ATW: The Battle for America

Home > The Battle for America

The Battle for America

In 1990 I worked with Missouri Republican Mac Holekamp in his run against U.S. Congressman Richard Gephardt. We co-authored a book, "The Battle for America", which was released by Holekamp during the campaign. The book traces the evolution of three distinct utopian movements in the eighteen hundreds, and suggests one of these utopian movements impacted liberalism and then our government. As a result, well-intentioned people in government and the private sector attempted to do things that in some form needed to be done, but with an unrealistic final goal; instead of consciously attempting to increase freedom and self-determination, they were unconsciously following a path they thought would lead to satisfaction. The book argues that this utopianism has led to many of the problems the United States faces today. If I had gone the academic route, this would have been my PhD. dissertation.

Introduction: This is an an alternative introduction I had written for the book, which was not quite as tied to the campaign against Richard Gephardt.

Published Introduction

Introduction

The question of the role government should play in society is not unique to the United States, nor is it by any means new; as long as people have been conscious of the existence of society and its keeper government, a debate has been waged on as to what is the proper role for government to fulfill in society. Today this debate is more crucial than ever; as the interdependence and ability of human beings to control their environment increase, both the demands placed on government and the potential power of government increase as well.

In the United States, this debate seems to be dominated by two extreme and diametrically opposed viewpoints. One view holds that the role of government should be as limited as possible, that government should take care to exert no influence at all; rather the institutions of society should be allowed to develop "naturally". The other view sees a much stronger role for government, believing that government should try to control the shape of the institutions of society and by doing so promote a value or set of values which will lead to a better world.

As with most positions held in the extreme, both of these viewpoints, when actually applied to government, lead to difficulties. A "naturally" developing society can exist in the abstract, but not in reality. The very act of governing involves shaping society and humankind. Pretending that government is not shaping society does not remove its’ influence, it simply means the effects of the government's shaping are haphazard and unplanned.

Government using its power to consciously shape toward a value or set of values also leads to difficulties. A value, at the level of the individual, is a belief of what has worth, literally what is to be valued. As such, values are signposts for life, used to guide our actions. We anticipate that by following a value or set of values we can create a better tomorrow, that the values can somehow lead us to satisfaction. This ultimately, is the role of values: they are paths to satisfaction.

The government, by consciously promoting a set of values, is promoting a path to satisfaction. It is suggesting that by shaping the institutions of society to further the decided upon values, government will also further the satisfaction of the individual. Government is making an unconscious yet implicit promise of satisfaction.

However satisfaction is not something which government can guarantee. It is an internal, psychological state which each person must create for themselves. Government, by promoting a set of values, runs the risk of creating an unrealistic assumption of what government can accomplish; it is creating the belief that it can make people happy. This unrealistic promise of satisfaction is governmental utopianism.

Arguably governmental utopianism can lead to dissatisfaction within a society. The most obvious problem, of course, is with those who do not share the chosen values nor the ends toward which government is trying to shape the country toward. However, problems exist even with those individuals who do share the set of values. Happiness is non-rational, or for want of a better word, spiritual. Few people will be happy just because they are told they should be, and in a situation of governmental utopianism some people will specifically decide they are dissatisfied just because government, by its actions, tells them they should be happy.

Dissatisfaction with government becomes even more pronounced with the coming of subsequent generations. Satisfaction is in part a reflection of age; people tend to become more satisfied as they grow older. To be young, however, is to be dissatisfied, and very few young people will be happy just because their parents are. Instead, each new generation demands its’ own utopia. Thus the values which might have satisfied a previous generation are unlikely to hold the promise of happiness for subsequent generations, and so they reject both the values and the government which is promoting them.

As well as creating dissatisfaction within a society, utopianism is dangerous to the institutional functioning of government. Government is a finite institution; its limits are not what we would like it to be able to do, but rather what it is systemically able to do, the boundaries dictated by its organizational composition. Utopianism causes government to attempt that which it is cannot to do, which in turn causes it to be unable to do that which it must. It interferes with the government's ability to fulfill the basic functions which are necessary to the continuance of society. The attempt to shape toward a set of values, as well as creating dissatisfaction within the society, can cause the government to fail to maintain the fundamental institutions of society.

There is a middle path between the illusion of an unshaped, freely developing society and the utopianism inherent in consciously shaping society toward a set of values: let individuals decide how society is to develop (accepting the randomness this entails), but use the power of government to increase the individuals ability to do so. Government can shape our society toward self-determination, toward greater freedom.

Freedom, of course, is also a value, and so does hold the potential for utopianism. Yet it is also describes a part of our reality; each person does to some degree choose the course of his or her own life. Government, by attempting to extend freedom, is also attempting to extend each individual's ability to find his or her own satisfaction.

Obviously, this is a step back from our assumptions of the possibilities of government. It is pleasant to think that government can insure happiness for everybody, but universal satisfaction does not seem likely. There will always be people who insist that if we truly understood life we would be as cynical and depressed as they. While it might seem sad to say so, there is no reason to assume that everybody can achieve satisfaction.

Government, by promoting freedom, would still be attempting to shape a better world, but without the implicit promise of satisfaction. Instead a better world would be one in which people have a greater ability to choose their own means of satisfaction. This might seem a subtle distinction, but it is a very important one. There would be no promise of satisfaction in freedom (and hence utopianism is avoided), only the promise that it will allow people a greater chance to find their own particular satisfaction. We would once again only be guaranteed the right to pursue happiness.

The thesis of this book is that our government has strayed into utopianism. As a result, well-intentioned people in government and the private sector attempted to do things that in some form needed to be done, but with an unrealistic final goal; instead of consciously attempting to increase freedom and self-determination, they were unconsciously following a path they thought would lead to satisfaction. This utopianism, which was born in the 19th century, has led to many of the problems the United States' faces today. We tend to see the situation confronting our country as random, somehow beyond our understanding and control, however nothing could be further from the truth. The problems we face, the growth of the permanent underclass, the downfall of our educational system and our economic problems are all the logical if unintended results of actions taken to shape the country toward a certain end, toward a utopia. As the case has often been, it is simply a matter of searching out the good intentions at the root of our problems.

It is my hope that this book can help us move beyond our current situation. None of the problems we face are that extreme; all are within our power to deal with. But to correct a problem, it is first necessary to understand where the problem comes from. We must know where we have been before we can decide where we are going. With a knowledge of the course of history and the effects of utopianism, we are then able to proceed to a re-evaluation of the role of government.

And I do mean a re-evaluation of the role of government, not a rejection of it. The government has very definite responsibilities in an industrialized society, which it must fulfill to see to the continuance of the country. As it stands now, government is not doing a good job of fulfilling these responsibilities. This must end. Government must move beyond its utopianism. Our problems are not serious now, but if left untended they can only get worse, and could eventually threaten the very existence of our country.

Next: Self-Determination Throughout the Course of History

Ashby Technical Writing, LLC

The Battle for America

Table of Contents

Introduction