George Will and Individualism

October 14, 2011

Individualism versus collectivism is basic to politics. One of Aristotle's bits of wisdom amid his errors was his belief in a balance between the two, a line drawn between what government touches and what government should leave alone. He was opposed to Plato's communism. He favored the creation of a strong middle class and government assistance to the poor and everyone having the right to property. He was opposed to anyone accumulating more than was needed for what he called "intelligent living" -- whatever that was in his time.

George Will in a column on October 5 takes his position on individualism in a column that heaps contempt upon Elizabeth Warren, a democrat currently running in Massachusetts for a U.S. Senate seat. He calls her "modern liberalism incarnate." The liberal "project" according to Will is "to dilute the concept of individualism, thereby refuting respect for the individual's zone of sovereignty." Warren merely asks that entrepreneurs making a bundle of money pay their fair share in taxes.

George Will does not describe exactly where his zone of sovereignty is. Some people are for an individuality that allows them not to support with their tax dollars the medical costs of people who have neglected their health, and some resent contributing to government subsidizing population increases. Some of us would resent a law that infringed upon our freedom to ride a bicycle without wearing a helmet. If people in the United States had to pay as much in taxes as do people In Denmark they might see it as an infringement on their individualities, but many Danes (described as the happiest of peoples) do not. Surely there are Danes who believe that individuality still exists in their country.

it's a matter of democracy where a society of people want to draw the line between societal and individual concerns. The line might not be drawn exactly where I or George Will prefer. But leave it to George Will to be individualistically truculent about it.

Individualism has been associated with the opportunity of getting ahead -- the "American Dream" or upward mobility -- more than just the issue of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution that some on the political right in the US are complaining limits individualism. On September 28 the British social epidemiologist Richard Wilkinson addressed this kind of individual motivation when he said:

Of course, if you actually look at how people do in different societies, the chances of moving up socially for poor children are much higher in the more equal countries. And, in the U.S., the chances are particularly low. We sometimes say, if you want to live the American Dream, you should move to Finland or Denmark, which have much higher social mobility.

There are probably Danes who are happy with the degree of individualism that is available in their country -- they are supposed to be the happiest of people. And there must be Canadians comfortable with the individualism available in their country despite what some people think is its greater degree of collectivism than exists in the United States.

Some of us may prefer 19th century individualism. The individualism inherent in our democracy will allow them to express their individual preferences in elections. They may dislike the democratically achieved -- collective -- decision as to where the nation will be regarding taxation and perhaps some lesser matters. Those of us who see ugliness in the world caused by people not giving a damn about others will contain our empathy in this instance and be content in their having to live with it.