Simon Says

Democracy and the Death of Choice: Why the liberal struggle for a better world will fail. Part 4 of 6

 

A researcher named Simon points out that modern democracy is the best regime today, not intrinsically, but as a result of historical circumstances that have exposed the tyrannical threats lurking behind monarchies and rule by the elite few. Nevertheless, he does think that in order for democracy to flourish and not simply to survive, it needs principles opposed to its own ideals. A pure regime is utterly unstable for it has nothing to check its weaknesses and abuses of power. Furthermore, a mixed regime also incorporates elements of the common good from the other regimes, since no regime fully and entirely encapsulates the common good and virtue of all its citizens.

 

This is the context for Simon’s brilliant insight, wherein he explains why the principles of democracy must be more profound, vital, and heartfelt: “This is the case since preserving principles is more difficult in democracy than in any other regime as a result of liberalism, which implies that the principles of society [and it’s desired ends] are not above deliberation and must be thrown into the universal competition of opinions” (Philosophy of Democratic Government, 124).

 

Simon has provided an insight that requires serious reflection, for to evaluate the health of society necessitates that we accurately describe the sort of regime that we actually live in. “Modern liberalism sees that there is no purpose of society other than the general will, a will that is ordered and guided by nothing other than itself. Goodness, virtue, and morality are simply emotivist attitudes that have no objective content outside of what one so determines.” In other words, the purpose of modern society is left up to the collective will of a people without a moral compass.

 

However, the classical and medieval understanding was that political society, like the family, existed “by nature” and not by human convention. It existed for the purpose of fostering genuine communal life, virtue, and friendship; three characteristics that are almost entirely absent from all modern and post-modern political society.

 

Mary Ann Glendon called attention to the fact that modernity is dominated by “rights talk.” This understanding has led to an unhealthy conception in liberal democracy. A fundamental error that characterizes much of modern “rights” theory is that “rights” are rooted not in human nature but in the human will, which in turn is manifested in a system of law.

 

Modern jurisprudence theory relies heavily on the self-sufficiency of human will. Laws are often considered right merely because they have become a part of the legal order of society, where in which the majority “will” of society takes precedence. In other words, law has become erroneously equivocated with “right.”

 

Father Schall sums up this dilemma poignantly: “The will then has no limit … if whatever is willed is right because it is willed and only because it is willed, then there arises a certain parallel between law and right. In a sense, there can be no conflict between law and right, for whatever is willed is right because it is willed” (Acting Reasonable: Democracy, Authority, and Natural Rights in the Thought of Jacques Maritain). The strongest will, the public will, trumps in all cases.