The first law of political
dynamics is that governing power can neither be created nor destroyed, only
transformed from one form to another.
History is thus merely the record of this power changing hands. By this I do not mean the more obvious
transfer of power from one tyrant or democratic legislature to another. Instead, I am referring to the cyclical
transfer of power between governments and the governed.
Prior to the emergence of tribes
or countries, power was vested fully in individuals and their families. Individual liberty, so to speak, reigned
supreme. Then as we evolved and the need and desire
for broader governing apparatuses began to emerge, that individual power began to belong to the collective community. While the
recipient of this communal power was not always identical – sometimes it was a
religious institution while other times a petty tyrant or even a democratic
legislature – the community took much of the power that those individuals had
once enjoyed without external restriction.
And as history has drudged along, this power
has continually seesawed back and forth between the individual and the
community. Essentially, then, this fluctuation of power can be fairly stated as one between
personal liberty and external standards. The more one has to answer to
standards outside themselves, the less liberty they possess, and visa versa.
Some have wisely observed that this
constant give and take between the government and the governed is caused by the
excesses of both liberty and authority.
At some point, all must agree that too much liberty degrades into anarchy. The resulting suffering causes people to
demand that external standards and authority be created and stability is slowly
restored. But as history has taught us,
authority too has a propensity to be abused.
So the people again make a demand, this time seeking greater freedom.
Although this freedom did not always come easily and fully, the people’s will
ultimately restores to them their liberty -- which is once again abused, and so on.
From this vantage point of
history, one must conclude that neither liberty nor authority should be desired
without limit. As we have discussed
above, doing so dooms that society to either seek out external standards or
freedom, depending in which excess that society happens to be indulging at that time. Yet it seems to be currently in vogue to desire and demand that society give its citizens "rights" without end.
To determine if this is a good turn of events, therefore, we must ask ourselves honesty where we see our society in this
recurring cycle of power. Are we, especially in America, on our way to an unacceptable level of
authoritarianism or towards an abuse of freedom? If one concludes the latter, which seems a far
more accurate view of reality, than an unfettered call for progress, i.e. more
liberty and less standards, is wholly unacceptable. In fact, at some point, it is likely wise to create,
or at least conserve, standards so that we blunt liberty’s otherwise inevitably
march towards anarchy.
This is, in a nutshell, the reason I am a conservative. For we have already broken down too many standards of conduct in the name of championing radical individualism. Thus, we have to at the very least start conserving whatever we have left. Liberty in its greatest form will otherwise not survive its own tendencies for abuse. As William F. Buckley commented "A Conservative is a fellow who is standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'”
The present cry for us to fundamentally
change marriage to include same-sex relationships presents a good example from
which we may obtain some insight into this concern. In America, gay people have a standard of
living that not only dwarfs their own standard of living throughout all of history, but one which rivals that of most modern heterosexuals. Homosexuals, for example, enjoy
larger than average incomes and are in many circles lauded for nothing more
than being gay and existing.
Yet many oddly claim gays are
second class citizens whose fundamental rights and liberty have been reprehensibly robbed. Is this extreme charge warranted? Is
it not more reasonable that this impulse to endlessly demand rights such as
these is actually a product of liberty’s inevitable propensity for abuse? Should we not,
therefore, at least think twice before pushing radical agendas likes this, because although liberty must be cherished, we must make sure it is never allowed to destroy itself from within.
And that, my friends, is what the First Law of Political Dynamics teaches us: moderation, even for liberty.