If Donald Trump were not (alas) so ignorant, he would envy the quality of Joe Biden’s inaugural speech pronounced earlier today. But there is a deep question to ask: Why are political rulers so insistent on “unity.” It was the main theme of Biden’s speech, where the word appears eight times. It was also a constant theme with Trump—but muffled as time went on. Remember his remarkable 2016 campaign ad, which is well worth listening to:
I will unify and bring our country back together. … We will be unified, we will be one, we will be happy again.
The reason for the rulers’ obsession is simple: unity makes people easier to rule. If the multitude of individuals with different preferences and circumstances were united like a single individual, governing would be easy: just give “it” (or him or her) what it wants and take the rest for yourself including perks, money, and honors. What makes ruling difficult is that the ruled are different individuals so that, in fact, only minimal governing is possible without disagreement, dissent, and ultimately “war of all against all” (to use the expression that Thomas Hobbes thought only applied to the pre-Leviathan state of nature).
In a democracy, “we can still disagree,” Biden said, and:
If you still disagree, so be it, that’s democracy, that’s America.
What he does not realize is that disagreeing but being forced to submit to the majority in actual actions, in lifestyle, is not a recipe for peace. Agreeing to disagree not only in words but in lifestyle is the key to (classical) liberal peace and prosperity.
It is more difficult to understand this individualist methodology or (at another level) normative principle if one has not learned some economics or, perhaps, as a not-perfect substitute, some classical-liberal legal theory. (That Hobbes himself started with methodological individualism and ended up with a glorification of Leviathan is a puzzling contradiction that classical liberalism avoided.)
A less spiteful Trump could have given basically the same speech as Biden because both men think in collectivist terms, not in individualist and (classical) liberal terms. To use an allegory to summarize individualist liberalism, let peaceful individuals have guns if they so desire, be atheist or deist, or import (and buy) what they want from where they want.
READER COMMENTS
Mactoul
Jan 21 2021 at 12:09am
Starting with perfect liberty I conclude in perfect despotism.
The Possessed by Dostoevsky.
There was no puzzling contradiction in Hobbes but he worked out the same logic as Dostoevsky.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 21 2021 at 10:53am
Mactoul: Interesting point. I have never read The Possessed, so I can’t comment on that. I can say, though, that Rousseau fell in a similar contradiction. In logic, a theory that concludes by a contradiction is invalid. If you start with “liberty is all” and you conclude that “liberty is nothing,” the contradiction vitiates the whole theory—assuming “liberty” at the start means the same as “liberty” in the conclusion.
Maniel
Jan 21 2021 at 12:56am
Dr. Lemieux,
Trained as an engineer, I tend to see standards as generally helpful. To use a non-engineering example, I find traffic laws reassuring, particularly when I am joined in their observation by the majority of other drivers. Those standards, among other things such as car that runs, set me free to drive where I want, when I want, and with whom I want along public roadways.
In our very recent history, a general election was held where most American citizens had the opportunity to choose (between two candidates) for president. As a law-abiding citizen, I agreed that my vote would be counted if and only if submitted according to the prevailing guidelines in my state and that, according to the arcane rules governing the Electoral College, that I should expect the candidate receiving the most electoral votes to become my new president. Beyond that, I felt free to vote for either or neither of the two candidates.
I choose to understand President Biden’s goal of unity as a call to accept the prevailing standards of civility and tradition which have shaped our country, rather than to unify around any given policy. Failure by the candidate receiving fewer electoral votes to acknowledge his loss in the recent election created a disunity which violated my sense of civility as well as the tradition of elections in our country.
I do not feel “forced” to obey traffic laws or to accept election guidelines and results; rather I see those as conditions I happily accept for the privileges of driving in safety and of voting (and having my voted counted).
zeke5123
Jan 21 2021 at 9:09am
This is ahistorical. The Biden campaign was discussing a “return” to civility and unity the entire campaign.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 21 2021 at 11:18am
Maniel: Your argument is a good argument but can be elaborated much more and qualified at the same time. In economics, the “standards” you mentioned are called “rules of just conduct” (F.A. Hayek) or simply “conventions” (David Hume and Anthony de Jasay). They have been modelled as coordination conventions in game theory (see Robert Sugden in The Economics of Rights, Coordination and Welfare). One problem is where these rules come from. It can be shown that they are much less efficient (meaning respectful of the different preferences of the different individuals) and often destructive when imposed by social engineers (a good point to start is Hayek’s The Counte-Revolution of Science). At any rate, “unity” as used in politicians’ discourse is not a coordination rule; I gather that this is what zeke5123 is saying. Elections can be conceived as a coordination rule provided indeed that they do not require unity in the sense of identical preferences and identical goals. If elections only decided on which side of the road we drive and who of Mr. Blue or Mr. Red will enforce that, there would be no need for “unity.” Agreement or consent on general rules is not the same as unity.
