Authority Hierarchies: Left v. Right
Whenever the words "political" and "philosophical" are used in the same sentence, most people may turn away. It's dense stuff! However, I'm here to offer you a simple way to be a consistent political philosopher without a PhD in the subject. (I don’t even have a PhD in anything!) So, get ready to answer some questions:
What do you believe about the size and scope of government? Do you think that government should be overarching, managerial, and deeply centralized? Or do you hold that government should be as permissive as possible, decentralized, and serve only to protect basic things like life, freedom, and property? Do you think that the more local a government is, the more intricate responsibility it should have?
Most likely, you hold to a mixed view. You are a very nuanced philosopher, indeed. Now, does your position work with all levels of government with only slight modification? Does it work with federal, state, and local levels of government? If it does, move on to this next question. If we define government loosely to include church government, business leadership, and family relations, how does your philosophy hold up?
I ask this most recent question to point out that there seems to be an irony when it comes to liberals and conservatives in the political arena and day to day life. The conservative, who wants to maintain limited government, is often a more authoritarian parent. A liberal, who tends to see a more expansive government as appropriate, tends to be more a permissive parent. Assuming traditional, Judeo-Christian values are good and true, could it be that this difference exposes who one thinks the chief authority is?
The conservative (and I would say appropriate) chain of authority is this:
(1) Federal–> (2) State–> (3) Local–> (4) Social–> (5) Familial–> (6) Individual
The leftist view seems to presuppose this order. This view, it seems, has a backwards hierarchy of authority.
(1) Individual–> (2) Familial–> (3) Social–> (4) Local–> (5) State –> (6) Federal
Position one (Federal in the conservative view; Individual in the liberal view) is the position which is meant to be the least expansive but the most authoritative. Position six is the most expansive but least authoritative. So, in the conservative view, the Constitution, and the rightly enacted federal laws, are the most authoritative laws of the land. However, this sphere of government is meant to have the smallest scope in comparison to what it could be (see the Tenth Amendment).
Position six, then, for the conservative is the individual. The individual is the most responsible entity. He/she is (or should be) empowered to make the most choices. This is reflected in the Preamble, “We the People.” This simple phrase enshrines in the American canon the idea of self-government. The individual is superior to the group. However, for the good of the individual who is dependent on society, some (not all or even most) authority is taken from the individual and given to the federal, state, and local governments by the individuals themselves. The individual is meant to be the chief ontological entity and the most expansive authority. However, the individual is not taken to be the most binding authority. Laws of the federal, state, and local levels, as well as leadership and pressure from the social sphere (i.e. church, business, etc.), are to limit the individual’s freedom when it is at the expense of another’s freedom. (Freedom in the American sense involves the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as further expounded on the Bill of Rights.)
For the leftist, position six is the federal government. Therefore, the leftist believes that the federal realm occupies the most expansive role of government. This is the reason for liberals expanding the power of the federal government, especially since the Roosevelt era New Deal (now seen in the Green New Deal). Now, remember that the liberal position is that the individual is the highest authority and therefore should be the least expansive. However, this is where the liberal governmental hierarchy breaks down.
When conservatives say that the individual is supreme, it is understood that the individual is the grounding ontological reality. Families are made of individuals; cities are made of families; states are made of cities; and the United States are just that, a united group of states. When the liberal declares the individual to be supreme, it is meant that the individual is the dictator of truth. This is a consequence of postmodernism and moral subjectivism. Both of these beliefs are inherently hyper-individualistic and self-contradictory. This is easily shown because a postmodernist believes absolutely that absolute truth either does not exist or changes from individual to individual.
So, when the conservative exalts the individual, he elevates the individual while being fully aware that there are actually other persons who have intrinsic value. But when the liberal exalts the individual, he is either admitting that he is self-less and unimportant or he is saying that he is solipsistic, the only sure self in existence.
As you have probably realized by now, the liberal hierarchy of authority is incoherent. However, the leftist uses this model of governmental levels to justify postmodern morality (hyper-individualism) and Marxist economics (collectivism) at the same time. This is, of course, ridiculous (i.e. worthy of ridicule). History has shown via the USSR, Mao’s China, and Pol Pot’s Cambodia that Marxist ideas lead to totalitarian government oversight and destroy the rights and freedoms of the individuals. The one individual whose freedom matters is the dictator. Modern-day Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea further pin the murderous tail onto the communist/socialist donkey. Therefore, the one superhuman who becomes the dictator creates truth and uses the national government as his arm to accomplish his will.
We return to the difference in parenting styles between conservatives and liberals. (Note: this is a generalization based on the writer's own experience and perceptions.) The conservative is more authoritative not because he devalues individual sovereignty but because he values the traditional, Judeo-Christian values that support the proper order of governmental levels, which allow for maximum personal freedom. This conservative order also provides that the family is the second most expansive level of authority. Therefore, the conservative is justified in being an authoritative parent (so long as he adapts to the characteristics of the specific child). The liberal has no justification for being authoritative. The liberal authority hierarchy places the family below the individual in power. The family is also not supposed to be very expansive. This is where more inconsistencies appear. The family would be more extensive than the individual in the leftist view. However, this is the ultimate fault of making the individual the highest authority: the individual is by nature expansive. He is never satisfied. Without a proper view of the nature of authority, the individual will think himself comprehensive and supreme. Thus results tyranny.
One final note: The reader may have been wondering where God is in these hypothesized hierarchies. God is certainly more authoritative than the federal government, and he is certainly more expansive than the individual. God is presupposed in the conservative view because Judeo-Christian values undergird the conservative worldview. The Western tradition places value on good government but also sets limits acknowledging the importance of the individual. It is hard to determine where God is in the leftist hierarchy. Since there are liberal and leftist Christians, one cannot say that God is entirely absent. However, it is hard for there to be room for God when the individual is viewed as the most high and most expansive authority.
Mitchell D. Cochran is from Midland, Texas and is a graduate of Lubbock Christian University where he graduated with a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology. Mitchell currently resides in Lubbock, Texas with his wife Katherine.
