Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 14, 1995 TAG: 9501160031
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEPHEN K. WHITE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Unfortunately, America didn't heed him, Larson informs us, but rather drugged itself increasingly on equality. And what is the result after a century and a half?
With truly breathtaking self-confidence, Larson lays out an extraordinary litany of horrors: political correctness, the growing agreement that rape and murder are ``acceptable,'' the Waco massacre, the Gulf War, the North American Free Trade Agreement, public debt, ``New Agers,'' lower standards of living, pantheism, atheism and ``increased anxiety.'' Concisely put, the ``principle of equality'' is a ``diabolical'' force threatening our land. Its deleterious influence puts a ``contract on America,'' from which we can only be saved by the Republican Party's ``contract with America.''
I'll leave aside the pros and cons of the current Republican plan; we'll all hear a lot about it in the coming months. My concern here goes rather to the more general issue of the quality of political discourse in America today. Larson identifies himself as a ``professor of social science,'' and his goal is to enrich our understanding of public affairs by drawing upon the insights of Tocqueville. Has he, in fact, contributed anything to raising the quality of our reflection on politics? I doubt it.
First, consider the rhetorical character of the commentary. We're told that equality is a diabolical force in our society. Presumably, anyone who might argue for equality is accordingly in league with the devil.
This intellectual strategy, unfortunately, has become a standard one today for many television evangelists who feel they'll help us better understand politics if they can just get Americans clearly divided into good and evil people. I wonder whether Larson and others who peddle this sort of discourse ever stop to think about the possible long-term consequences for our political culture. Could the symbolic ``killing'' of political opponents with adjectives of absolute negativity turn out to be a not totally benign activity?
Larson's second failing is his flagrant misuse of Tocqueville. It's useful here to begin with the question: Why are thinkers in Western history like John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Tocqueville considered ``great''? It isn't so much that they give us answers to basic moral and political questions as it is that they force us to ask these questions in more reflective ways. The worst abuse one can visit upon such thinkers is to flatten them into utter partisan hacks. That's precisely what Larson has done.
One is told that the principle of equality is diabolical, but nowhere does he explain exactly what this principle is. It's implied that Tocqueville thought all forms of equality are bad, and that we should, too.
All I can do in this short space is perhaps suggest that readers actually look for themselves at Tocqueville's writings to test out Larson's thesis. My guess is that you will come away from that work not having found a shrill hater of all equality, but a man who brilliantly analyzed how democratic societies would be increasingly confronted with the realization that their most cherished values don't all fit together harmoniously, but rather sometimes come into conflict.
Tocqueville, like Mill, knew the real challenge of the future lay in reflecting carefully upon how tension between equality and individual freedom can be managed best. The choices are sometimes very tough. This challenge is one we continue to face today. But our attempts to meet it with intelligence require hard and honest thinking, not the glib analysis and rhetorical mugging provided by Larson.
Stephen K. White teaches political science at Virginia Tech.
by CNB