“Okay, I’m throwing out a challenge: Make a government that is not embroiled in contention.”
“I can do that,” you say. “I have my ideas for Utopia.”
“But let me guess. First, you will have to eliminate those who disagree with you, and second, you will have to ensure continued agreement among those who sign up for your Utopian world.”
“I’ll admit that making a perfect society from scratch would be difficult because some would resist. But I would peacefully convince them that my society and my government would be better in the long run,” you continue. “I think I know where we’ve gone wrong, and I think I know how I can fix society for the benefit of the world.”
“Really? Then you might consider a thought by Bernard Bailyn, who wrote, ‘Since government is power, its control will always be a matter of contention.’ * Bailyn wrote that in the context of America’s founding as an independent nation. Your Utopia would invite contention regardless of your foresight and meticulous execution of its details. And the reason? People; plain and simple. Sure, there are some who like the idea of complying because compliance makes life easy, but then there are others who, regardless of the benefits afforded by compliance, will rebel. The latter will always find someone else’s control to be untenable. It’s a Garden-of-Eden-tale. You can put two people in an ideal setting only to find that one or both of them will break a rule or object in some way, maybe by silently stewing in disgust or anger, by overtly defying the government in power, or by making slight alterations driven by daily needs and changing circumstances.
“Look around. Look at every government on the planet, small ones or large ones. About the only places where government might not be a center of political contention are Lost Springs and Buford, both Wyoming towns claiming a single resident. My guess, however, is that even with a population of one, a government still has a problem because the human condition is rarely one of complete satisfaction. Think. Are you completely happy with yourself? Have you no struggles between the person you want to be and the person you are? Have you put restrictions on yourself that you have violated, say, restrictions imposed by wanting to live moderately, but having that extra dessert or drink, smoking when you want to quit, driving too fast on a curvy road and crossing the double-yellow line when you know your safety is at risk, or desiring and obsessing over what you can’t or don’t have? Even a government-of-one has its contentions unless I am mistaken about human nature.
“So, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the current political condition is one of anger. Surely, you covered previous contentious times in your history lessons. Think American Civil War, American Revolution, French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, Russian Revolution, The Glorious Revolution, and, well, every overthrow in every place that has housed humans who have objected to controls of any kind. Parallels abound.
“Every generation seems to produce those who would impose another set of controls. Some are dictators; others, just nice people who are ignorant of the way things work, ignorant of history, or overwhelmed by idealism rooted in words and not historic examples.
“In 1725, James Logan addressed the Pennsylvania House, saying, ‘Some kingdoms within less than a century…have been changed from a state of greatest freedom into the most absolute and arbitrary government.’ ** Logan had his own misunderstandings of history, but his statement could apply at almost any time and in almost any place. He noted that other countries where freedom of the individual was paramount had fallen prey to ‘politic arts and the contrivances of men truly ambitious and designing….’
“That’s the problem, isn’t it? Governments aren’t run by robots. People run them, and since people probably can’t even construct a government of one that exists without some contention, then all governments are subject to dissatisfaction, more so whenever those who practice the ‘politic arts’ do so with hypocritical self or group aggrandizement as a goal under the feigned aegis of utopian ideals.***
“We could think of today’s political anger as an isolated phenomenon, but to do so would be to ignore the nature of humans, revealed, so it seems, in that tale of Adam and Eve. Placed in Paradise, they just had to obey the only rule emplaced by a Benevolent Government. As a species, we like power, just not someone else’s power, and that’s why every government has a contentious and temporary existence.”
*Bailyn, Bernard. The Origins of American Politics. New York. Vintage Books, 1967, p. 104.
**Bailyn, 150.
***Green New Deal: Check out the statements by former Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, available online. Moore says a government-imposed fossil-free society would be far from utopian. But the Green New Deal is just one instance of a proposed or formerly instituted government that purports to be or purported to be ideal.
