Master of Our Own Consciousness or Slave to the State?

George Friedrich Hegel once remarked, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” A paradox no doubt, but the modern liberal illustrates this truth. Don’t let the opening line of this piece fool you. It is not...

The post Master of Our Own Consciousness or Slave to the State? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

George Friedrich Hegel once remarked, “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.” A paradox no doubt, but the modern liberal illustrates this truth. Don’t let the opening line of this piece fool you. It is not about some 19th century Prussian philosopher who’s been dead for 193 years, and who’s views antedated and unfortunately anticipated Karl Marx’s materialistic theory of history. But he can help us with one thing, and it’s important. Our philosopher can help us understand how modern liberals have for decades been using freedom and dependency in ways that just don’t mix. 

Since the 1960s counterculture era of social reforms and civil rights, modern liberals have fostered a false sense of need in various population groups in America. This work documents how the above has led to some semblance of a “master-slave” relationship — a dependency by these groups upon modern liberals and consequently, the state. (READ MORE from F. Andrew Wolf Jr.: The First Amendment: An Inconvenience to the Government)

So what does a 19th century philosopher and a modern liberal have in common? They agree that the state is best at fulfilling your needs and desires while, ostensibly, making you “free.” 

Hegel, was adamant in his view that an individual’s freedom is subordinate to and dependent upon the state — that freedom and rights come from the latter: “The state is the absolute reality and the individual himself has objective existence, truth and morality, only in his capacity as a member of the state.” 

In his Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel introduces the idea that one’s true identity is a product of society and culture, and that it cannot be achieved through individual existence — relationship with an “other” is needed to ascertain one’s identity. This he called his “master-slave” dialectic or relationship. 

The Modern Liberal 

Hegel’s views can tell us a lot about the thought of modern liberals — how they see freedom and dependency, themselves, and others in the world. They both agree that only by seeing ourselves in relation to other humans in society can we gain a sense of dignity and establish our place in the world. In other words we cannot do it by ourselves — modern liberals foster this image of the “self-in-need of the other.” They need others to fulfill who they understand themselves to be. The problem is that these liberals often view others as people in need of something from them. Through this continuous pattern of perception of need by the other, modern liberals fulfill their own need. They give while the other becomes dependent by accepting that which is given. A relationship is established. 

For decades, minority populations have played a role of “dependency” in America, while modern liberals play that of “maintaining that dependency.” As you will see, the relationship is, psychologically and sociologically self-destructive for both. Kevin Martin, a member of the African American leadership network Project 21, writing for The National Center for Public Policy Research (2006) comments: 

Liberalism is not just a problem for black America. Its failure can be seen by visiting any Martin Luther King Street, Avenue, or Boulevard. White America has the financial wherewithal and ambition to choose to escape it. Black Americans, due to long-term abuse by liberal policies, don’t always have that option. That’s why black America as a whole needs to wake up and shake off the liberal chains that bind us. 

Modern liberals of the majority race have since the 1960s tended to view minority politics through the “lens” of a dependency relationship. They have viewed Americans of African descent as well as the Hispanic community as being needy, requiring continuing social, economic, and political assistance from them. 

Political Power Through the Ballot 

This orientation has persisted in America for 60 years. And for much of that time, let’s be clear, government assistance was not only helpful but sometimes necessary to redress decades of inequality. Today, however, increasing numbers of the minority population itself are advocating for modern liberalism to foster its role in the minds of that population — that they still need liberals to sustain themselves. Such “reasoning” is not only counterproductive to minorities in America, it is disrespectful. 

Moreover, this dependency relationship is fostered today by modern liberals for a more invidious reason — political power through the ballot. It has become about the numbers, not the needs of the minorities. The latter’s embrace of dependency needs to be maintained, so as to foster continued political power for liberals. 

In a January 2024 article in TIME, Congressional Democrats announced that “they will invest at least $35 million to reach voters of color in the 2024 election cycle … a historic investment, superseding the $30 million spent on attracting minority voters from Latino, Black, Asian, and Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian communities in the 2022 midterm elections.” The article goes on to say that “voters of color have long been pivotal to Democratic election prospects. About 73 percent of Asian, Black, and Latino voters combined backed President Joe Biden in 2020.” 

Condescension-Dependency 

For some modern liberals, however, the issue of dependency has less to do with minorities and more to do with their own need to atone for and redress perceived past transgressions (real or otherwise). Guilt, driven by socioeconomic disparity and history, can be a powerful motivator, indeed. It becomes their raison d’etre. (READ MORE: Is ‘Man the Measure’? From Where Does Our Freedom Come?)

The psychology of this relationship does a disservice to the intellectual integrity of minority populations in America. Both ends of the political spectrum agree, providing assistance when necessary, in and of itself, is not the problem; rather, it’s the condescending attitude of modern liberals toward these populations as being incapable of caring for themselves without liberal handouts, as well as the need for the group to continue its relationship of dependency. 

According to a 2018 study by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale School of Management, “white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges.” The study was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 

This reciprocal relationship of condescension-dependency perpetuates a mutual dependency mentality which is, I submit, toxic to American society. 

To free oneself of one’s voluntary servitude to another, one must recognize, as classical liberalism asserts, that one’s freedom and natural rights are inherent in one’s human being. Such natural freedom cannot be granted to you by a state, it is fundamental. But liberty can be taken from you through positive rights or laws from the state. The decision is ours to make: 

Either master of our own consciousness or a slave to another’s. 

As is evident from the above, granting positive rights to one group without due consideration for the rights of others can get rather messy and remains controversial. What we see in modern liberalism is the state granting rights which often do damage to society. After realizing, but not always acknowledging, the damage done, it tries to rectify its transgressions by imposing a new set of rights to counter the old. It becomes a circular process that seemingly never ends. At least it hasn’t yet. 

Force Man to Be Free 

Positive rights, of course, can be a form of freedom when careful consideration is accorded the consequences of such acts. Problems develop when the state is used to further an agenda to impose upon one the right (meaning the necessity) to receive something or act in some particular way. When additional rights are granted to some (e.g. affirmative action), others lose aspects of their freedom (reverse discrimination). It isn’t that the former is necessarily wrong; it’s just that the latter is absolutely wrong. 

As is often the case with modern liberalism, what starts out as something which seems to be a good idea for America results in adverse effects through ill-considered consequences and diminished rights for others. Between modern liberalism’s propensity for dependency-driven relationships and granting positive rights to foster political power, should we not be concerned about the status of freedom (and dependency) in America? 

Eighteenth century French philosopher Jean-Jacque Rousseau once claimed in The Social Contract, that we must “force man to be free,” such that he might “place all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will” of the state. Sound familiar? It is a scary thought — it also resonates with modern liberals. When will they learn: 

Like oil and water, freedom and dependency are immiscible — they don’t mix.

The post Master of Our Own Consciousness or Slave to the State? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.