The New Way Forward: A 21st Century Enlightenment

Alec Rampe

2

Suddenly you’re jolted awake by the sound of a song that still hasn’t completely left your

head from the day before. You scurry to find your phone in the pile of blankets and pillows in

hopes that you can somehow manage to turn off your alarm and squeeze out five or ten more

minutes of rest before you are forced into the start of your day. The city outside has other ideas.

As soon as the peaceful tranquility of sleep is broken, you are suddenly surrounded by the

sounds of cars starting, stopping, and drivers laying on their horns. You hear people yelling

outside your window and you hear the trash collector plodding along on his weekly routine.

Suddenly, a feeling of complacency creeps over you when you realize that there is no going back

to sleep and it is time to get a shower and start your day. In an effort to escape work, you turn on

the TV and unfortunately the latest news appears on the screen talking about the same divisive

topics as the day before and the day before that. Simply turning it off is the best option, but by

now you realize it’s inescapable. Your phone has five different CNN alerts, none of which means

much to you anymore. You check Facebook or Twitter in hopes that it might provide some

comic relief. It doesn’t. Finally, you settle on a bowl of cereal and a good book. After enjoying

that little bit of peace, you close your book, put away your dishes, pick up your bag and walk to

the door. On the other side lies a world that seems so different, and infinitely more complex, than

the small town you grew up in. Welcome to the Noise.

I struggle to think about how the Founding Fathers of this nation would have interpreted

what their society has evolved into. It’s obvious that they could have had no way to foresee the

amazing technological advances that we have discovered over the country’s 240 year history.

But what would they have thought of us as people, as individuals? How would they have viewed

things that we have grown so accustomed to, like 24 hour news, social media, and how we

3

interact with one another on a day-to-day basis? How would they react to having an economy

that is run off of digits more than physical assets? There are so many developments that could

not have been comprehensible at the time of the declaration of our independence from the British

Empire. In light of everything that is going on around us, it is hard not to think that if our story

had been written in 1776 it would have a highly dystopian essence to it. Is that true though?

Have we really deviated so far from the course laid out for us by our Constitution that those who

wrote it would not approve of where we ended up? These are all very important questions to

contemplate when attempting to forge a new way forward.

The Founding Fathers and our very government are in no small way products of the

Enlightenment era that swept across Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries. The evidence is clearly

present in the words of our founding documents. The Declaration of Independence, The

Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, the personal writings of Thomas Jefferson

and Thomas Paine, and so many more. “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are

created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among

these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” “But when a long train of abuses and

usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces as design to reduce them under

absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to

provide new Guards for their future security.” The words of the Preamble of the Constitution

still ring out, “We the People of the United States.” These documents prove that our nation was

founded on an idea that, to this day, remains an experiment in a new type of freedom. That idea

was a product of the Enlightenment society in which it was written, but it was also a product of

the wisdom and experience of all of human history. Now, as we seemingly move progressively

away, whether for better or for worse, from those founding ideas, it is being asked if we need our

4

own new Enlightenment to understand this entirely new society in which we live and to chart the

path moving forward, if we need to revisit those revolutionary ideas and incorporate them into

our own, fast paced, civilization in hopes of providing a more stable and secure future. My

answer to that is no. Though there were some vital ideas about science, politics, and humanity

that came out of the Enlightenment, there also were deficiencies and blind spots that must be

taken into account. Mankind has already seen its Enlightenment, and if you simply take the time

to observe the world around you, you will realize that there is no going back. It is important now

that we learn from that period, both from its successes and its failures. More than just reiterating

old ideas, it is important that we come together and analyze our own society and, rather than

creating a “Second Enlightenment”, use the ideas of the Enlightenment such as reason,

individualism, and skepticism, while also taking into account the negative effects of those ideas,

in order to create our own path forward.

