The latest issue of The Freeman (January/February 2009) — is now available online at their new and glossy revamped website. I mention this partly for its own sake, but partly also because, one of the things that you will find in that new issue, at the new website, is this:
By Charles Johnson â?¢ January 2009
Individualists get a bad rap in politics these days. That should come as no surprise; politics these days is dominated by electoral politics, and electoral politics is an essentially anti-individualistic enterprise. With free markets and other forms of voluntary association, people who canâ??t agree on whatâ??s worthwhile can go their own ways. But the point of government elections is to give people in the political majority a means for forcing through their favorite laws, projects, and rulers over the objections of people in the political minority, and making everybody obey those laws, fund or participate in those projects, and acknowledge those rulers.
Still, even if it is unrealistic to expect individualism to get much respect from people who are deeply invested in electoral politics, itâ??s not too much to ask them not to try to score political points by totally distorting our position. In any case, if they do, itâ??s worth taking the time to set things straight.
For example, consider The Social Animal by neoconservative New York Times columnist David Brooks (September 12). He begins by quoting Barry Goldwaterâ??s argument (from The Conscience of a Conservative) thatEvery man for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being. . . . Conservatismâ??s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?
Brooks says that Goldwaterâ??s ideas seem to come from a vision of human life based on solitary, rugged individualsâ??the stout pioneer crossing the West, the risk-taking entrepreneur with a vision, the stalwart hero fighting the collectivist foe.Brooks protests thata tide of researchin the human and social sciences has demonstrated that Goldwaterâ??s old-fashioned individualist notions arenâ??t supported by the latest empirical evidence because, Brooks tells us, human beings are social creatures by nature, closely intertwined with each other in the fabric of a shared social life.
Maybe Brooks is right that Goldwaterâ??s legacy is holding Republicans back politically. Individualistic ideas can be a tough sell, particularly since the obsessive focus on electoral politics as a panacea for every social ill ensures that genuinely individualistic ideas are almost never presented in the media or discussed in public forums. But whether heâ??s right or wrong about the best way for Republicans tofully modernize,I donâ??t care much about the Republican Party or its political prospects, or about Barry Goldwaterâ??s reputation. I do care about the prospects for individualism and truly freed markets. And Brooksâ??s case against them commits a series of serious and misleading errors….
The title of this post, for what it’s worth, was the original title of the column, and will make some more sense once you’ve read the article (the current title is based on the fact that it appeared in the regular
It Just Ain’t So! department).
As always, I’d like to thank Sheldon Richman for the (very flattering) invitation, and for his very helpful editorial work. I’m especially happy to get the chance to put a distinctly Tuckerite understanding of
individualism, complete with a cheer for wildcat unionism, and a reference to William Gillis’s
freed markets, into an official publication of the Foundation for Economic Education.