Family and the Politics of Moderation: Private Life, Public Goods, and the Rebirth of Social Individualism

Conclusion: Political Moderation and the Familial Fulcrum

109 Political Moderation and the Familial Fulcrum Conclusion The ideological extremism that characterized the grand politics of the twentieth century has been moderated in some ways by the end of the world wars, the rejection of both communism and fascism by the developed world, and by the seeming ascendancy of liberal democracy throughout the developing world.1 It might seem as if the conflict between the individual and the collective has been solved. Liberal ideals ostensibly satisfy the desire for individual freedom at the same time they support a devotion to equal rights that satisfies our collectivist tendency toward equality. as many commentators have pointed out, however, the ascendancy of liberal democracy is neither as universally beneficial nor as complete as some might have us believe. Liberal democracy, some argue, has led to a torpid emphasis on comfort and minor technical advances, eschewing thymic concerns with nobility, greatness, and human meaning.2 The “last man” created by liberal democracy is no more complete than the radical individualist of Rand or the collectivist hive worker of Marx. Indeed, this “last man” partakes of the worst of both individualism and of collectivism in that he is isolated from others around him, concerned only with his individual comfort, but he is also a conformist, never rising above the average of man.3 This liberal “last 110 FaMILy anD tHe PoLItICS oF MoDeRatIon man” falls into a kind of mediocrity, concerned neither with individual nor collective greatness. Liberal mediocrity, some have argued, fuels the rise of radical religious sects like political Islam precisely because it fails to satisfy natural human desires for greatness.4 Perhaps as a result of the unintended consequences of liberal comfort , the victory of liberal democracy has been called into question, both at home and abroad. The twenty-first century, supposedly a time for peace and self-congratulation, was instead born into tragedy and uncertainty. The first decade of this century saw ideological clashes based again on conflicting ways of life, this time a clash between religious piety and liberal freedom .5 The twenty-first century has also seen tragic events at home—school and workplace shootings, attacks on our military and representatives, and an increasingly polarized political climate that has failed to reach consensus on issues from social mores to economics.6 The family, too, has changed forms and weakened in part as a result of the liberal democratic ideals of equality and individual freedom. an increasingly mobile society fueled by capitalism has spread families farther and farther apart. as more women work outside the home, the balance between men and women and between parent and child has shifted. two earners are necessary for most people to earn an adequate living in an increasingly competitive marketplace, which puts more pressure on day care and public schools to provide education in traditional subjects as well as manners and mores. In the working class, the separation of marriage and procreation caused in part by liberalism’s gradual erosion of traditional mores and religious beliefs has led to children being born into increasingly fractured homes.7 The family’s ability to counter either the stultifying comforts of liberal democracy or the ideological and religious extremism that opposes it might seem limited. yet even in this weak form, the family still balances ideological extremism to some extent because, almost no matter what form it takes, it forces us to balance our individual and social selves. Its intermediate position between generations, between individuals and communities, between past and present, between equality and liberty, between principle and pragmatism, between complexity and simplicity, and between perfection and imperfection allows the family to naturally balance a diversity of human goods and values in a way no other institution can. But this persistence does not mean we can ignore the family’s weakness. Understanding what families should do and perhaps are no longer doing is crucial to identifying weaknesses in our social and political communities . Because the causal arrow between political moderation and familial ConCLUSIon 111 form works in both directions, weakened family forms can lead to political immoderation, and political immoderation can weaken the family. In both cases, a greater understanding of what the family actually does can help us better understand what it is that we want communities to do. There are some lessons the family imparts regardless of whether it is weak or strong, precisely because these lessons have to do with the...