Part II
The Threat
**
THE PEOPLE
§§ Difference is not Division §§
As long as the reason of Man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will form a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter attach themselves.
James Madison, Federalist Paper #10
Those 59 words rate as my personal-favorite passage within the entire collection of “The Federalist Papers.” With the concision of a great poet, the clarity of a great scientist, seasoned with the good-humored wit of Mark Twain, Madison distills the entire perplexity of the great project challenging the United States; namely, “whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”
Why is that so perplexing? Because people disagree with one another. Why? Because even under the best of circumstances, our reason is fallible. We do not, we cannot, know everything. We do not understand everything that we do know, or think we know. So we reach different conclusions, hold different opinions. And then, on top of that, our emotions often interfere so as to skew our capacity to judge our own reasoning as compared with another’s.
It requires mental and emotional effort to think a proposition through to a supportable, defensible position. Having done so, it is trebly difficult to change your opinion when opposed by another, especially if the opposition is presented as, “You’re wrong. Listen to me and learn why.” The best of circumstances are long gone with the second word of “You’re wrong.” The emotions, the passions, kick in, and reason and judgment shrivel on he vine.
§ Each to his own.
§ There’s no accounting for tastes.
§ You can never please everyone.
§ Different strokes for different folks.
We all know that. We have so many little folksy phrases to deal with it, usually delivered with a mildly bewildered wagging of the head. Yet how often do we fail to take account of this experience when scaling up to group decision-making. One of the faults of contemporary political speech is the Unitary Theory of Identity. Sentences that begin or end, or carry anywhere in between the phrase, “That is (or “That’s not) who we are as Americans,” must be regarded highly suspect. Perhaps even be harshly rebuffed. As long as people “remain at liberty to exercise [their reason], different opinions will be formed.”
This is actually a serious reflection. Key point to keep pinned in the foreground of our thinking: “Why has government been instituted at all? Because the passions of men will not conform to the dictates of reason and justice without constraint.” Human nature being what it is, and differences existing amongst us as they do, conflict is an ever present reality. Like energy it exists either potentially or kinetically. As social creatures we are irradiated by its force-field as physically as we are footed to earth by gravity’s waves. Adrenaline, anxiety, bellowing, cowering inwardly and outwardly exhibit its power. And not only humans are so affected. But we humans like to distinguish ourselves from Nature’s other creatures by the quality of our Reason.
Two levers, basically, operate our approach to resolving conflict. The one is Might. The other is Right. Force or Negotiation. The violent coercion of the sword or the mild coercion of the magistrate. The first definition of “coerce” in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is “to constrain or restrain by force, or” (more importantly for our context) “by authority resting on force.” Hamilton’s opposition of the violent sword to the mild magistracy does not distinguish force from something else; rather, it reflects two faces of force in human intercourse—the unruly disorder of violence and the orderly rule of law. “Government” describes that superintending institution which manages the affairs of society so as, in significant measure, to regulate conflict.
Again, human nature being what it is, the regulations will likely favor the regulators. So the monarch usually sits pretty comfortably. His yes-men and his enforcers are all set, as long as they do his bidding and keep a weather-eye open over their shoulders. And so on down to the district and village level, where the lowliest of us knows where the line is that we are to toe.
But what if the lowliest of us are the regulators? What if we take it upon ourselves to determine how best, how most reasonably and justly, to regulate conflict? A place to start would be to discern why earlier attempts failed.
The Long Clasp 