Phil H
Jan 21 2021 at 4:31am
“disagreeing but being forced to submit to the majority in actual actions, in lifestyle, is not a recipe for peace”
It’s a good thing this doesn’t happen very much in America any more, then!
It used to happen all the time, most obviously with gay people being forced to pretend they’re straight. But these days very few people have to submit.
robc
Jan 21 2021 at 6:45am
Ask Willie Nelson or Wesley Snipes how well that works out.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 21 2021 at 12:00pm
Phil H: You are right that some things have improved but, as robc points out, different lifestyles have started being repressed instead. You can marry interracially, thank God, but don’t think of having sex if you are an 18-year-old man and your partner is a 17-year-old woman. Peeing in public may also land you on the sex registry, sometimes for life. Even with an adult, consensual sex can lead to prosecution because some people are considered as not being able to consent. In fact, even consensual non-sex can submit you to a sexual witchhunt, especially if you are a man: somebody just has to charge you with a sexual offense. Commit a felony once (even as a victimless crime), and you are a felon for life, losing many rights including Second-Amendment rights. With a felony record, earning one’s life honestly is difficult (many Jean Valjeans exist in American society, probably in your own neighborhood). A redneck lifestyle is frowned upon by many people and, indirectly, by many laws–if only through harassment. In many civilized countries, self-defense is forbidden; it is risky in many US states. You have to hide to smoke tobacco and private property (your own restaurant or one that would welcome you) won’t protect you. My neighbor is being prosecuted because he hosted a party for his children’s teenage friends and alcohol was available! Of course, if you, an adult, are into drugs, your plight is much worse; it can be bad only because you suffer from chronic pain. Try to make your own bargains with a Chinese supplier of furniture, not to mention that you may have problems bringing your Chinese girlfriend to live with you in America (some countries are worse in this respect, others better). As robc suggests, try not to pay in taxes more that 20% of your income for the privilege of being so regulated–20% being the limit that Adam Smith thought taxes should reach in peace or in war. It is often risky to be a successful entrepreneur. Try not to bake a cake for somebody whose lifestyle does not accord with your own preferences; it is dangerous to be a bigot if you are not on the right side of legal bigotry. Persecuted minorities have changed over time and the situation is only unambiguously better if you are a member of a persecuting majority or minority.
Phil H
Jan 22 2021 at 3:00am
That’s a big old list of things. And it illustrates quite nicely why I can’t get on board with libertarianism as a political movement. There are many problems in the world. But online, too many people associated with libertarianism seem to be more interested in smoking and underage sex than anything else.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 24 2021 at 12:31pm
Phil H: Of course, I am not asking you to follow any “political movement”—which I don’t really do myself. I am just suggesting that you consider the evidence and use good theories to evaluate it. Will it be enough to add to the “old list” that 8% of American adults are convicted felons (that is, have a felony record)? Nearly one out of 10 adults you meet on the street is a convicted felon. See Sarah K.S. Shannon et al., “The Growth, Scope, and Spatial Distribution of People with Felony Records in the United States, 1948-2010,” Demography 54 (2017).
Jose Pablo
Jan 22 2021 at 4:57pm
Well, I have to submit to pay taxes (I am forced to do it). That is not pleasant.
And my hairdresser must get a license issued by the State to perform the risky activity of cutting my hair (the test includes question on the History of Hairdressing which are, obviously, all relevant to que quality of my haircut).
And the government seems to think that a European entering my county poses a higher risk to me than a Californian doing the same (even though the prevalence of the virus is higher in California).
And on and on … Governments were, are and always will be and endless source of stupid measures that they have, somehow, the right to impose on me by force. No matter what my preferences are.
And this “obligation to submit” is on the rise for the very same reason that the number of pages of regulation were, are and always will be on the rise and taxes (as a % of GDP) are always on the rise.
If you have the right to regulate, you will use it. And if you have the legal right to take other people’s money by force, you will use it. Whether it makes sense or not (most of the times it does not) is just, at best, an afterthought.
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 21 2021 at 8:17am
Taking the question seriously (but not literally), think of the context. For many years but especially the last four, politicians and others have been spreading the message that there are irreconcilable conflicts everywhere in society: between gun owners and gun confiscators, between foreign exporters and domestic workers, between “makers” and “takers,” between immigrants and citizens, between “real Americans” and cosmopolitan elites, between conservative Christians and atheists, between those who want to work for living and those who want to live on “welfare” (but Social security and Medicare are not “welfare”), between those who value liberty and “collectivists,” between minorities and racists/homophobes/xenophobes, between “patriots” and anthem-kneeling athletes. Etc.
