A Bold Blueprint For Our Future

Each new day seems worse than the one before.  The political warfare never ends.  Lies and insults are traded passionately and relentlessly.  By now, both sides of the political divide are tired of the constant sniping, but no one knows how to get off the merry-go-round.

Perhaps it is because they are looking at the issues in the wrong way. If you are trying to cure diseases by reading the stars, you will not have much luck.  Likewise, if you are attempting to fly by imitating Icarus and flapping your arms, you will have the same results as he did.

Sometimes we need what social scientists call a paradigm shift. We have to change the way we look at things.  If we stick with familiar mental frameworks, we may miss what is in plain sight. That, in fact, is where I think we are. 

To this end, I have proposed such a shift.  It is neither liberal nor conservative, but based on a different conceptual foundation.  The current ideological fireworks assume the validity of a Marxist worldview.  All sides begin by asking the question, Who should control the means of production—the government or private citizens?

I ask a different question: How are large societies to maintain their cohesion?  How can millions of strangers work together for their shared benefit?  With the rise of identity politics, this is not an academic question.  Moreover, if it is not solved, no one will be able to control much of anything.

Once, when we were hunter-gatherers, we cooperated because we were family.  However, with the rise of agricultural empires, we turned to religion to bond us. As a result, we came to regard ourselves as brothers and sisters who lived under the protection of an immensely powerful father figure—God.

After this, with the spread of commercialism, we depended upon a disinterested marketplace to keep our interests aligned.  It was as if an invisible hand coordinated our activities. We might be selfish; nevertheless we benefited from the law of supply and demand.

Industrialization, however, threw this solution out of balance by allowing some individuals to become super-rich.  People soon turned to the government for safety.  It would provide social justice by redistributing the wealth and make certain that the powerful did not exploit the weak.

More recently we discovered that the government has limitations. Although politicians make big promises, they have not been able to deliver on all of them.  This precipitated an emotional crisis in which everyone doubled down on their existing allegiances.

Liberalism is dying.  But laissez-faire conservatism cannot replace it.  Neither can fundamentalist religion.  This is why I am proposing Social Individualismas a successor to all three.  It is based upon the premise that a mass techno-commercial society can only function if its members voluntarily, and effectively, contribute to their shared interests.

Because it is difficult to explain what I mean in a short column, I have written a book, Social Individualism: A Bold Blueprint for Our Future.  It is now available on Amazon.com as a paper back for $10.00 and an eBook for $5.00.

My starting point is that we are not going to be saved by the government, or the free market, or religion.  If we are going to be saved, we will have to do this for ourselves. But if we are to achieve it, we have to know how.  This entails at least three elements.

First, we need to be committed to principled realism.  We have to be honest, personally responsible, fair (i.e., employ the same rules for everyone), devoted to liberty, and dedicated to strong families.  Moreover, these must be pursued within realistic limitations.  For instance, because we are hierarchical creatures, total equality is impossible.

Second, we must be emotionally mature.  If we are going to make good independent decisions, intense emotions cannot carry us away.  We have to be able to tolerate our fears, our anger, and even our desire for love.

Third, we must become professionalized.  We have to be personally motivated to become experts at our jobs and relationships.  Since only we can perform these well, we must individually be determined to do so.

This is not a prescription for the faint of heart.  Even so, I am hoping that it is possible in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Kennesaw State University