tend to love liberty primarily as an abstraction. Indeed, the most ideologically consistent libertarians I know seem...
Let’s Change Hearts and Minds (and Laws, Too)
Few clichés are so widespread within the evangelical subculture, says Matthew Lee Anderson, as the notion that our witness must be one of “changing hearts and minds.” In careful hands, the idea is at best ambiguous. At worst it reinforces the sort of interior-oriented individualism that allows for and perpetuates a blissful naivete about how institutions and structures shape our dispositions and thoughts. In less than careful hands, the phrase drives a wedge between law and culture by attempting to...
Is Work a Curse?
Is work a curse, a result of mankind’s fall from grace? Not according to the Book of Genesis. As Hugh Whelchel, Executive Director of the Institute for Faith, Work & Economics, explains, what Adam was called to do in the garden is what we are still called to do in our work today: Humanity was created by God to cultivate and keep God’s creation, which included developing it and protecting it. You see, we were created to be stewards of...
Related Classification
Copyright 2023-2025 - www.mreligion.com All Rights Reserved