An apt diagnosis of the prevailing ideology of today’s young, educated elite, Patrick Deneen’s recent article “Campus Libertarianism up, Civic Commitment Down” raises an essential intellectual distinction that has a profound political -- and moral -- implication. Substantiating his observations with UCLA’s annual survey of college freshmen, “Today's students,” Deneen observes, “demonstrate an overall disposition toward ‘live and let live,’ in both the social and economic realms.” Many have, it seems, embraced a laissez faire posture toward the world around them – materially and culturally.
In contemporary America, mainstream politics (which arguably includes libertarians since the Tea Party surge and the semi-ironic worship of Ron Paul) are simply estranged members of the same philosophical family, descendants of Lockean political theory. Even the many sides of the debates that animate this blog largely belong to the same dysfunctional philosophical family: Liberalism (sorry, Steve). We believe that the discrete individual is the most fundamental unit of society and that political rights thus belong not to families, institutions, or communities – but to men, created equal. Unsurprisingly, we find agreement about this on all sides of the American political aisle for, as G.K. Chesterton first observed, Americans are a creedal people. This means to be American is not to be of a certain ethnicity, religion, or ancestry – but to be of a certain worldview – the one articulated in our founding documents.
It is arguable, therefore, that the American left and libertarianism are not at all philosophically opposed; they disagree on means rather than ends. As Deneen points out in his piece, the ostensibly liberal aim of promoting toleration and respect leads to a kind of utilitarian indifference embraced equally by liberals and libertarians (note even their etymological relationship). This is a far cry from recognizable philosophical conservatism. In other words, disagreeing about how big the government should be in order to obtain the same result (absence of external restraint since we believe we are self-validating sources of all of our claims) is hardly disagreeing at all.
Tocqueville’s foresight got this right in the mid 1830s: “Selfishness is a vice as old as the world. It scarcely belongs more to one form of society than to another,” he reminds us, precluding the straw-man golden-age objection. But “individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to develop as conditions become equal” (Volume II, chapter 2, part 2; emphasis added).
The paradox of modern progress in many ways is that as we become more materially equal, we believe we need each other less and so we desire and seek to emancipate ourselves from the constrains of other men – economically and morally. (My body, my choice – my money, my guns, my rights.) Though egregious disparities in wealth and opportunity certainly still exist America, our theoretical political equality and our potential economic equality cloud the perception of obligation to one another. Again, Tocqueville called all this in the early 19th century: “In democratic centuries, on the contrary, when the duties of each individual toward the species are much clearer, devotion toward one man becomes rarer: the bond of human affection is extended and loosened.” (Volume II, chapter 2, part 2; emphasis added.)
Is it any wonder then that students socialized to buy into globalism, humanism, the power of competition (especially academic) are liberal individualists – whether they like how it’s phrased by Ron Paul or Al Franken better? As Deneen suggests, young Americans are merely internalizing the lessons being promulgated by their elders.
The Deneen study and Ms. Bermingham's commentary raise some interesting points about an increasing trend toward what we call libertarianism at college campuses. But I think we have to keep in mind how limited these studies are with respect to the nation and the college-aged generation. I don't think the Deneen and UCLA study even begin to scratch the surface of how Americans define and value their communities.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, students on college campuses are going to be the future leaders of the nation. But only 25% of the United States' population earns four-year college degrees. The studies cited are also a very small sample of college campuses and they're both from campuses in metropolitan international cities.
Assuming though that the trends at Georgetown and UCLA are indicative of political trends among college-going students, I still don't think this generation can be said to be less community oriented than those before it. All this trend really shows is that this generation may be more socially tolerant. But the question of how this country defines community with regard to the economy is simply holding par with generations before it.
Our political orientations still either favor a large federal government or a small one. In my experience, it seems that those who are against a large Fed believe that community safety nets should be the family, local charitable organizations and the church. While I don't subscribe to that philosophy, I also don't think the people who do are necessarily greedy or less community oriented.
Two points Brett made, I think, raise some doubts about the argument pushed by Deneen and added to by Kate. Number one, great point on the fact that only 25% of Americans earn degrees. Although many more start college than finish it (remember: this is a survey of freshmen), we assume that college students represent the views of everyone in our generation at our own peril.
ReplyDeleteAlso, way to point out that Georgetown and UCLA are both large, urban schools - the results of a similar survey at a small liberal arts school may generate significantly different results.
That being said, I thought Deneen's article gave voice to a phenomenon that I had independently observed through my student years. In addition to being more socially tolerant, our generation is also right there in terms of lending our casual support to a facebook cause or Change.org petition - but how willing are we to align our real-life actions with the feeling of a genuine obligation to society and to those around us? When we face problems in the world that don't affect us personally, do we care enough to do anything?
People, by nature, are self-interested. Every living thing is. But as thinking, rational beings that are shaped by our experiences in the world, and ultimately choose how to interact with that world, we also temper our natural self interest through virtues like compassion and altruism. Depending on how each generation experiences its upbringing, these virtues either flourish or whither.
Considering we are a generation reared on the principle that you can always "have it your way," I think it's right to wonder what sort of an impact that has on the responsibility we feel to the rest of society.