Definitions of human flourishing vary
The ever-widening and deepening gap between the left and right in America is driven by divergent and incompatible foundations of faith. I do not mean formal religious faith, although that is present, but fundamental beliefs about how things are or how they should be.
One of those fundamental splits concerns human flourishing. Exactly what constitutes flourishing? Should human flourishing be a goal at all? The answers to those two questions, as is true with virtually everything else, are sharply divergent.
Those of us who are Clics (Christian, libertarian, capitalist) define human flourishing as the chance (nothing is ever guaranteed) to live a life as God intended through His moral code. Ten Commandments sort of stuff. Since as part of this deal we are to love our neighbors as ourselves, and love our enemies, this implies certain social and political arrangements.
The short strokes are certainly debatable, but our founders laid out their understanding built on a foundation of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” endowed by our Creator. The Constitution, which followed, set up a republic, NOT, be it noted, a democracy, hedged about with limitations on government. The goal was a relatively free nation. No human document is flawless or can predict the future, which is why it provided for amendments.
Nevertheless, there were sharp differences on what would be the best life. Federalists favored a more powerful, more centralized government. Anti-federalists, first under Jefferson, soon to become Jacksonian Democrats, favored a more limited government. Human flourishing was whatever the human wanted it to be, with 90% of the population spread out in their small farms and small villages. Small was beautiful, family was central and government was to leave you pretty much alone. Slavery was an immense blot on this vision, and much blood was spilled to end it, but ended it was.
At the same time, massive changes were occurring in society. The Industrial Revolution hit with full force in the middle of the 19th century. To borrow a phrase from the 20th century, “How you gonna keep ’em down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree?” Capitalism is what people naturally do when left to their own devices, but now technology turned those devices from small-scale village smithies to Carnegie Steel.
Can human flourishing look the same in a steel mill as it does when plowing the back 40 with your mule? That is a question thoughtful Clics have been wrestling with for a long time.
The left, on the other hand, has come to radically different conclusions. The problem with the world, in a nutshell, is that there has been entirely too much human flourishing. Mom, Dad and the kids are the problem. Too many kids. Too much pitter-patter of little carbon footprints. With the advent of modern technology and industrial organization, too much prosperity. Since the days of Thomas Malthus the left has warned of the impending starvation caused by too many stomachs, and the environmental disaster of too many gas-guzzling cars and electricity-eating gadgets, such as central air. Unless we are carbon neutral by 2050, our high priest on climate John Kerry informs us, disaster is surely to follow.
Clics, including yours truly, see this as utter nonsense, and with minimal use of what we call common sense, we will all be just fine. Otherwise, leave us alone.
The left is not having it! Quite understandably, they look at anyone standing in the way of their vision as dangerously misguided. One of my recent critical correspondents described “most Conservatives” — Clics — as leading “lives controlled by their greed, fear, hate, and ignorance.”
What is to be done with such people? With “baskets of deplorables”? With “bitter-enders, clinging to their guns and Bibles”? Recent polling suggests about 36% of Americans are conservative. If, by 2050, the left (25%) can get rid of this 36%, they will flourish indeed. Leftists from Lenin on down have always said the key is control of the commanding heights of society. So far, I fear, so good.
Charles Milliken is a professor emeritus after 22 years of teaching economics and related subjects at Siena Heights University. He can be reached at milliken.charles@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on The Daily Telegram: Charles Milliken: Definitions of human flourishing vary
