The Silent Centrist

With a broader vision of what government is and how it exists and functions on a basic level, I think it’s time to discuss what a national government should look like. I understand that this can be a very subjective exercise, and where some may be willing to compromise, others may not. But by taking the framework that we’ve already established, I believe you can find a functional government that can appropriately exercise its power.

The nature of power tends towards seeking more of it. While generally seen in a bad context, it doesn’t always have to be. As a charity that provides food to the hungry grows, so does their reach to give more food to more people. Government must be designed to maximize well-being for the most number of people while minimizing advantages that benefit specific individuals or groups. This is where democracies shine – they are designed to work for the benefit of the people, rather than the individual. Given the way our American democracy works, what follows goes under the assumption that we agree on a general level in the democratic process.

If we look at the dials that we can adjust, I have always believed that we will fall somewhere in the middle of the two extremes those dials can hold. If we look at liberty, for example, it can be easy to think that giving citizens complete and total liberty is the best course of action. While an idealized world might operate under those conditions, given human nature, that can’t always be the case. Rules and restrictions on liberties establish a framework in which humans can grow. If there were no traffic laws, it would be extremely difficult to move around. Without laws, no one could be at fault for driving 'dangerously,' because everyone would be entitled to their own absolute liberty. On the other end of the spectrum, a completely controlled society could completely eliminate traffic by total restrictions, but at the cost of everyone’s ability to move around. The best-case scenario is some level of regulation - rules that everyone agrees to follow to maintain order and calm, which work as a benefit to everyone.

Ideally these regulations would have maximum benefit with minimal restriction on liberty. They would also likely be more regulated in areas where more people are affected and where the effects can be felt greatly. Even the most fundamental liberties would likely be restricted in extreme cases. Freedom of expression, arguably the most fundamental right, does not mean that you can say what you want without consequence. Slander and libel, or making damaging and false statements, can cause real harm. Threats to personal safety and wellbeing can lead to intimidation and other unfair situations. Perjury, or lying when under oath, undermines the very essence of the justice system.

Together, justice and fairness act as the balance to those liberties. The entire reasoning for regulations should be to keep things fair. If you purchased an insurance policy which offered certain benefits in case of injury, and you sustained that injury, you would expect that insurance company to pay out that claim. By regulating contracts, you can ensure insurance companies honor their obligations, while also preventing insurance fraud. However, punishment must fit the crime. Jaywalking on an empty street is not the same as lying on a loan application, nor is it the same as stealing. Justice is about balancing the situation with the appropriate response, which should be designed to prevent that crime from happening again. By creating a fair and level playing field you establish order and peace. Where there is order and peace, we thrive as a society.

Together, justice and fairness act as the balance to those liberties. The entire reasoning for regulations should be to keep things fair. If you purchased an insurance policy which offered certain benefits in case of injury, and you sustained that injury, you would expect that insurance company to pay out that claim. By regulating contracts, you can ensure insurance companies honor their obligations, while also preventing insurance fraud. However, punishment must fit the crime. Jaywalking on an empty street is not the same as lying on a loan application, nor is it the same as stealing. Justice is about balancing the situation with the appropriate response, which should be designed to prevent that crime from happening again. By creating a fair and level playing field you establish order and peace. Where there is order and peace, we thrive as a society.

Arguably the biggest threat to peace and order would be physical security and safety. Protecting that peace and order from those who wish to disturb it is essential. Typically, this happens when people seek power, money, fame, and other forms of influence. Protecting yourself from those outside the government, like foreign governments or foreign-based organizations, as well as dangers from within, like those trying to implement extreme and radical changes within the government, should be at the forefront of all governments.

Up to this point, I truly believe that both major political parties can come to some level of agreement on the previous dials. While there will likely be heated discussions on how much regulation or on the specific punishments for different crimes, I think that deep down there is more that we agree on than disagree.

Where that changes is in the fifth and final dial: balancing individuality and communalism. I first want to make a distinction that I am not talking about communism, the form of government with common ownership. I’m referring to communalism, or a community-centered approach to society.

American (and most Western) culture, while it holds aspects of communal identity and connectivity, is a largely individualistic society. We prefer privacy, stick to ourselves, and generally have a “go out and follow YOUR dream” attitude. Everyone is special and, if you work hard enough, you as an individual can reach great heights. And there has been a lot of good that has come from that. I believe it is fundamental to our success in technology and even culture. But there’s something missing.

