The average American individual is generally satisfied with the sense of freedom they possess by living in the United States. It is certainly a philanthropic desire which makes many Americans want to spread the democratic way of life around the world. Few of them have taken the time to observe the realities of freedom; they enjoy the freedoms they posses while they are blind to those restrictions society places upon them which limits the actuality of this freedom. Someone raised in a particular society will appreciate those freedoms they possess there, but if they move to another country, more often than not, they will become acutely aware of the different sense of freedom their new homeland has from the land of their birth. They will be specifically aware of regulations which restrict the freedoms they once possessed, while they might never be able to fully appreciate the freedoms they have gained. Certainly some of these freedoms will be perfectly clear to them (and will be among the reasons why the moved), but many others they will never be able to see. The famous explorer, Sir Richard Burton, had a profound awareness of this truth when he wrote, “Throughout the world the strictness of the Lex Scripta is in inverse ratio to that of custom: whenever the former is lax, the latter is stringent, and vice versa. Thus in England, where law leaves men comparatively free, they are slaves to a grinding despotism of conventionalities, unknown in the land of tyrannical rule. This explains why many men, accustomed to live under despotic governments, feel fettered and enslaved in the so-called free countries. Hence, also the reason why notably in a republic there is less private and practical liberty than under a despotism” Richard F. Burton, Personal Narrative of a Pilgrimage to Al-madinah & Mecca: Volume Two (New York: Dover, 1964),87. When we look at another nation than our own, we are more profoundly aware of the restrictions that society places upon its citizens, if they are different from the ones in our land, than those freedoms they possess by the virtue of their own particular society. We are creatures of habit; we are socialized in such a way that we are accustomed to restrictions placed upon us, and we do not perceive them as being a limit to our liberty. On the other hand, those freedoms we proclaim as being the virtues of our society are the ones we look for in another, and they become the means by which we judge the freedom of those living in another society.
A sense of liberty is a necessity for the realization of human dignity. There must be some level of free association and creative interaction with one’s neighbors in order for one to develop the fullness of their personal worth. The question we must turn to, however, is whether this liberty is to be granted by a governmental institution alone? If it is, then the second question is this: if this institution were universal, and its liberty were granted to all, would it produce a genial, peace-loving society free from abuse; that is, could it produce a kind of utopia on earth?
We have already looked at some reservations people have had to the belief that a democratic institution could, by its nature, produce a free society. However, history shows us that these reservations were not possessed by the critics of democracy alone. Until the modern era, there was a general understanding that the democratic system did not possess within itself the ability to bring about a sustained, universal peace; it was, as with all governmental systems, a relative good, one which would have its time, and one which would end, as all systems do, in despotism. We find this sentiment, for example, in the reflections upon the developing Constitution of the United States by Benjamin Franklin, who said said, “In these Sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such: because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that it is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other” Benjamin Franklin, “Speech in the Constitutional Convention” pages 349-51 in Autobiography and Other Writings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 350.
There was no agreement as to the means by which one could best secure liberty. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had two divergent views: Jefferson desired a more democratic form of government, believing that the more the general populace was involved, the better that government would be, while Adams believed that checks and balances were needed in a government to prevent democratic excesses. Adams was one of the leading proponents of a republican form of government where the representatives, chosen by the people, would possess a great amount of authority, putting to check the ambitions of the mob. Adams stated that “democracy is as restless, as ambitious, as warlike and bloody, as aristocracy or monarchy” John Adams, “Correspondence with Sherman and Taylor” in The Portable John Adams (New York: Penguin Classics, 2004), 431. The excesses of the French Revolution, he believed, more than anything else, was from the excesses of democracy and proved his point. “What can I say of the democracy of France? I dare not write what I think and what I know. […] What was the ambition of this democracy? Nothing less than to propagate itself, its principles, its system, through the world; to decapitate all the kings, destroy all the nobles and priests in Europe” (ibid, 430). The blood that was spilled throughout Europe, be it from the French Revolution or from the Napoleonic wars, was the result of the democratic spirit. “Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five-and-twenty years” (ibid, 431).
