Arvind Sujeeth

+CPS

Hemenway – 4

1/15/03

Out of Many, One

Etched on the back of any United States coin are the words, “E Pluribis Unum” - out of many, one. It is our testament to the triumph of democracy; it is but one of many tributes to a nation united. Within these words, I believe, is the key to the political philosophy that must dominate our actions and permeate our thoughts. Samuel Huntington, a major philosophical thinker of the modern era, sees a balance between the liberalism and conservatism camps; they are the divisions of idealism and practicality, he argues, and neither can be ignored nor favored. Underlying Huntington’s thesis is that at “the heart of liberalism is individualism…it emphasizes the reason and moral dignity of the individual”, and therefore is incapable of seeing the practical needs of the many. This is not an argument new to our times – it is strikingly similar to Machiavelli’s “greater good” and Rousseau’s “general will”. I would argue, though, that these arguments, while noble in intent, fail to see that at the heart of the many is the one. I believe Huntington’s philosophy as it practically applies to international relations to be completely sound, but for different reasons. Huntington makes the argument that liberal idealism is all good and well for domestic affairs, but it must be entrenched in conservative realities – i.e., the most pessimistic visions of man’s inherent qualities. Instead, I see the liberal idealist vision of mankind to be just and noble, and furthermore, to be the hub upon which we should and must interact with the other states of the world. Eric Hoffer’s true believer had to ultimately be convinced of absolute self-sacrifice for the state; he would be one who had forsaken his individuality for the welfare of the “greater good”. In all cases, I must dismiss the greater good; I see individuality as too great a sacrifice to ever make. It is in the definition of individual that I will make distinction, however. Therefore, my thesis is twofold; first, where our nation is concerned, the greater good of all is necessarily the greater good of the individual – to forsake one is to forsake all; secondly, the same holds true in the world stage, but with different premises – each state is an individual (out of many, one), and in the community of the world, maintains parallel status.

The most glaring weakness of this philosophy is the argument that the community of a commonwealth and the community of the world are unparallel and incomparable. Considered carefully, however, they are not as different entities as they appear on first glance. The primary issue – the driving force of political agenda – is conflict. Conflict exists in both stages. It is a valid point to say that the citizens of a commonwealth are more united in ideology and loyalty to the commonwealth than the citizens (nations) of the world may ever be united; nonetheless, we are all under the umbrella of humanity, whatever else is said or done. As conflict inevitably arises, it is how we deal with this conflict that determines our actions, be it domestic or foreign. It is unnecessary to suppose that individuals cannot uphold a military because they cannot embrace self-sacrifice for the greater good of protecting a nation; the nation itself is an individual. In this context, “the greater good” is an obsolete term, for we are discussing two different levels of organization. Similarly, we cannot rightly exert supremacy on any nation for the supposed greater good of the world. As I have stressed, the greater good of the whole must be the greater good of the individual. Unilateral action against a state is unjustified and intolerable; if we fail to recognize the individuality of each state, and their equal role in the community of the world, we have lost the struggle for the greater good before we have had a chance to begin it.

Therein lays the next prevailing issue: having asserted that conflict deals only with individuals of a domestic community and individual states of a world community, what conflict may be appropriately and justifiably dealt with in either scenario? Parallelism between the two stages must be maintained, or the philosophy falls backwards on itself. In this, I must bow to the principles of democracy. According to John Stuart Mill, “that principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection” (310). I grant that self-protection is a loosely definable term, but it is the basic idea that is key to what we can and cannot do, both on a domestic stage and on a world stage. In neither case are we justified in forsaking any individual the right to their voice as a member of that stage. The United States is as wrong to say that we hold the authority and the responsibility to unilaterally eliminate the world of nations we determine to be threats (such as Iraq) as the KKK would be to say they hold the authority and the responsibility to eliminate the nation of African Americans they determine to be threats. I am not heralding isolationism; I am merely saying that we must see that we are part of the world, not its rulers. If we are unwilling to apply the principles we hail as so virtuous and just to the rest of the world, we are living a façade of optimism. It is the world’s responsibility – not ours - to rid itself of crimes against humanity; one need look no further then that simple phrasing. We must help humanity defend itself, rather then become the giant it defends against; we cannot play Machiavelli’s power games and take the greater good into our own hands.

I have strayed to elaborate on the parallels that are my thesis, but it is necessary to see that although my ideology is different, and albeit for different reasons, the practical application of my philosophy falls strikingly similar to the practical application of Huntington’s. In our country and in the world, we cannot be bystanders to injustices, nor can we be running about “crusading abroad.” It is a delicate balanced maintained by an understanding of the role of the individual within our nation and within the world. Part of Huntington’s thesis was that we must reaffirm our Western identity; I completely agree. We cannot, however, (and I believe Huntington would agree with this) ignore or invalidate the identities of the rest of the world. The difference in our opinions may lay entirely, however, in the idea that liberalism and conservatism are chaos and order, are the ideal and the practical, or are in any other way distinct opposites that cannot coexist. By treating the world stage as parallel to the national stage, it becomes apparent that liberalism and conservatism – change and not change – are varying opinions on the same subjects. It becomes apparent that both camps must balance one another within each forum, rather than dictate any one forum. Finally, it becomes apparent that Rousseau’s general will (shady as it is) cannot be achieved by treating the individual as evil and suspicious, but instead only by protecting his right to exist as part of the general will. Out of many, one; for the good of many, we must seek the good of one.

Perhaps, as Machiavelli says, “I say, then, that all kinds of government are defective” (135). In an imperfect world, we would be fighting a hopeless battle to find a perfect system. Nonetheless, I must maintain that if we are to advance, if we are to achieve the virtuous and just goals of “idealist” liberalism, we must recognize that at the foundation of every political system we possess is the individual. It would be presumption of the highest order to brush aside the individual, a person or a state, for any single self-proclaimed justification. Neither “self-defense” nor “humanistic” goals, the conservative and liberal arguments respectively for war, should be seen as fit for unilateral action. Machiavellian morality can only be applied if it is applied within the principles of democracy – that is to say, if the majority of individuals support it. The “greater good”, by simple definition, is a romantic and optimistic term; I long to see it finally being used to serve the individual, rather than sacrifice the individual.