Balances

Forgotten Public Virtues

Governments that are called upon to serve the common good are charged with difficult, and sometimes contradictory duties. One of the most challenging, and often miscalculated missions is to strike the balance between maintaining order and public safety, and safeguarding the individual rights and liberties of the citizens.

If you err by overemphasizing safety and order, your system becomes oppressive. If you overemphasize personal liberty, you become incapable of protecting the people.

No liberty can or should be absolute. Absolute freedom of speech would permit rallying people to violently overthrow the government, encouraging a riot, or raising a lynch mob. It would also allow outright fraud, or criminal conspiracy.

But as soon as you tell the people in power to limit speech for the common good, you charge them with the discretion to determine what is harmful, and what is just disliked by those in power. You are calling upon their honor to act on behalf of the public good, which includes not only the public safety, but its liberty as well.

This is no easy task. You can have institutional rules that limit what the government can do, and make court rulings that deal with applying those rules to a specific situation, but in the end, applying these rules will involve someone exercising discretion about where and how these rules apply.

It will not do to simply “split the difference” and call that “moderation.” More thought is required. If a religious fanatic wants to jail a million unbelievers, and you bargain them down to half a million, you have not solved the problem, you've just approved oppressing half a million people. You cannot say, “It could have been worse,” when it shouldn't have been at all. Knee jerk “moderation” is not discretion.

When we think about elections, we often think in terms of charisma, likability, and the “common touch.” Most people seem to choose to whom they will give their support on the basis of which candidate makes them most comfortable.

Unfortunately, this vague feeling that someone is relatable, and “on your side” is the most easily manipulated of emotions. There are many very bright people who make a lot of money making you feel good about anything, from shaving cream to senators. And the more money the campaign spends on image, and the more of those very bright manipulators they hire, the better their chances for success.

None of this reaches a very important thing about a public leader, if you want someone who will truly shoulder the complexity of governing for the common good – discretion. Knowing how far to go, and when to stop. They must be able to think seriously, with a sharp, ready and open mind about a variety of perspectives and priorities.

Integrity is another undervalued trait in a public leader. Without the willingness to take on difficulties on behalf of keeping your word and doing your duty, even though it may not be to your immediate advantage, you simply can't trust them with power. You certainly can't trust them to make a choice that might not be to their own interest, but that is in the interest of the society. And as for any promises they make, well, they are written in water without integrity.

I'm sure you agree that discretion and integrity matter. But consider, how are you going to turn those traits into campaign capital? A candidate who will not tell donors that he will act on their behalf, even when it might not be to the benefit of the society as a whole will raise far less money than one who tells the billionaires whatever they want to hear. They're not, by and large, stupid. They know they can't trust such a candidate either, but they are more likely to take a chance on someone who flatters them and makes them promises than someone who tells them that they will act in the common good, weighing the billionaire's interests no more than anyone else's.

When you don't get the approval of the moneyed class, you get fewer of the very bright manipulators, and less chance to amplify your message. You might still win, for one reason or another. Maybe the liar isn't really so good at lying, or they bungle their strategy. But on the whole, money leads to image leads to winning.

You might be thinking that a billionaire, who doesn't need any money outside of their own, and who has great personal integrity and discretion, along with a sharp and ready mind would be the ideal leader.

But they don't generally become billionaires by focusing on the common good, nor do they become fabulously wealthy by sacrificing personal advantages for the sake of integrity. The cutthroat nature of capitalist competition does not lend itself to concern for the welfare of those who do not compete at their level. The winners of the rat race tend to be...well...rats.

I would remind you that Bruce Wayne is a fictional character. And I hear he's very busy a lot of the time.

So, how do we, in this media saturated, image driven, short attention span age get people to pay attention to the integrity and discretion of their leaders? It's very difficult to get such traits into a sound bite or a campaign commercial.

The solution, insofar as there is one, is not to tinker with rules, limit expenditures or change the way we elect leaders, although a dose of all that would definitely improve the situation. But instead of going from the top down, we need to go from the bottom up.

The communications infrastructure, the educational system, and even the religious institutions are thoroughly in the bag for those who don't see us as citizens, participating in the preservation and improvement of our society. They see us only as consumers to be manipulated. They tell us what we want, then sell it to us for more than we can afford, shackling ourselves to debt slavery with only the short pleasure of buying and consuming to cheer us. But not too much. They want us anxious, fearful, and easily manipulated.

But in the real world, no system of control is complete and eternal.

The full measure of trying to change this system, political, economic and educational, to one that serves the common good is beyond the scope of this essay. Here, I will only say that the key is in a new awakening, a change in how people think about how they participate in society at all levels. This sounds daunting, and it is. It sounds risky, and it is even more so. But changing a corrupt and entrenched system always looks impossible until it happens. If there is interest, I may write on the specifics of such a change, and how it might be brought about.

For now, change yourself. Think about how you think, how you interact socially, how you work and how and why you buy. This system is predicated on the idea that you will never stop to think – you're too busy buying, working, and trying to keep your head above water. When you do stop and think about what you really want, and what you want society to be, the illusion begins to lift.

Integrity and discretion seem like luxuries when you are constantly fighting to hold your ground. But they aren't. They're essential to a healthy civil society, and to being a decent human being. Begin the change in your own life. Own your head.