What we lack is a balance between those individualistic values and a true sense of community and belonging to a whole larger, and perhaps to some extent, more important than ourselves. This sense of togetherness has been in decline over the past century. Accelerated first by materialism and then put into hyperdrive by technology and social media, we have access to everything yet lack connection to anything.

You don’t need to go far to see this. Consider your own situation. How many people could you call that would come to help you move? How many people do you feel comfortable expressing your own interests with? How many houses down do you need to go to before you don’t know basic information, like professions or interests, of your neighbors? How many houses down can you even give their full names?

Individuality, at the cost of community, can be detrimental to society.

I believe that we, together as a government, together as a people, must put more emphasis on saving our communities before we have any opportunity to come back together. Many of the changes necessary can be difficult. Often this requires people to put in more effort than they feel they get out. But just as the ocean is simply a collection of drops of water, so too do our own efforts on an individual level come together to form the greatness of the American community.

Now that we’ve discussed a bit about the essence of government as well as the most basic structure it can take, the next step is to understand when and where government should get involved. This can be a loaded question. Based on our own political leanings we all tend to hold preconceptions about the role government should play. While I don’t pretend my opinions are the only good opinions on this subject, I do believe most would agree that we all acknowledge the existence of a basic framework – it is only the degrees of importance.

The first metric is liberty. In a free society, freedoms become liberties when established by rule or law. A simple distinction between freedom and liberty is that the former refers to things you can do and the latter refers to things you are allowed to do. Given human nature to be capable of great good and great bad, liberties are the way government can allow the maximum amount of good while restraining the maximum amount of bad.

The second metric follows on the first and involves justice. The rules we establish that restrict liberties are typically created for a “greater good.” Breaking those rules is an offense against the society that established them. Justice refers to the way we react as a people when someone breaks those rules. Justice should balance the severity of the offense with mercy that understands the circumstances in which that offense took place. Most would likely be more merciful to a mother speeding towards the hospital with her injured child than a young adult joy riding. While both committed the same offense, do they really deserve the same punishment?

The third metric involves fairness. It is only when everyone is playing by the same rules that things can be truly considered fair. Beyond playing by the same rules, fairness also considers equity. Just as you would expect referees of any sport to apply the rules equally to both teams, you wouldn’t expect professionals to compete against children. So does the need to have a fair field in life direct the government to maintain reasonable rules of interaction among society.

The fourth metric involves security. Peace is vital to the success of humanity. Maintaining security from actors outside and inside the government will be paramount to its success and longevity. The degree to which that security is maintained can have a direct impact on the previously mentioned metrics. As with all the other metrics, security can be adjusted with its own tradeoffs. A society that invests nothing in security is at risk of attack from the outside and unrest from within. A society that invests heavily in security does so at the cost of its own liberty, justice, and fairness. In doing so, it closes itself off from the outside, and restricts growth from within.

The fifth and final metric that I propose is the balance between individuality and communalism. Which takes precedence, the need of the individual or the needs of the many? All governments work on some level of the understanding that the collective needs have value and that at least some individual needs or freedoms must be put aside. At its most basic level, the need to maintain peace and security involves the individual sacrificing of their own money to fund it.

You can see how easily these metrics can be increased or dialed back depending on the circumstances of the moment as well as the values of the people that compose the government. I would even go as far to say that a healthy government will need to adapt and change as time goes on. Given the way that every human exercises their own power at an individual level, the government must react to this exercise of power and wield its own influence to maintain its own stability. These five metrics are the dials on the dashboard of government. In my final post, I will explore how we, as a nation, should set those dials.

Government can take many forms. Regardless of any “official” government, the nature of humankind is related to the exchange of power we previously discussed. Usually the “how” of government is so obvious that we are oblivious to its presence. However, while it’s presence might be unknown to us, the effect of government is almost always felt. It may be the calm satisfaction of stability or the bitter sting of injustice, the effects of government are usually apparent. These governments can take many forms and will be called by many names. To some these names might be used to invoke feelings, both good and bad, to influence the minds of others. But here I believe we can group all governments into one of three categories: governance by one, by the few, or by the many.