Creating the New Path Forward:

To create this path, we must first discover how to have open and honest dialogue at all

levels of society, something that we clearly have lost over time. One major flaw in the

Enlightenment that critics point to is the fact that it was so heavily aristocratic and the opinions

of the few were supposed to define the society made up of so many. There was a sharp pushback

by 18th and 19th century Romantics against this aristocratic mindset, and an attempt to try to

refocus on the value of the individual. The creation of the scientific method was a profound

discovery and led men like Newton to define the world of science in a revolutionary way. That

same scientific method was then applied to humans in an effort to try to analyze and perfect

society. This created a major problem because, as history has shown, humans are not as

predictable as natural events, plants, or animals. We are complex and have a mixture of reason

5

and emotion that makes us harder to evaluate and much less predictable. The Enlightenment

thinkers grossly underestimated the complexity of the human condition and overvalued their

ability to set strict patterns of human behavior regardless of culture, geographic location, or

historical precedence. To account effectively for this flaw we have to bring as many perspectives

as possible into the discourse.

The greatness of men like Thomas Hobbes is that they presented opinions very different

from what was seen before them. Not everyone agreed with Hobbes’s opinions, and rightfully so,

but they were distributed in Western Europe and sparked debate. To take his views and translate

them into a workable government would have been naïve and impractical, but it forced people to

think about human nature and government in a new and more holistic way and participate in

debate. For that he was a great friend of progress. It seems today that that spirit of honest debate

is dying and the opinions of the few once again rule the day. As citizens we have access to social

media and 24 hour news, all of which are presenting other people’s opinions and give us no

opportunity to create our own. The media, at their core, will always be part of the entertainment

industry and as a part of the capitalist market, they are always competing for viewership. That

means that they are not above the use of propaganda and marketing techniques to play on the

audience’s minds and hearts to draw them in. This is great for the industry, but certainly does not

promote the objective presentation of facts to a wide audience, in hopes that they will form their

own opinions on any given issue. The result is a nationwide effort of persuasion to one side of

the political spectrum or the other. Not only that, but most arguments made are not meant to

appeal to the rational side of the individual, but instead to his or her emotion. Tying argument to

emotion can heavily alter a person’s views on a topic and create a sense of moral superiority. If

one side is deemed morally superior, the other side is then demonized for not sharing that same

6

sentiment, even if their goals are the same and they are just promoting a different route to get

there. When this occurs, any intellectual conversation breaks down and the goal becomes to

defeat each other rather than arrive at a compromised, more complete solution. In his book

Vision of the Anointed Thomas Sowell calls this the “individual trump card”. This describes a

situation where the protection of the single individual, someone with whom we have formed

emotional ties, trumps any action that would disadvantage that individual, even if it would be a

step forward for society. The individual trump card allows the minority to hold the majority

hostage and halt any legislation until it has emotional appeal as opposed to strictly a logical

appeal.

To combat the highly sensationalized rhetoric that fuels our decision making, we must

first come together as one nation and move forward together. John Dewey, a founding father of

American Education and an ardent supporter of the Democratic process, said that this democracy

must be based on a “fully formed public opinion based on the communication among citizens,

experts, and politicians.” First and foremost, to get to this idea of democracy, we as citizens,

need to be able to see through petty bias and, instead of looking for ulterior motives, trust that the

majority of the people want the same thing, but that their experience lead them to disagree on the

way to get there. We also need to become more engaged in the process. Being an active citizen

within a community, a state, or a nation should not just be a right, it should be an obligation. This

idea of active citizenship is being lost. We see many people willing to take advantage of the mass

media outlets to voice their opinion, but the extent to which they are willing to go to change

anything, or even think deeply past the superficial layer of any given issue, is minimal. A great

example of this is the protests of Colin Kaepernick, who was voicing complaints about a real

issue within society, using the TV time he is awarded as an NFL quarterback. He is willing to

7

make a point while he plays football for a living, but has never even registered to vote. This is

just one example that shows not only his hypocrisy, but it undermines discussion of the issue of

police brutality as a whole, so the nation is left further divided and honest conversation becomes

impossible.