I think Biden’s call for “unity” is no more than a plea to look at politics as an area for discussions and compromise, not a field of battle, not to see people we have policy differences with as “enemies.”
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 21 2021 at 5:06pm
Thomas: You would have a good point if Biden were the first ruler to call for unity under him. Listen to Trump’s campaign ad above to get an idea of the universality of this call. (And note that Biden has promised to ban some guns in wide use.)
Thomas Hutcheson
Jan 21 2021 at 8:13pm
My interpretation does not reside in the uniqueness of the words, but the context.
Mark Z
Jan 21 2021 at 7:59pm
That’s a sentiment that sounds nice in abstract but usually falls flat on its face when it comes to actual, specific political disputes.
Jose Pablo
Jan 22 2021 at 5:22pm
Politics is not about “discussions” “compromise” and ironing out “policy differences”. It is all about grabbing power.
In Democracy getting the right to rule requires, somehow, pretending that you don’t like to rule. That you put a “higher” value in “consensus” and “preference aggregation”. This is pure and plain BS … although I am always amazed by how many people bite the bait.
If you like discussions and compromise you serve in the Board of your local charity. But if you enter politics in Washington is to impose in others your view of the world. And that is the reason, for example, why “factions” try to control all branches of government: if they would like “discussions”, “compromise” and “policy differences” they will love a divided government. Biden (or any other politician on Earth) could renounce to his control of the Senate because of his love for “discussion” and “compromise” … but I very much doubt him doing so.
Since having the capacity to impose your “ideology” in others is the ultimate goal of any political faction, and since your views (as part of the other faction or as an independent individual) are, very likely, different, they are in fact your “enemies”.
That you call “rodent” a “rat”, because you find this last term more politically correct does not change the fact that it is a rat.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 24 2021 at 12:38pm
Jose: Good point on divided government! Along these lines, you may like to read the remarkable article of John Grove, “Numerical Democracy or Constitutional Reality,” on Law & Liberty, our sister website.
Jose Pablo
Jan 25 2021 at 8:27pm
Very good article Pierre, thanks!
I have particularly loved this quote:
“Concerned over the prospect of an undifferentiated national government, Samuel Adams wrote to Richard Henry Lee that such a government could not adequately craft laws suited to the great variety of peoples and interests within it, and would bring us only “Discontent, Mistrust, Disaffection to government and frequent Insurrections.”
The idea that a majority of votes “for a person” (we elect people), somehow:
a) represent a uniform view on policies and so, confers the “Elected” a “mandate” to impose his political agenda on every policy matter.
b) transform the check and balance of “not directly elected branches” (like the Supreme Court) or “differently elected” branches (like the Senate) in “obstructionism”
represents just a different form of tyranny based on the, obviously, false premises:
a) That “The People”, exists, as an independent entity and has a “monolithic clearly defined will” on its own, regarding all policy matters.
b) That this “clearly defined will” in all policy matters is fully capture by the fact that they vote for “person A” instead of “person B” (it is very unlikely that when you vote for your Senator you are saying that you agree with every vote that they cast during his term on bills he/she has not even read most of the time)
After all, there is not a big difference between believing that the kings of old had a right to rule granted by God and believing that the Presidents of today have a right to rule granted by The People, as a mythical monolithic “entity” formed by whatever majority voted for a “person” (not for its ruling, which they did not know beforehand … and most of the time after hand either)
Jose Pablo
Jan 30 2021 at 5:18pm
A very telling data I come across today:
Only 46% of Americans are aware that each state has two senators,
75% of Americans don’t know the length of their terms.
Only 36% of Americans can tell which party controls the Senate and the House.
Only 35% can name one of their two senators. Only 16% can name the two of them.
How can anybody infer, from the fact that a majority of people with this kind of “political knowledge” vote for Candidate A, that Candidate A has a morally legitimate “mandate” to impose on me, using coercion, any new law?
Which kind of “unity” is Candidate A, talking about? What for?
How can this “politically ignorant” vote for Candidate A, be interpreted as a “content independent preference” of the voter for any bill that Candidate A could support?
Why am I supposed to have any kind of moral obligation to obey the new laws, under the argument that they represent the “will of The People”?
Mustafa Erdogan
Jan 21 2021 at 11:31am
”Hobbes himself started with methodological individualism and ended up with a glorification of Leviathan”.
Rawls did almost the same too. He started individualist premises but reached collectivist policy recomendations.
Shane L
Jan 21 2021 at 11:36am
For much of history, disputes about government were solved with assassination, civil war and violent foreign intervention.
Modern democracies often involve vigorous electoral campaigns that work factions up into zealous mutual dislike. It is common, and I would say sensible, practice for both the winning and losing sides of an election to remind the voters that this competition is not war, that the losing side has not been vanquished but will have another crack at power in a few years, that the participants in politics share some common rules and norms, and that the practice of peaceful democratic transfer is itself a victory against tyranny.
