This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, March 15, 2011 - For centuries, philosophers have debated the nature of human beings and the form of governance best suited to ensure the general good. Today, in the United States, a chasm has developed between those on the left of the political spectrum and those on the right. That chasm is deepening. Language can be far from civil, and opponents' patriotism is subject to question.
There is a decided separation about the proper role of government and cleavages regarding human nature. The writings of several philosophers -- Machiavelli, Hobbes and Locke -- provide an analytic framework within which to view present day politics.
Hobbes and Locke both wrote of a state of nature where there is neither the rule of law nor rulers. In Hobbes' view, the state of nature is a war "of every man against every man." Men live "without other security than what their own strength and their own institutions shall furnish them." There is "continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Development in cultivation, commerce, invention or the arts is impossible.
Locke's view is quite the opposite. He judges men to be rational. Hence, his state of nature is pacific with only certain inconveniences that lead to the need for government.
Machiavelli of course sees self-interest guiding human action. He advises rulers how to manipulate that interest to their benefit and security.
These divergent views of human nature unfettered lead to different idealizations of government. Machiavelli and Hobbes are on the side of strong government. They are not fans of democracy. Yet, each believes that the ruler cannot allow suffering and want in the general populace. The poor can be ready allies for opponents at home and abroad.
Locke had the most influence on the formation of our republic. He believed in limited government and separation of powers. His credo was "life, liberty and property." His definition of property was broad enough to include the person as well as possessions. Interestingly, he also believed that a man should have as much land as he could till. Hobbes and Machiavelli see equity as a major goal. Significant disparities in wealth create instability and threaten the ruler.
Today, those on the right favor very limited government (except in the area of defense and for some the enforcement of social mores). Their faith in individuals and in capitalism is strong. Left to their own devices, individuals and organizations will find the best solution. As Ronald Reagan said, "The 10 most dangerous words in the English language are 'Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help." The market is the key determinant and inequity is seemingly not problematic.
On the other hand, the left appears to espouse a greater regard for civil liberties but has less faith in the market. Government has the right to protect the citizenry, including the less fortunate. An untrammeled financial and commercial sector has led to economic destabilization and recession and depression. To liberals, government has to be able to step in to curb excesses, regulate against future disruption and assist those with little. Thus, a stronger state is preferable.
President Obama made these points in an address to Congress. "Our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. ... But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, the vulnerable can be exploited."
Naturally, these differences between left and right are not absolute and other factors, such as religion, come into play. But for the right, unfettered freedom leads to optimal outcomes. For the left, stronger government ensures greater safety and can promulgate greater equity.
Thus, the debate about human nature and the role of government goes back centuries. No resolution is in sight. Ideological underpinnings continue to guide our discourse, albeit with contradictions and inconsistencies. How we feel about human nature truly affects our beliefs. Beneath the fiery rhetoric of recent days are core beliefs about freedom and equity that have long divided, though one wonders whether the chasm will keep growing along with the harshness of political discourse.
Lana Stein is a professor emerita of political science at the University of Missouri at St. Louis.