Jefferson, with his more democratic spirit, believed in the general benevolence of humanity. However, this did not mean he was blind to human frailty. He certainly did not believe that democracies would produce perfect societies. He was rather pragmatic in his approach, and he wanted no one to hold onto the dictates of the past as providing absolute unreformable models. “Some men,” he wrote, “look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment” Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to Samuel Kercheval” pages 615-17 in The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: The Modern Library, 2004), 615-16. While he believed there was a need for stability, so that a government would not be constantly changed, there would be times when a government is no longer adequate and reformation is necessary. “But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times” (ibid., 616). Jefferson, while a man of the Enlightenment, nonetheless knew that human institutions could not be the foundation of a lasting utopia. And there is not any guarantee that, even when authority is granted to many in the name of the people, this would not end up as despotic. “All the powers of government, legislative, executive and judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers wills be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us that they are chosen by ourselves. An elective despotism was not the government we fought for…” Thomas Jefferson, Notes On Virginia pages 177-267 in The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson (New York: The Modern Library, 2004), 221-2.
It was understood that democracies, like all other systems, could rise and fall. Some democracies will more quickly devolve into tyranny than others, and in part, the weakness of democracy was its strength: it is founded upon the will of the people. When the people are well educated and virtuous, it was believed they would create a prosperous, benevolent land. But who is to say what virtue is, and how one is to be educated? This question is never easy to answer, but it is even more difficult when a government is based upon a pure secular humanism without some transcendent ideals in order to judge this virtue. The founding fathers of the United States held on high our rational nature, believing it was a gift of God which enables us to ascertain the moral needs of our community.
Yet beneath this exterior there is another story. The framers of the American democratic system were being torn in many directions, and the justifications they used for it were often self-contradictory. They relied upon traditional values to demand justice, but then they want on to question the cultural basis of these values. Thomas Paine, whose views Thomas Jefferson supported, represents the dark underbelly of this so-called Enlightenment. In his Age of Reason he brought forward a critical assault on Christianity. Its morals, he believed, had to be rejected: they were incapable of being followed, or if they were followed, they only helped to advance some great evil. He examined many of the moral teachings of the Christian faith, finding reasons to question and ridicule them. In one illuminating passage which demonstrates this, he says, “Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has besides no meaning. It is incumbent on man, as a moralist, that he does not revenge an injury; and it is equally as good in a political sense, for there is no end to retaliation, each retaliates on the other, and calls it justice; but to love in proportion to the injury, if it could be done, would be to offer a premium for crime” Thomas Paine, Age of Reason (New York: Citadel Press, 1995),184. Indeed, for this and for other reasons, Paine tells us, “Of all the systems of religion that were ever invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself, than this thing called Christianity” (ibid, 186). Paine believed that a government should not entertain gracious forgiveness, because it only justified evil, “it is not incumbent on man to reward a bad action with a good one, or return a good for evil; and wherever it is done, it is a voluntary act and not a duty” (ibid., 185). This is the limit of what a human can provide, when left to their own; but what kind of nation, what kind of state, can last without it turning into barbaric retaliation, one against another, if this principle of grace is left out? How can this provide for any lasting peace? Certainly, it can be said, Paine represented a minority position during the time of the founding of our nation; but has this spirit not been on the increase, showing it is at the heart of a humanistically-followed democratic frame of mind? And is this not the heart of the strengths and weaknesses behind the modern democratic system? It is perfectly human, capable of the greatness of humanity, but also the excesses of its passions and desires, including the desire for revenge?
The founding fathers of American democracy were, to be sure, geniuses who tried to aspire to greatness. They tried to give a flexibility to the system so that it can grow and develop, hoping this would prevent despotism. But they did not believe it can be put off indefinitely. Moreover, we now are capable of seeing the despotic activity they allowed, as for example, the institution of slavery and the gross mistreatment of Native Americans. But this is not the end of the story. We acknowledge the mistakes of the past. Does this not show the strength of the democratic spirit? Perhaps, but what guarantees do we have, even now, that we are not blind, as a nation, to other abuses, and do not allow other abhorrent behavior in the name of democracy? Does not the flow of innocent blood committed by abortionists, all in the name of freedom, show that utopia has not been reached?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In