Unbeknownst to most, the prolific writer H.L. Mencken held various conservative values. He believed in almost no government at all, and often identified himself as a libertarian. Yet his emphatic liberalism on issues such as free expression was quite the opposite. What can we make of his paradoxical philosophies? Mencken once wrote, "The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe." With these words written some sixty years ago, Mencken encapsulates not only the entirety of his beliefs, but also two debates currently being waged in modern American society.
Mencken's words sound remarkably similar to sound bytes one might hear from a Republican congressman or conservative pundit, and in this way, Mencken's view on freedom is applicable to that of the contemporary conservative. The majority of the modern Republican party believes the U.S. is split between the takers, who, in the words of Mencken, simply want to be safe, and the makers, the capitalists, who wish only to be free from government regulation. Granted, Mencken was not a vocal fan of capitalism, but the country's current economic debate is framed in this manner.
His quote provides a modern philosophical lens as well, that of the unthreatening college major in economics, or, conversely, the hopeful singer, writer, or Peace Corps member. This division between passion and safety, as well as that of a paternal government or an unhindered capitalist, are the current societal connections to the words of the late H.L. Mencken.
Following President Obama's reelection triumph, conservative pundits like Bill O'Reilly could be heard making statements such as, "People like stuff." This is the conservative explanation for Obama's reelection. Members of the Tea Party, conservative libertarians, and Republicans all ran on a platform of freedom in their 2012 election. Freedom from a government of largesse, with its hands in the pockets of the populous, and principally, freedom from taxes. Though Democrats did not run on a platform of "safety," the contrast is a friendly one for conservatives, who wished for their constituents to believe Democrats are bribing voters with government hand-outs like Social Security or food stamps (though, of course, Medicare was never mentioned in a an apparent gesture of pandering to an elderly conservative base).
This brings us back to Mencken, who had similar beliefs regarding government oversight. Republicans usually take this to mean the lazy degenerate on the take from the government, living life safely, but as a vegetable, versus the ambitious "maker", who only wishes for the freedom to make money. This prevailing conservative ideology is now in vogue, an economic style perpetuated chiefly by Paul Ryan, a disciple of Ayn Rand. Rand, like Ryan, is (was) a firm believer in hands-off government and Laissez-Faire economics. This contributes to the concept of freedom vs. safety, though the idea has been distorted by modern conservative thinkers as one that is black and white.
This same concept has become popular recently in education. In a cut and dry hypothetical, consider a student, who, for lack of a better term, wished to "chase their dreams" of dancing or cooking or playing the harp. Should this student be free from the constraints of the confining desk job and its effects on body and mind? Or should said student instead focus on monetary success in an unsure economic landscape? Should students become perpetrators of a system, content to score well on the SAT's and attend a prestigious university and become a doctor, or lawyer, or accountant, or Nick Carraway, a bonds salesman?
Who could blame them? In this situation they'd be able to pay their bills with a sense of safety, marry a safe spouse, safely give birth to children, safely go for a jog or get a cup of coffee. The conflict between safety and freedom, in this case freedom being synonymous with passion, is a difficult one, one that only Mencken would have an immediate answer to: "I have no qualms with the student who chooses the safe route. The student wouldn't have to worry about college loans or a car being repaired. Yet this student would, essentially, be admitting that he is average."
Being average isn't altogether bad, as long as the person that retains their average sensibilities accepts the fact that they are. Mencken would probably praise the freedom-seeker, the one that wished to affect change within their chosen passion, yet he would warn them, freedom is not always safe.
The freedom of choosing a career one is passionate about has been in danger for some time now. As a result, the choice between safety and passion is one that has been increasingly made when erring on the side of caution. Students can't pay for college otherwise. Libertarians like Mencken would refrain from admitting this, but freedom in its most primal form is not an absolute good. In the case of conservative economics it is, in fact, a very bad thing. When a Republican talks about freedom from taxes or Laissez-Faire economics or lack of regulation on business, think back to the George Bush recession or the Herbert Hoover depression. The conservative's fetish for economic freedom is a dangerous one, one that Mencken himself would probably abhor. While the philosophy strongly supports those who already have made their fortune, it disproportionately affects those making their choice between freedom and safety on the lower rung of the ladder; students.
Students who opt for safety are facing the harsh reality of twenty first century life after college. Similar to freedom, the "safe" choice is becoming the dangerous one.
No comments:
Post a Comment