“A Fight of Individualism Versus Collectivism…” (Paul Ryan)

Education v. Tyranny

I remember as a child getting in trouble for fighting in the schoolyard. So in an élan of linguistic generosity I suggest that perhaps what Paul Ryan sees as a Randesque “fight” in America’s socio-political ‘schoolyard’ between individualism and (some form of) statism, is not really a fight, but an inherently philosophical tension -- a theoretical DMZ (Demilitarized Zone, for those who still remember the Vietnam War) to be respected by all the players in the American game in order for our profoundly diverse United states to function in an environment of freedom.
            Unlike all men (at least according to our Declaration of Independence), not all opinions are created equal. Ever since I was a little boy I have heard a sentiment expressed, which has been systematically misattributed to Voltaire: “I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” Were this philosophical sentiment truly from the Enlightenment Man, I would continue to feel guilty about thinking, privately, what a dumb sentiment this is; but as it’s only from the EM’s English biographer, I can now say with renewed philosophical boldness:  I am quite sure that I will avoid at all costs defending to the death someone’s right to think or to believe or to say something STUPID! Stupid (read: under-/un-informed) opinions don’t count for me, either as private citizen or publicly professing philosophy teacher; and, no, I do not value martyrdom or self-immolation for stupid ideas. (And by the way, yes… notwithstanding the great cloud of witnesses, which are the collective shades of my public schoolteachers surrounding me even as I pen these words, sadly shaking their heads in disappointment and disapprobation, there are in fact also stupid questions!). So, for the record, I suggest that the above-cited, bolded and titled opinion from Mr. Ryan, i.e., that America is being torn asunder by the fight between individualism and collectivism, is under- and un-informed.

            Now allow me to up the blogging ante by leaving behind (but only temporarily) my childhood memories and Truisms, and re-penning words that express a different philosophical sentiment, one for which I have unqualified admiration.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So, asks the less-Truistically disposed adult version of me, what are the philosophical underpinnings of this opening argument of the United States Constitution? It reads like a perfect political science road-map for a social contract – an invitation to collectivize, taken straight out of Enlightenment-era French salons… Statement of Purpose (as my wife, the English Teacher, might put it): “We the People” agree to work together in order to “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”.

Question #1. But, might ask the I-lifted-myself-up-by-my-own-boot-straps American, the varied and the sundried, why should we individuals, why would I want to overcome my varied and sundried-ness in order to collectivize with those who, perhaps, do not bring to the table as much as I do? The Varied-and-Sundried would have every right to respond to the US Constitution’s philosophical invitation to ‘unite forces’ by asserting, justifiably or not: ‘I am proud of what I have accomplished with my work, my dreams, my energy, my resources, my, my, my… Why should I be forced to share any of my hard-earned… etcetera, etcetera, etcetera (it will be more fun if you say etcetera like Yule Brenner in The King and I)?

            So how would the American philosophe respond to the assertion-clothed-as-question of this particular Varied-and-Sundried, this philosophically un-united Island of Mr. One (Island with a total population of 1, me-myself-and-I, or 3 if you’re trying to cook the books: me, myself, and I)? The question, after all, certainly has philosophical legitimacy. Why should the individual be compelled to give of his abundance to others? At this point I prefer to break my old grade-school English teacher’s heart (sorry, Mrs. Bryant), and to answer this first question by asking a second question.

Question #2. What ideas or principles could have moved our Founding Fathers to agree to override an individual’s interests, goals, ambitions, differences, and grievances, in order to create a group of individuals into an increasingly perfectible Union? (I think I may have just given away the answer to question #1 – namely, that Mr. Island’s assertion is simply counter-Constitutional, and therefore philosophically inconsistent with the framework laid out by America’s Founding Fathers!). Make no mistake about it, America’s Fathers were clearly persuaded that a Union of individuals, as opposed to individual islands and (very tiny) atolls, is the superior form of the Social Contract, and should therefore take precedence over the Non-social Contract, or Anarchy.

            At this point my long-term memory kicks back in and I recall my 6^th grade biology teacher (although I was most certainly sitting in the back row looking out the window or staring at my neighbor’s, Debbie’s, 6^th grade legs) telling us that humans are by nature social animals. But what does that actually mean, unless it means something like, we humans are designed in such a way that we prosper better in our world by grouping ourselves, rather than by isolating ourselves? So, already simple grade school biology thumbs its nose at Mr. Island’s wrong-headed philosophical inclination. And to add insult to injury, what about Mrs. Clinton’s proverbial and socially collectivist contention that “it takes a village to raise a child”?

            So if Nature (both Human and Mother) itself tries to teach us that we prosper better grouped than isolated, what then might be the goals of such United groups? This is the part where the American philosophes made history; and this is also precisely where Mr. Ryan seems to see his Randesque ‘fight’. What types of goals did our Founding Fathers set out for these states United? It is better, affirm these philosophes, to unite forces in Order to do 6 things:

1)   form a more perfect Union,

2)   establish Justice,

3)   insure domestic Tranquility,

4)   provide for the common defense,

5)   promote the general Welfare, and

6)   secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

Now that we have settled what the Founding Fathers were philosophically committed to… In the above linked article referring to Mr. Ryan’s commitment to and distance from Ayn Rand’s philosophy of radical individualism, Mr. Ryan says that Rand's works are required reading for his staff. "The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand," he went on to say. "And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism."

Another Truism that enjoyed prominence in my formative educational years, being primarily directed at me, is that someone can have just enough education to be dangerous.  So I give you Paul Ryan, the intellectual leader of the GOP:

“In April, Ryan attempted to distance himself from his prior infatuation with the novelist, telling the National Review in an interview, "If somebody is going to try to paste a person's view on epistemology to me, then give me Thomas Aquinas. Don't give me Ayn Rand." (A spokesman later suggested that Ryan was not repudiating Rand's philosophy, but that Ryan did not make staffers read "Atlas Shrugged.")”

Remember that, philosophically speaking, Ryan is on the side of radical individualism—the Mr. (each man is an) Island philosophy. So why, then, in defense of this philosophy of supreme individualism, is Ryan giving priority in this last quote to one of the paramount collectivist and communitarian organizations on the planet – the Catholic Church, through the person of one of her greatest saints, the Angelic Doctor, Thomas Aquinas?

            It seems clear to me that instead of proffering for public consumption under- and un-informed insular sentiment that runs counter to the collectivizing thought of America’s Founding Fathers, this newly-hatched vice-presidential candidate should really just stick to being the radical economic and budget adviser for the GOP, and leave the work of public intellectualism and philosophy to less-dangerously (i.e., more) educated intellectuals and philosophers.

            It would still seem, however, that this is no longer just a battle for the soul of America, but also an important fight in that battle, to answer the question – what is man that we, The People, are mindful of him?