I see the alternative to “unity” in the US as not being hundreds of millions of free individuals, but two bitterly divided camps, increasingly suspicious of democratic institutions and increasingly inclined to embrace illegal violence in pursuit of power. I think they need to be reminded of the value of their shared democratic institutions and norms.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 21 2021 at 12:03pm
Shane L: As a complement, you may want to read my post “Political Wars of Religion.”
Danno
Jan 21 2021 at 4:07pm
One of the commentators after the speech mention the line from the speech and then added that those that disagree must understand that Biden is seeking the “greater good” (a phrase I dislike). Though not saying it directly, the implication is that if you disagree with Biden, you’re a bad person — all he wants is the greater good!
What the commentator doesn’t realize that there are disagreements in (1) what is the greater good, (2) how to measure success in achieving it, and (3) actions to achieve it.
Exactly.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 21 2021 at 5:12pm
Danno: Furthermore, note how Biden the inexistent or unknowable “will of the people” twice in that speech. See my post “No ‘Will of the People’ in the Election.”
robc
Jan 21 2021 at 10:01pm
Biden got 51.3% of the vote. If he would adopt 48.7% of the policies of those who voted otherwise, he could probably get unity.
That includes 1.2% of libertarian ideas.
Jose Pablo
Jan 22 2021 at 7:07pm
Pretending that the 51.3% of voters that voted for Biden defend the same policies is a clear misinterpretation of reality. Like pretending that they know what policies Biden “want” to adopt.
And it is just impossible to know, even to the most brilliant political analyst (let’s say to Pierre) what policies Biden “would be able” to adopt … not to talk about “knowing” the real consequences (intended or otherwise) of the policies finally adopted (or not adopted).
We just don’t know how to do that, even in the “frontier” of our knowledge (and we have to admit that most voters don’t live even close to that frontier).
After Tetlock’s Expert Political Judgement and Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem, even pretending “unity” has a meaning in politics or that the way we mystify the “democratic process” has any resemblance to reality, is just insulting.
Pierre Lemieux
Jan 24 2021 at 12:56pm
Jose: I agree with your important points but they do not contradict robc’s reductio ad absurdum. If I read him well, robc says that if the party who gets 51% of the vote pretends to pursue unity by implementing its program, it would get as much unity by implementing the program of the 49%. That what the 49% want is as unknowable as what the 51% want strengthens the argument. Voting is really useful only for changing the rulers, as a sort of negative and imperfect veto. (In this sense, the 2020 presidential election was useful.) See my upcoming review of William Riker’s Liberalism Against Populism in the Spring issue of Regulation.)
Jose Pablo
Jan 24 2021 at 4:25pm
Actually, I was trying to strength Robc’s point not to contradict it … as you rightly point out.
Jens
Jan 27 2021 at 7:40am
Not a native speaker, but unity and uniformity are not equivalent, are they ?
Do you think that this articles language on the sister website Law and Liberty is incompatible with Bidens language ?
https://lawliberty.org/the-common-ground-of-human-dignity/
Couple of quotes:
“shared foundational truth”, “shared, underlying agreement”, “shared basis”, “unspoken agreement”, “a renewed pursuit of the common good”, “an instinct that progressive and conservatives share”, “a vision for the purpose of our shared life”, “central purpose of human community”, “human dignity that is driven by social reciprocity”, “we are actually joined by our differences”, “our differences (…) ought not to divide but to point us toward one another”
What do you think about this common ground and its implications ?
Jens
Jan 27 2021 at 7:43am
.. messed up the link.
The Common Ground of Human Dignity
Pierre Lemieux
Feb 5 2021 at 10:53am
Jens: Thanks for reminding me of Orrell’s article, which had been open on my browser for quite a while but that I had not found the time to read. Having now read it, I think the point he makes about the value of human flourishing and dignity is important. It was probably the ultimate if not the only value that classical liberals used to evaluate social systems and public policy. It is not totally clear, though (at least after a first reading), what prescriptions Orrell himself proposes for the political system and government intervention.
Which brings us to your first question. Unity and uniformity do not represent the same concepts but are politically related. Since individuals are not uniform (except in a tribal society) in the sense that they don’t have the same preferences, they cannot be united for a common purpose except by force OR except if this purpose is an agreement on, or consent to, very abstract common rules favoring each individual pursuits of his own good. Two quite different views of how to conceive of such a process are represented by Hayek/Hume/Smith/de Jasay on one hand and, on the other hand, by Buchanan–all of whom defined themselves as (classical) liberals. I think none of these thinkers would have thought that Biden’s speech represented their ideas of human flourishing and dignity.
There would be more to say, of course.
Comments are closed.