It May Be Too Late

A recent column by New York Times columnist David Brooks made a point and missed the point.  I’m not a fan of his pseudo-philosophical musings, usually written in a thoughtful style but too often half-baked rationalization of conservatism without the MAGA nastiness.

His central notion in this piece was that our economic, personal and political lives are fraught with tension between our individual and collective interests.  Although Brooks is not a libertarian, he assumes that we humans find fulfillment in individual freedom and that protection of this freedom has primacy, albeit within limits.

He writes: If we choose one good, we are sacrificing a piece of another. The tragic fact about the human condition is that many choices involve loss. Day after day, the trick is figuring out what you are willing to sacrifice for the more important good.

Brooks uses the phrase "narcissistic authoritarianism," an apt description of Donald Trump.  But there is also a kind of steadily growing narcissistic individualism that accompanies the American myth of exceptionalism.  I worry that this may be irreversible.

 As income tax time arrives, the individual vs. collective tension is heightened. On the local level, the bitching over property taxes and income taxes is at a high pitch. Some of my neighbors deeply resent that their tax dollars help to fund diversity and inclusion work in the town and school system. At the federal level, “big government” is the enemy, with many complaints that “It’s my money!”  

I could provide a great many examples of the practical benefits of collective enterprises - public safety, highways, parks, health and welfare, etc. The “individual freedom” crowd recognizes these things - to a limited extent - but resists other collective enterprises, like education, the arts, environmental initiatives, social supports and any efforts to rebalance imbalances.  

This sentiment is deeply held in conservative circles. Individualism is expressed by a “you get what you deserve and deserve what you get.” The two ends of this selfish value system explains a great deal, from rejection of social supports to adulation of the wealthy. Even poor folks who embrace this self-defeating approach have convinced themselves that their millions are just around the next corner. 

Some of the insistence on “individual freedom” has dire life consequences in gun rights (over my dead body!) and climate change denial (Don’t tell me I can’t drive my Hummer!) 

But perhaps the most dangerous expansion of this form of “freedom” is found in education. The always excellent blogger and indirect friend Jan Resseger addresses this in a recent post. The dual pillars of conservative educational policy - school choice and vouchers - were designed to manipulate parental love of children in order to erode and eventually collapse our public education system.  It’s working, as Jan’s piece demonstrates so clearly. The erosion of the traditional education system also erodes neighborhoods and communities. In every instance, these schemes advantage the privileged at the expense of the less privileged, particularly folks of color. But ya know, “you get what you . . .”

And I mustn’t omit book-banning, LGBTQ- erasing, prayer-insistence and the many other ways that the “freedom” mantra  is used to impose on others. The entire “parental rights” movement is an intentional assault on collectivism. 

I would like to reframe Brooks’s argument: If we choose one good, we are sacrificing a piece of another. The tragic fact about the human condition is that many choices involve loss. Day after day, the trick is figuring out what you are willing to sacrifice for the more important good.

He’s wrong. The richness of individual life is expanded, not contracted, by collectivism. It is not a zero sum game. I don’t “sacrifice” by cheerfully paying taxes. I gain immensely from a healthy community and the programs and facilities that benefit others.  I am glad to pay higher taxes to reduce human misery that would otherwise cloud my heart. I believe yielding in the direction of empathy and generosity creates blooms of expanding satisfaction, not some kind of sacrificial balance.

The myth of America is that rugged individualism built the nation.  It was never true. Every important advance in our society came from tempering individualism and leaning gracefully into common purpose.  But that evolution has been reversed by nearly a half century of “individualism” propaganda. Starting with Ronald Reagan’s folksy homilies about government, conservatives have slowly undermined the value of collectivism. The wealthiest Americans have enjoyed the ride, having bought the car and the drivers.  Gradually, steadily, millions have been left in the dust.

Rugged individualism did not build America. But it may destroy us.