The Founders of our nation saw the division and disagreement coming because they had

an extraordinary amount of disagreement among themselves. To combat this they created a

government which allowed for substantial change to happen only slowly, taking into account as

many views as possible. However, when any decision was finally made, it would be the majority

that would win out, but the minority was still guaranteed its rights, including its right to continue

to push their own cause forward. We could benefit greatly by returning to the Enlightenment

appeal to reason, deep thought, and adhering to the designed structures under which this debate

was meant to take place.

As I mentioned however, one area in which the Enlightenment thinkers were proven to

have been blind is in the case of who would be taking part in this rational discourse. Edmund

Burke, someone who both embraced some and rebuked other Enlightenment ideas, wanted the

discourse to play out among the aristocracy. He believed that there was a certain class of men

well trained enough to handle such a complex conversation. I don’t think that leaving legislating

to those with skills in that area would be something that Dewey would have disagreed with, but

we have seen time and time again that the masses will push back if they feel that they are being

taken advantage of by this “thinking class”. Also, the sheer complexity of our modern

civilization is too much for any one man or even one group to understand. That is why

perspective may be the most important element needed to improve society. Even the smartest

people on earth will tell you that their skill set is limited. One cannot hope to know everything

8

about all subjects and even those that specialize in a certain subject have a tendency to disagree.

This problem is only becoming more apparent when specialization is being stressed and people

are learning “more and more about less and less”. This is why no one’s perspective can be

completely discounted, especially in a society as diverse as our own. We, as humans are capable

of some degree of empathy, but in reality we are not very good at it. We must be willing to listen

openly and honestly, without emotional bias, and have constructive conversation among all

classes of citizens if we want to come together to build a better society.

So how does a nation seemingly so divided achieve this level of communication, come

together and move forward? What steps need to be taken so ensure a society where politicians

cannot take advantage of citizens, experts cannot take advantage of politicians, and citizens

cannot take advantage of experts? I think John Dewey was correct when he said that the secret

lies with public education. Thomas Sowell, whom I’ve already mentioned, has written several

articles openly condemning the public education system in the United States. Dr. Sowell believes

that educators are given cookie cutter standards that do not allow for students to think creatively

and constructively. He believes that schools are moving away from the traditional teaching of

rational thought, toward the more emotion based responses that we are seeing in public life. He

then backs this up with statistics that clearly show that Americans are falling behind foreign

students within our own universities. If students in school are not given the opportunity to

explore topics in a meaningful way, is it any wonder that they are unwilling and perhaps unable

to form a fully informed opinion about issues plaguing our nation? Though I admit that there are

people who do excel in academic fields, I refuse to believe that the average citizen is unable to

form cogent opinions for themselves because they are not “smart enough”. The truth is that our

public education system has horribly failed generations of Americans, by not giving children and

9

young adults the opportunity to think independently-- and instead has allowed them to think from

a single perspective, with little or no opposing views to challenge their thought. The schools then

compensate for this failure to promote critical thought by implementing redundant and

ineffective standardized testing methods, which are meant to assess academic standards but in

reality have proven to be counterproductive.

One of the great successes of the Enlightenment, and what defined the Enlightenment as

an actual historical epoch, is the fact that a few thinkers were willing to think about the world in

a new and creative way. Out of this came brilliant new ideas about government, education,

science, math, art, and music. Some of these ideas conflicted with one another, which makes it

hard to simply draw out a system of common values, but even the disagreements led to

innovation because the views were being debated constructively, using an appeal to reason. The

era was an intellectual revolution in that it was not focused solely on one area, but influenced

many different sectors of both the humanities and the sciences. It would be an enormous step for

our nation to once again promote this holistic style of learning and independent thought within

our schools. In this new era however, this must extend past the anointed few. As Dewey says, if

democracy is to thrive, all must be given the opportunity to participate in this type of education.