“I can do that,” you say. “I have my ideas for Utopia.”
“But let me guess. First, you will have to eliminate those who disagree with you, and second, you will have to ensure continued agreement among those who sign up for your Utopian world.”
“I’ll admit that making a perfect society from scratch would be difficult because some would resist. But I would peacefully convince them that my society and my government would be better in the long run,” you continue. “I think I know where we’ve gone wrong, and I think I know how I can fix society for the benefit of the world.”
“Really? Then you might consider a thought by Bernard Bailyn, who wrote, ‘Since government is power, its control will always be a matter of contention.’ * Bailyn wrote that in the context of America’s founding as an independent nation. Your Utopia would invite contention regardless of your foresight and meticulous execution of its details. And the reason? People; plain and simple. Sure, there are some who like the idea of complying because compliance makes life easy, but then there are others who, regardless of the benefits afforded by compliance, will rebel. The latter will always find someone else’s control to be untenable. It’s a Garden-of-Eden-tale. You can put two people in an ideal setting only to find that one or both of them will break a rule or object in some way, maybe by silently stewing in disgust or anger, by overtly defying the government in power, or by making slight alterations driven by daily needs and changing circumstances.
“Look around. Look at every government on the planet, small ones or large ones. About the only places where government might not be a center of political contention are Lost Springs and Buford, both Wyoming towns claiming a single resident. My guess, however, is that even with a population of one, a government still has a problem because the human condition is rarely one of complete satisfaction. Think. Are you completely happy with yourself? Have you no struggles between the person you want to be and the person you are? Have you put restrictions on yourself that you have violated, say, restrictions imposed by wanting to live moderately, but having that extra dessert or drink, smoking when you want to quit, driving too fast on a curvy road and crossing the double-yellow line when you know your safety is at risk, or desiring and obsessing over what you can’t or don’t have? Even a government-of-one has its contentions unless I am mistaken about human nature.
“So, maybe we shouldn’t be surprised that the current political condition is one of anger. Surely, you covered previous contentious times in your history lessons. Think American Civil War, American Revolution, French Revolution and subsequent Reign of Terror, Russian Revolution, The Glorious Revolution, and, well, every overthrow in every place that has housed humans who have objected to controls of any kind. Parallels abound.
“Every generation seems to produce those who would impose another set of controls. Some are dictators; others, just nice people who are ignorant of the way things work, ignorant of history, or overwhelmed by idealism rooted in words and not historic examples.
“In 1725, James Logan addressed the Pennsylvania House, saying, ‘Some kingdoms within less than a century…have been changed from a state of greatest freedom into the most absolute and arbitrary government.’ ** Logan had his own misunderstandings of history, but his statement could apply at almost any time and in almost any place. He noted that other countries where freedom of the individual was paramount had fallen prey to ‘politic arts and the contrivances of men truly ambitious and designing….’
“That’s the problem, isn’t it? Governments aren’t run by robots. People run them, and since people probably can’t even construct a government of one that exists without some contention, then all governments are subject to dissatisfaction, more so whenever those who practice the ‘politic arts’ do so with hypocritical self or group aggrandizement as a goal under the feigned aegis of utopian ideals.***
“We could think of today’s political anger as an isolated phenomenon, but to do so would be to ignore the nature of humans, revealed, so it seems, in that tale of Adam and Eve. Placed in Paradise, they just had to obey the only rule emplaced by a Benevolent Government. As a species, we like power, just not someone else’s power, and that’s why every government has a contentious and temporary existence.”
*Bailyn, Bernard. The Origins of American Politics. New York. Vintage Books, 1967, p. 104.
**Bailyn, 150.
***Green New Deal: Check out the statements by former Greenpeace founder, Patrick Moore, available online. Moore says a government-imposed fossil-free society would be far from utopian. But the Green New Deal is just one instance of a proposed or formerly instituted government that purports to be or purported to be ideal.
RSS Feed