In the previous post I discussed how power, whether emotional, transactional, or will, is how we interact with others around us. That expression of power will directly affect the type of governance we experience. We’ve all most likely experienced each type of governance to some degree. Each form of government also has its benefits and drawbacks. I would argue that each form of governance is useful in different cases – by that I refer to all aspects of our society, not just government in reference to the state or country.

Governance by one is when one person holds all, or the most influential part, of the power. Most would quickly think of dictatorships, authoritarians, or monarchies as examples. In American philosophy, those forms of government are often considered at best unfair, and at worst, terribly oppressive to its subjects. But before you judge too harshly, let’s discuss a positive example to understand its benefits: the teacher/student relationship. In the classroom, the teacher holds all the power which is used to mold the minds of the students in a way they gain knowledge and more power for themselves. Should each student be given the same power, the classroom would likely devolve, and little learning would get done for the vast majority of the students. By concentrating all the power in the teacher, the students, who relinquish their power, actually gain more. By concentrating power in one, the governance will be clear, consistent, and quick. However, errors will greatly affect the entire group, which can quickly lead to distrust or unrest. While very good leaders can have a large, positive effect, very bad leaders will have a large, negative effect.

Governance by the few is when a relatively small number of people hold all, or the most influential part, of the power. Most businesses are run on this model. Typically, a small group of people, whether it be the CEO, board of directors, or even majority shareholders, will influence company policy. Employees, customers, and other businesses can try to exert their own influence over that group, but in the end, it is the small group of people that make those decisions that affect the whole. By having multiple people’s input, you can reduce the probability that one person’s mistake will be compounded to negatively affect the whole. The governance will take longer, but errors of one are less likely which provides more stability. However, if those who hold power have different interests than those who don’t hold power, the governance will often feel corrupt and lead to discontent.

Governance by the many is when a very large number, or perhaps the entire population, holds the power. Most people will associate this with democracy. In practice, there are often very few examples of true democracy where all hold equal power to make decisions. One example that fits fairly well is cooperatives. Owned and run by the employees, together they vote on decisions to be made and then enforce those decisions together. The strength of governance by the many is seen in the stability of the acceptance of the rules. When everyone has a say, it is more likely that together everyone will respect the decision made. However, this process will take much more time and can be logistically challenging. Informing about decisions, debating, and then making decisions can be a lengthy process, and is often subject to the formation of factions (reverting back to governance by the few) in order to concentrate power to achieve common goals.

So that begs the question, which one is best? The answer is that it will always be a trade-off. Since it will depend on the situation and the needs of the group as a whole, the best form of governance will be different for different situations. In general, things I believe we should consider when establishing a government is the source of its power, the best way to avoid the misuse of that power, and finally the role we want the government to play.

As we understand the nature of government, we first need to define what government is. Traditionally, when we think of government, we think of municipalities, states, or countries and the people (and by extension the institutions) that run them. A broader definition of government is useful because of the nature of humanity. I believe we should consider government to be the use of one’s power over another, including the relinquishing of one’s power to be governed by another. If we view government as the formal ability to exert will, the concept expands greatly. While formal institutions aren't needed for every interaction, "government" exists even in our most basic exchanges.

Let’s look at the smallest level, a one-on-one human interaction. Some obvious examples would be a sales transaction. Here the seller might try to influence the buyer into a transaction. This might be done to varying degrees of success or effort. Essentially, this serves as a government by contract – together the exchange of services or goods improves the lives of both parties. Contrast this with a bully/victim relationship. The bully uses physical or emotional threats to force the victim to act in a certain way. This is government by force, inciting fear to gain power.

On a larger scale, even work relationships are essentially a small form of government. Depending on the size, these relationships solidify into institutions. The CEO and board of directors control the direction of the company. Managers then enforce that on the employees. HR adjudicates disputes, and payroll distributes rewards. This is seemingly a more structured “governor” to “governed” relationship than the previously mentioned situations. It is transactional and serves both parties to some extent.

I’d like to look at one final, non-traditional example of government – the family unit. Typically seen as positive (at least they are meant to be positive), the parental-child relationship is intriguing. Children are born into this world completely powerless, and totally dependent on adults for nurture and care. As they grow, so do their abilities and knowledge – or perhaps put a different way, so does their power and influence. This growth is often accompanied by more responsibility, such as chores, homework, or privileges such as staying out later. Underlying all of these interactions is trust. Trust from the parents that their children are capable of acting responsibly. Trust from the children that their parents are guiding them correctly.

