In contrast, in Latin America we often find that versions of a strongman monarchical rule are viewed as the best form of government. It is believed that such a strongman government imitates God’s monarchical government of the world and is best to regulate decisively over enemies. Political maturity is distinguished by independence of thought and action.
In Latin America, political immaturity is characterized by a need for direction from others.
America’s Founding Fathers believed that government, by its very nature, was antagonistic to human liberty and happiness. Bernard Bailyn (1922-2020), eminent historian of early America has pointed out that, “...the American Revolution was above all else an ideological, constitutional, political struggle and not primarily a controversy between social groups undertaken to force changes in the organization of the society or the economy.”
The way Americans differentiate between an adversary and an enemy fosters a culture of individual rights and individual freedom. This contrasts markedly with a Latin American culture of ‘us versus them’ where the perception of others as enemies fosters a collectivist culture.
Individualists believe that life belongs to the person, and the person has inalienable rights to act according to her judgement. Collectivists believe that life belongs, not to the person but to the society to which the individual belongs. For collectivists the individual has no rights of his own and must sacrifice his beliefs for the “greater good” of the group. Individualists speak of individual rights and freedom. Collectivists appeal to the common good or obligations to society.
The collectivist outlook may seem reasonable until we consider that, under the collectivist ‘greater good for the greatest number,’ 51 percent of humanity would be morally justified in enslaving the other 49 percent. Or that, a majority group of hungry cannibals can morally eat the minority.
Philosophically, this presents a fundamental question of whether a person’s life belongs to that person or to a community or the state. Politically, it seeks an understanding of whether that person is an enemy or an adversary. Fortunately, in the United States’ political practice, we generally understand the difference between an adversary and an enemy. In my Latin American tribe, not so much.
No comments:
Post a Comment