Recent discourse presents a story of society in turmoil or even on the verge of collapse. Although it is understandable after the traumatic events we witnessed this month, the refrain has in some ways become almost business-as-usual. And traditional American liberties, personal and economic, are wrongly getting much of the blame.
We believe freedom still strengthens communities large and small.
To combat crime in our cities, our federal government is sending in the national guard, often with local officials’ support. A still-escalating trade war reflects sentiments that offshoring businesses aren’t loyal to America and must be reined in.
The government is now a major shareholder of a major private company, Intel —an idea advocated by socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and implemented by the Trump administration.
Behind these stories is a shared sense of blame among many Democrats and Republicans who believe too much freedom is causing our cherished society to go haywire, and that more control over individuals, cities and corporations is necessary.
Blame can be legitimate, but psychologists note that it’s hardwired into our mental architecture. We’re adept at forming groups, including political parties and ideological factions.
We blame others for what ails us, complicating discussions on what makes for a thriving civil society, how working together voluntarily fixes problems and what’s at stake if communities languish.
This blame-shifting tendency helps explain why transformative technology — the printing press, cellular phones, social media, AI and so on — stokes fears that society will decay rather than leap forward.
Or why politicians are quick to blame one another for a lack of morality during disagreements over what our communities should look like, who we should help first and what we owe one another.
That’s why it’s notable when the left and right both point blame in the same direction. We hear from a mix of conservatives and progressives that civil society is impoverished, too much freedom is at fault and the fix is more government intervention.
Influential “national conservatives” and “post-liberals” argue that certain freedoms are socially destructive and should be tempered.
They believe the conveniences of a more urban and cosmopolitan life come at the cost of familial and religious ties. They seek to criminalize activities that do not align with their worldview, crack down on immigration and advance American isolationism.
The left sees individualism, markets and limited government less as “the American Way” than the way toward degraded civic association and atrophied communities. They call for a more collective approach, including an expanding social safety net and egalitarianism policies that downplay free enterprise in our communities.
Is the classical liberal tradition actually the problem? No.
True classical liberalism shows how the freedom to live and associate is an incredibly powerful tool not just for individuals, but for our communities and all of society.
Americans can trust one another as fair-minded citizens with the energy and wit to solve complex problems — without delegating too much to politicians and bureaucrats and resorting to heavy-handed policies.
Alexis de Tocqueville saw this in the 1830s, and it’s still alive and well today. He was astounded at the associational effervescence in our evolving democratic republic.
The eagerness of individuals to band together in new associations, clubs, collectives and organizations to respond to all kinds of problems is uniquely American. He witnessed thousands of Americans gathering in temperance movements to abstain from consuming alcohol, a stark contrast to the federal government’s later, disastrous forced prohibition effort.
Civil society is an alternative to overreaching or ineffective government, as Nobel Laureate Elinor Ostrom and her husband Vincent explained, helping to build the “muscles” of self-governance.
Their work on community policing is emblematic: When police come from the communities they serve, they are better able to meet community needs, collaborate and bring down crime. Nationalizing policing, in contrast, relies on force and exacerbates social differences.
Another example is how the “independent sector” can bolster the welfare of the least advantaged in our society, as advocated by classical liberal thinker Richard Cornuelle. Grassroots efforts deal with issues such as isolation, drug abuse and unemployment by filling the gaps of care left behind by bureaucratic governments and corporations.
These thinkers argued that multiple, competing forms of services are superior to more consolidated efforts. When the government intervenes, it leads to more consolidation, conformity and stagnation. When we wait for that intervention, we miss out.
The fact that we argue and try out different approaches at the community level is a sign of life, not a signal of American demise. We should not shun lively, sometimes messy, associational life — we should accept and even embrace it.
Increased government efforts and oversight will only further atrophy our ability to associate and commune with one another. The cure for society’s ailments is more freedom, not less.
Mikayla Novak and Stefanie Haeffele are senior fellows with the Mercatus Center’s F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics.