The Three Cornered War

This electoral cycle has been a study in catastrophe.  Almost no one is happy with the emerging results.  People are slowly adjusting to the potential choices, but they wish they had an alternative.  The problem is that we are in the midst of a three-cornered war that all sides are destined to lose.

Conservatives have clearly suffered a major setback.  Donald Trump is not one of them and they know it.  Many are coming around to the need to support him because they fear that if Hillary wins, their cause will experience a greater defeat.  They know this is bad news, but don’t know what to do about it.

Meanwhile, the liberals are not faring much better.  They have had one of their own in the White House, but are not satisfied that he has delivered hope and change.  And so many of them have decided to become more extreme—that is, more idealistic.  They have kicked over the traces and embraced a socialist.

As for the libertarians, they have become an asterisk in this melee.  Their candidates have disappeared from sight.  The diehards remain—especially among the young—but the cooler heads know that this will not be their year.

Indeed, Hillary and Trump represent the triumph of crass pragmatism over ideological purity.  Both are perceived as people who can get things done.  The conservative, liberal, and libertarian doctrines have been found so devoid of practical results that voters are willing to settle for problem-solvers.

If we redefine the three chief ideologies that have been contesting for power, we may begin to see why we are at this impasse.   Conservatism, at least of the traditional sort, may be thought of as spiritual collectivism; libertarianism as market individualism; and liberalism as bureaucratic collectivism.

Each of these philosophies is, unfortunately, built around a cosmological myth.  They tell us that our social world is constructed in ways that it is not.  As a consequence, the solutions they propose to our dilemmas cannot work.  This leaves people frustrated and angrily howling at the moon.

First, the spiritual collectivists assume that we must one day become one huge family in which we all protect each other’s interests.  For the religious among them, this will occur under the stewardship of God.  Nonetheless, the central element in their ideology is universal love.

Second, the market individualists believe that if the economic marketplace is liberated from external constraints, people will make good decisions.  Each of us will pursue our own needs and negotiate with others such that all are better off.  The central element of their ideology is therefore universal freedom.

(Note: Contemporary conservatism is often a blend of spiritual collectivism and market individualism,)

Third, the bureaucratic collectivists agree with the traditionalists that we should become one big loving family, but they believe this is best accomplished under the tutelage of the government.  In a democracy, this means that everyone’s interests will be protected.  Their touchstone is thus universal equality—which is also described as social justice.

Nonetheless, universal love, universal freedom, and universal equality are all unattainable.  They are myths!  They are idealistic fairytales that cannot be converted into reality.  As long as human beings remain human, these can never come to fruition.

We humans are incapable of loving all other humans.  As social creatures, we are likewise incapable of granting each other complete autonomy.  Lastly, as hierarchical animals total parity is utterly unattainable.

Our love is always circumscribed, our freedoms are always limited by a need to recognize the rights of others, and our equality is undermined by our personal ambitions.  All of us want to be special and in the process we compete with one another for love, power, and respect.

Is there an answer to this dilemma?  In one sense: No.  The visions of perfection that we sometimes entertain can never be consummated.  On the other hand, we can be more realistic.  We can recognize our limitations and work within them.

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.

Professor of Sociology

Kennesaw State University