What's the root cause of the Great Divide we now see in America?

In his book and TV series, Six Great Ideas, Mortimer Adler discussed three "ideas we judge by"—Truth, Goodness, and Beauty—and three "we act on"—Justice, Liberty, and Equality. It was clear to him that it should be Justice, Liberty, and Equality, in that order.  The first priority of government should be justice. Without it, there can be neither liberty nor equality, as we've seen in every totalitarian state from the earliest times. Nobody argues much with putting justice first, though there is disagreement about what constitutes it, especially what is just in individual cases.

America's founders felt sure that liberty comes next. It's the only one of the three Mr. Jefferson listed as an unalienable right. He surely felt justice was there, covered by "among these," and probably felt it went without saying. The British had a long-established system of justice, which he wasn't planning to change in concept. (The Left is trying to change that concept, as we’ll discuss later.)

Today’s issue is whether liberty should come next. Karl Marx based his entire proposal of Communism on the preeminence of equality. He rightly couldn’t see how to achieve it without eliminating private property and the liberty it requires. Socialism—public ownership of the means of production—may seem a milder form, but it’s essentially the same: all must have the same equity in society’s wealth and other assets, regardless of what they bring or contribute to society.

The promise is always that liberty can be preserved as a third priority, but that’s never been achieved. Why not? What’s the fundamental error of these schemes, called collectively, “leftism”? And why, despite all it’s failures, does anyone want to keep trying it? Both answers lie in human nature.

First the “why.” In the youngest children, we see the desire to have what others have. It’s a darker side of our nature, usually, though not always, eliminated by training and maturity in adulthood—at least suppressed. Envy—or worse, jealousy—is in all our hearts, and we control it imperfectly. Socialism plays to it, promising a social system to make envy not only acceptable but a positive good. This is the basis of support for the left’s agenda.

Next, the “why not.” Why does it never make a prosperous, happy, flourishing society? That answer, too, lies in human nature. Even in early childhood, we see contempt for taking what others have earned, deserved, or been given. A child may willingly give a toy or a treat to another—which we praise as goodness and sharing—but he or she reacts strongly to having it taken and given to another who hasn’t earned or deserved it.

Mature, adult human nature considers it justice that those who contribute more should have more; those who work harder should achieve higher goals, and those who invest should gain rewards. Those who give or do little should achieve or acquire little—at least less. This is a bright side of human nature.

So what? How does this bear on the socialistic project? Simply this: Making all outcomes equal, even nearly so, is against our nature, so it requires coercion. That coercion may seem light at first, but as human nature causes resistance, coercion must increase. Dissenters must be disparaged, then controlled, then forced into silence, and finally destroyed. We call that Totalitarianism. Many believe this can be constrained, and it is being held back temporarily in some countries, but history shows the opposite. The stronger the forces for liberty, the stronger the coercion. The examples are well known: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, all the Soviet Socialist Republics, communist China. But we see coercion in every society committed to “Social Democracy,” or “Democratic Socialism.”

“Democratic Socialism” is simply an oxymoron. A socialistic state must suppress the individual liberty that is the essence of democracy. Initially, this can be granted by democratic agreement of the citizens, but when their human nature begins to rebel against forced equality in spite of effort or contribution, the state must suppress that liberty further. The more the resistance, the more the suppression, as we’ve seen throughout history, in Russia and its satellites, pre-war Italy and Germany, post-war Britain, China, Cuba, and now Venezuela.

Since incentives for innovation, productivity, value creation, customer satisfaction, investment, etc. are necessary to make a country flourish, their suppression may serve the ideal of equality, but not the practical good of the society.

This is why leftism can never succeed and never has. It’s simply at odds with human nature, and no amount of theorizing, propagandizing, or intellectual contortion can ever reconcile them.

As Milton Freedman said, “The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither. The society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both.”

---