There are many other examples of this broad definition of government, but one thing they all have in common is power and how it is used. For the purposes of this blog, I will clump them into 3 main sources: emotional, transactional, and will. These are typically all interrelated, but I’ll break down the basic idea. Emotional power stems from feelings, such as fear, loyalty, love, etc. The mother governs through love; the bully governs through fear. Transactional power stems from logic and exchange. I give you labor; you give me a wage. I give you money; you give me a product. This is the government of the marketplace.

Finally, we have the Power of Will. I view this as the bedrock of all government because it is rooted in personal agency—the sovereign ability to choose one’s own beliefs, values, and ideas.

Unlike Emotional or Transactional power, which are often external forces pressed upon us, Will is internal. It is a power that cannot be forcibly taken; it can only be voluntarily surrendered. We see this 'surrender' when we agree to follow traffic laws for safety (surrendering to the state) or when we compromise in a marriage (surrendering to the family). It is the power of restraint, the ability to resist coercion, and ultimately, the currency we use to 'buy' into a civilized society.

When we can understand that all human interactions boil down to some use of these powers, whether individually or some combination, we will be able to better answer the next questions of government: how does it work and what role should it play in our lives?

The divided times in which we live make it difficult to find compromise and common ground. In our current "us vs. them" mentality, compromise has been redefined as capitulation—the idea that the other side must come entirely to us. This leads to impasses rather than progress, a reality that, at least to me, feels truly uninspiring. I’ve heard many people say, politicians and citizens alike, that democracy is at stake—that we are slipping into autocracy. Others dismiss this as alarmist, arguing that the system simply grants the President the powers he is currently using. The strange thing is that both of these arguments have been wielded by both major political parties over the past 30 years. Analysts fear that we, as a people, simply don’t want democracy anymore.

This hit me hard recently while listening to a podcast I enjoy. The hosts argued that the younger generation doesn’t seem to grasp the importance of democracy, and they ridiculed the idea that this generation would even consider other forms of government. While I share their love of democracy and believe it to be the safest form of government, I was disappointed by their analysis. Instead of ridicule, we need understanding. Why are people looking elsewhere? To answer that, I would like to propose a simple metric for understanding what the government is, how it works, and what role it plays.

First, what is government? I would simply describe government as the power to influence or control another. If we break the word down, to govern is to exercise power. The suffix -ment means “the act of” or “the process of.” So, in this case, the act of governing. On a small scale, you could consider each family a government. On a large scale, we have state governments like the United States or China. The only way to control or influence someone is by the use of power. That power might be physical force or coercion. It might be diplomatic force or persuasion. But government can also be understood as the use of power and who holds it. On one extreme, everyone holds power. On the other, one person holds power. And then there are plenty of options in between where many, or few, people hold power.

Second, how does government work? The mechanics depend on the transfer of power. In a republic, the people hold the power initially but cede it to a smaller group of representatives, usually through an election. In a dictatorship, the leader holds power and delegates it downward to others to execute his decisions.

Finally, what role does government play? In my opinion, this is the question we must ask ourselves continually in a democracy. In what aspects of our lives are we willing to cede power to influence? This touches on the balance of freedom, liberty, justice, and order. What should the government prioritize in its exertion of power?

When you can answer all these questions, you can define what government you have. You can also understand the strengths and weaknesses of said government. Growing up in the United States, the words of the Preamble to the Constitution help us understand these questions.

• “We the People” means the power resides with everyone.
• “Do ordain and establish this Constitution” means that we cede our power to the Constitution.
• “In Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty...” shows the general ideas of what the government should be doing.

But over time, things change. With evolving culture and advancing technology, the government must adapt to these changes. As the government adapts, we readdress those three aspects of government: what the government is, how it works, and what role it plays. Or put in other words, who holds the power, how it is exercised, and over what aspects of life it affects.

Over the next few posts, I’ll be unpacking these concepts one by one. I hope you’ll follow along as we attempt to cut through the noise, refine our definitions, and get back to the basics of how we govern ourselves—so that, just maybe, we can work together once more.