Unit 1 - Foundations of American Political Philosophy

What is important in history? While some may cite wars, political leaders, or scientific discoveries, the concepts of liberty and freedom, and their application in American government, offer a more complex and more meaningful view of our nation's heritage. The attempts at neutrality, the role and origin of political philosophy, the ideas of republicanism and liberalism, as well as the ancient, modern and Christian views of government have all influenced current political thinking and our nation's history.

Because we live in such a diverse country, it is easy to reach the conclusion that the government should have no role in moral affairs. This neutrality, however, is impossible for several reasons. One of these, Tocqueville believes, is that "without ideas in common, no common action would be possible . . . there could be no body social." (AHSR, p. 3) This quotation illustrates that, although it is impossible to have total agreement on every issue, there is a need for a society to have some universal values to tie people together. A more modern example is the Supreme Court's decision in Romer v. Evans, where, by not condemning homosexuality, the Court purports to be neutral to it. This is a false neutrality, however. "It is one thing to say . . . that the moral precepts of Christianity and Judaism may not supply the premises of law in a secular state. It is quite another thing to say that people who take those precepts seriously may be the enduring targets of litigation and legal sanction if they . . . voice those precepts as their own and make them the ground of their acts even in their private settings." (Arkes, p. 33) As Arkes states, by refusing to condemn practices, the Supreme Court is actually sanctioning such practices and simultaneously forcing others to tolerate, at least in deed, such acts as well. These Justices would no doubt defend their position on the grounds that toleration and freedom to choose one's own lifestyle dictated their choice, yet in using these values, they are again denying their alleged neutrality. "If [toleration, fair procedures, and respect for individual rights] cannot be defended in the name of the highest human good, then in what does their moral basis consist?" (Sandel, p. 8) Thus it is impossible to make political decisions in the name of neutrality, and also to have a government without some common standards or beliefs.

As much as many of us might like to believe we are the sole creators of our personality and beliefs, most of our political and moral attitudes come from other sources, and are exhibited, consciously or subconsciously, in our day-to-day living. "Political philosophy seems often to reside at a distance from the world . . . but . . . our practices and institutions are embodiments of theory." (Sandel, p. ix) There is thus small possibility of wholly separating one's religious or personal values from one's political opinions; even if one could, there is little reason to distance oneself from such an integral part of one's being. This is not to say, however, that one should not acknowledge others' beliefs as valid; respect for others' opinions is often a part of one's religion and therefore part of one's political philosophy as well. Although the "infamous dictum" states that, "at the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life," (Hittinger, p. 26) this very statement, in attempting to be neutral, at the same time promotes the belief that the meaning of life is to choose one's own meaning of life. This is in direct contrast to Tocqueville's assertion that "any man accepting any opinion on trust from another puts his mind in bondage . . . which allows him to make good use of freedom." (AHSR, p. 3) While one should not blindly follow whatever others' say, it is not feasible to create one's own philosophy without drawing on the opinions of others, whether they are parents, teachers, philosophers, or religious leaders.

The contrasting ideas of liberalism and republicanism have had a great influence on our nation's origins. Both theories, when applied to the extreme, restrict freedom and provide an inadequate basis for a successful civilization. Extreme republicanism, for example, is found in Lycurgus' Sparta, where Plutarch describes how "no man was allowed to live as he pleased . . . they belonged entirely to their country and not to themselves." (AHSR, p. 6) This is strongly reminiscent of Satan's plan for a world without free agency. On the other extreme, however, an entirely liberal civilization would be divided and chaotic, and, without any common moral ground, would soon collapse into anarchy. Locke gives a more moderate liberal view in his assertion that, "though Men when they enter into Society give up the Equality, Liberty, and Executive Power they had in the State of Nature . . . yet it being only with the intention . . . to preserve himself his Liberty and Property." (AHSR, p. 18) This quotation expresses the fundamental liberal view that the object of government is to preserve people's property and freedom. Condorcet states a similar purpose to government: that "men, therefore, should be able to use their faculties, dispose of their wealth, and provide for their needs in complete freedom." (AHSR p. 22) Nowhere in these statements is found any reference to government cultivating virtue in its citizens, as Sandel believes should be the aim of government. "According to republican political theory . . . sharing in self-rule involves . . . deliberating with fellow citizens about the common good and helping to shape the destiny of the political community . . . it requires a knowledge of public affairs and also a sense of belonging, a concern for the whole, a moral bond." (Sandel, p. 5) The American founders obviously drew on both traditions to create a Constitution that allowed for personal freedom, but also had a strong moral background.

The ancient, modern, and Christian views of government vary markedly in their beliefs as to the nature of governmental power and also the aims of government. Aquinas gives a good summary of ancient government, where "those who are concerned with the subordinate ends of life must be subject to him who is concerned with the supreme end . . . kings must be subject to priests." (AHSR, p. 12) Modern governments, however, according to Condorcet, do not "divide humanity into two races, the one fated to rule, the other to obey, the one to deceive, the other to be deceive . . . all men have an equal right to be informed." (AHSR, p. 21) Power comes not from being the first son of the king, or from being the prominent leader of the local religion, but instead from the citizens. An interesting contrast to both views is the Christian view, which, corresponding to Augustine, is an intermediate view where "the Heavenly City in her pilgrimage here on earth makes use of the earthly peace and defends and seeks the compromise between human wills in respect of the provisions relevant to the mortal nature of man" (AHSR, p.10) Here the purpose of government is not to support religion, nor to allow people the maximum amount of freedom, but instead is to facilitate a peaceful atmosphere where it is easier to live so that one may return to "the Heavenly City," but it does not force a religion onto its people. These three examples provide a fairly accurate representation of the three forms or views of government.

Knowing how all of these concepts - neutrality, political philosophy, liberalism & republicanism, and antiquity, modernity, and Christianity - fit into our nation's history and current public opinion gives one a greater appreciation for the American government and also gives one a clearer understanding of its roots and influences.