Anyone with a remote interest in political history can discover the immense evil of most eras of human history. A major part of the melancholy history of humanity is the wickedness of rulers, both in their acts of violence against their own citizens as well as their support of hostility and militarism against other lands to spread misery and suffering beyond their own borders. Another major part of the melancholy history of humanity is the absence of effective central government, of criminals rising up to claim local power and engage in infighting against rivals, showing the threat of anarchy to well-being. Both tyranny and anarchy threaten the well-being of humanity, which is best served by authority that is just and broadly supported by other institutions who all engage in their own spheres under a common legal and constitutional framework. And yet this sort of just society is extremely rare and extremely fragile. Why is this?

It would appear that our political philosophies, and the divide between tyranny and anarchy, springs from religious worldviews about the many and the one. Falling off the cliff to the one side leads to tyranny and oppression as all parts of life become subject to central authority, often dominated by an authoritarian figure like a king, a dictator, or a pope. Falling off the cliff to the other side leads to anarchy as everyone does what is right in their own eyes, without concern for others. Our belief system (whether or not we understand it clearly) leads to our political behavior. Do we long or seek for central authorities to tell us what to do and provide for all our needs? We fall to the tyrannical side of the cliff, then. Do we bristle against any rules or authority or regulations over us that restrict our conduct? Then we fallen to the anarchical side of the cliff. In order to avoid falling off either side we have to be self-regulated according to standards of behavior that seek not only our well-being but the well-being of everyone else. We have to strongly defend our own perspective without seeking to dominate others or take away their own right to defend their perspective. We have to appreciate diversity of talents and abilities and approaches under a common moral and religious worldview and a shared commitment to obedience to the same standards that everyone is under and no one is exempt from. This is a difficult balance to maintain.

And it is that balance that determines whether we can avoid the pitfalls of either tyranny or anarchy. Constitutional government requires a self-disciplined and moral people that is sufficiently concerned about other people to engage in the larger community, build strong families, and support a broad base of institutions. Where either selfishness or laziness runs rampant, there will be a failure to fulfill the personal responsibility that is the foundation of any just social order. Public virtue depends on private virtue, and where private virtue in the body of the citizenry is lacking, there will be no virtuous people to serve in public office in any institutions. And that public and private virtue includes both of the two Great Commandments, which must be freely chosen and practiced, since virtue cannot be coerced. Where there is insufficient virtue, powerful governments will try to enforce continence, and will end up enforcing some mixture of good and evil.

There are many aspects of private virtue that relate to private virtue in complicated ways. Thomas Jefferson’s lack of private virtue regarding slavery and debt had contradictory results on his own public virtue. His dependency on slavery to attempt to right his economic position undermined his moral commitment to freedom and made him badly temporize regarding slavery, showing the tragic pull of private vice and injustice on the fate of societies and nations and civilizations. On the other hand, Jefferson’s experience with private debt (an experience shared by many in our society today) led him to seek private virtue in avoiding debt for the United States as a whole. Clearly, our present society lacks a great deal of fiscal discipline either within our own conduct or for the society at large. Quite honestly, I know of nothing short of divine intervention that would solve our intractable problems, and yet we do not face them willingly, recognizing both that we have obligations to the elderly and needy and that we cannot afford to pay for those obligations. What are we going to do about it?

We need to understand that as much as political philosophy seems to be an arcane subject of no personal relevance, it makes a great deal of difference. What is our attitude towards preserving moral and physical infrastructure? Do we think that government can replace the family? Do we think that businessmen would behave ethically toward customers and their employees in the absence of government regulation? Do we believe that opportunity is or should be available for all? Do we believe that there are no victimless sins or crimes? Do we believe that we have an obligation as people to set a good example for the world, and as a society to set a good example for a candid world? Our beliefs will shape our behavior, and we would do well to pay attention to our own beliefs and our assumptions of other people as we seek to keep on the narrow road between two cliffs, to avoid the false dilemmas placed before our eyes while there is time to arrest our path to self-distraction.