Right Does NOT Make Might

Though some of Wolf’s passages seem overly biased toward western values and culture, (i.e. “Dynamism was the product of institutions, practices, and attitudes the emerged in western Europe over an extended period” (Wolf, 44)), I tend to agree with his implied view that American capitalism, somewhat moderated by features of a developed country, such as the welfare system, is the best, or at least “least worst” of the potential economic systems. I guess my public education, at one time promulgated by Thomas Jefferson as the way to perpetuate American democracy, has done its job. I am sufficiently patriotic. Nevertheless, I realize that America is far from having a completely liberalized economy. As I talked about in my previous post, I believe that a laissez-faire economy is ideal, but there are many complications in our imperfect world that make economic regulations necessary. America has a long ways to go to try to find the perfect balance between too much economic freedom and too much regulation, but I believe that America is ultimately on the right track.

After reading Friedman’s article “It’s a Flat World After All”, it struck me that we, as American citizens, have generally become too content in our assumption that America will remain a world leader. I think most Americans take for granted that liberty and equality, in the form of a democratic political system—or what we typically consider the American way— will continue to spread throughout the world, and as a result other countries will continue to bow to us, forever grateful to us for our contributions to humanity. As Friedman acknowledges, this is far from reality. The Internet and other communication technology allows ideas to disseminate throughout the world, in essence opening up the “marketplace of ideas” virtually everywhere. The playing field is being leveled, and being born in a developing country no longer excludes you from the possibility of contributing to innovation and technology.

The leveling of the playing field began many years ago. In fact, in my class on “Lincoln’s Statesmanship,” we have already read a speech from Frederick Douglass this term in which he describes the effects of globalization in 1857! : “Walled cities and empires have become unfashionable. The arm of commerce has borne away the gates of the strong city. Intelligence is penetrating the darkest corners of the globe. It makes its pathway over and under the sea, as well as on the earth. Wind, stream, and lightning are its chartered agents. Oceans no longer divide, but link nations together. From Boston to London is now a holiday excursion. Space is comparatively annihilated. Thoughts expressed on one side of the Atlantic are distinctly heard on the other.”

Though globalization was very pronounced during this period, as it is now, the sentiments of many Americans were different.  Instead of believing that the United States should be a leader in the global market economy, as many do now, there was a sizeable minority during that period that did not believe that there should even be a union of states. Many abolitionists believed, and reasonably so, that the slavery—a practice made possible through globalization—was such a gross atrocity that it would be better for the world if America did not exist, let alone lead. In fact, William Lloyd Garrison was one of the abolitionists who promulgated the idea that might, in this case American preeminence on the world stage, does not always make right.

The idea that might makes right—but only in the state of nature—was championed by political philosopher John Locke. He believed that without a system of government, if men are left to their own devices, might would determine what was right. However, he did not believe that this was a practical or desirable way to establish what is right, so he theorized that men could, and did, give up some individual rights in order to form a social contract to protect them against each other and foreign entities. When law ruled, instead of men, the minority could theoretically prevent the majority from encroaching on their rights. Under the rule of law, right could, theoretically, make might.

This principle was the basis for Abraham Lincoln’s proclamation in 1860: “Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.” This statement clearly shows Lincoln’s opposition to a popular ideology of the time—popular sovereignty, or unfettered majority rule. People who advocated popular sovereignty during that time period wanted each of the states to have the power to decide whether there would be slavery in that particular state. Lincoln believed that there were some things—such as human captivity—there were inherently wrong and diametrically opposed to the principle of equality set forth in our nation’s Declaration of Independence. In other words, there are some things that were so wrong that might—or the majority—could never make right.  In cases like these, Lincoln hoped that right would make might—the wickedness of slavery would cause a majority to unite in support of an end to slavery, because he realized that the current majority--or might--was not making right.

To go even further with the notion that might doesn’t necessarily make right, William Lloyd Garrison, a leading abolitionist, went so far as to say, “Might is never right, excepting when it sees in every human being, ‘a man and a brother,’ and protects him with a divine fidelity.”

Though globalization was quickly growing in 1860 as it is now, I think our debate needs to change, and Friedman’s article addresses the contemporary issue that many have overlooked: It is no longer a debate about whether might makes right, it is a matter of whether what many Americans consider right—the principles of liberty, equality, democracy, capitalism, etc.—makes might. America is quickly losing its dominant position in the world, and I believe, as does Friedman, that we are not responding to the changing times. The fact that many Americans likely believe that the American Way is the best way, does not ensure that America will continue to lead on the world stage. Though right made might in Lincoln’s day, we need to recognize that on the modern-day world stage, right does not, it itself, make might, and move forward with provisions—such as measures to increase educational effectiveness (like I talked about in the previous post)—that will ensure that America remains a world leader.