From a young age children must be forced to think for themselves and practice thinking critically

and creatively in order to form their own opinion because in this vast information age in which

we find ourselves in, it is far too easy to be manipulated by the noise. It is this manipulation that

is the beginning of the fall of a functional democratic government into its tyranny or anarchy.

The only way to return to a united front is to have a participating citizenry that is educated and

capable of having real substantial conversations that focus on similarities over differences and

respect the perspective that the other brings to the table. An individual does not need a college

10

degree to have a valuable perspective. Their experience should be respected. With that, the

expertise of those that do go for higher education also should be respected. There can be no

doubt that there will be disagreements and perhaps passionate disagreements, but the most

important factor in progress is communication. Hopefully, as in the Enlightenment,

disagreements may lead to more complete answers. This is the only way to return to the kind of

individual equality that the Enlightenment thinkers strived for and also subdue those that look to

eliminate this kind of individuality.

A major failure of education is its methods of teaching the humanities. Government

regulated systems like Common Core and STEM have been implemented as a way to

compensate for shortcomings in math and science, but the study of literature, philosophy, and

especially history have been left out. The positive value of these programs is that they have

brought to light the major flaws of having the federal government facilitate this massive

education programs, but really have provided minimal benefit other than that. There is simply

too much diversity and the needs of the kids in different locales are just too different. As for the

study of history in particular, I fear that, coming out of high school, students don’t fully

understand the importance of knowing and understanding the subject so they are far more likely

to simply disregard it, if they took anything away from it in the first place. Some teachers are so

concerned with class control that they are unable to teach a deeper meaning, others focus solely

on dates and names and do not reach that deeper meaning of the events. History may not impart a

technical skill like math and science, but its effects can be traced directly to the skills students

have to have in order to be a productive citizen. There is certainly a disconnect that occurs if

history is disregarded as meaningless, rather than the story of how we got to where we are in the

present. Something as simple as refocusing attention on Social Studies and how it is taught can

11

go a long way toward creating a more progressive society that better understands itself and is

able to move forward.

The Enlightenment thinkers certainly promoted the study of the humanities. Most of them

came to the conclusions that they did about the world based on a deep understanding of history

and philosophy, and were able to articulate their views effectively because they were highly

trained in literature. However, how they viewed history varied by the thinker. Some thought of

themselves as revolutionaries, meaning, if their ideas had only been applied at an earlier date,

those societies would have avoided collapse. Others, like Burke and Montesquieu, believed

themselves to be a product of history. Everything that they had come to know was a product of

the collective experience of those that came before them. This is an important distinction, even in

today’s world. Revisionist history can be lethal to progress because it goes back in history from

the perspective of the 21st century and assigns the role of “good guys’ and “bad guys”. One

notable piece of literature that has the potential to provide a great benefit for society and to cause

great harm is Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. This book takes an

alternative look at American history and casts the actions of the nation in a very negative light

from Christopher Columbus to the Bush administration. This is an important resource that cannot

be disregarded. Without knowing the flaws in our own society there is no way we can progress.

However, when people read something like Zinn’s story that seems to vilify the actions of the

nation, the very idea of our nation is discredited, along with all of the progress made in its 240

year history. The mistakes of the past are being brought up continually to justify viewpoints of

the present, without knowledge of the context in which the mistakes were made. The

perspectives discussed in Zinn’s book play a major part in forging the path forward and should

be presented to students so they are able to learn about the past as it actually was, not how we

12

want it to be. However, we must keep these criticisms from completely discrediting the system

as a whole, and we must look at both the positives and the negatives of our nation’s history with

an eye to the future. If we either romanticize or demonize the past, we will be unable to use it as

a tool for progress. This was the message of Edmund Burke and it is one that certainly can be

applied in our own time. In conclusion, in order to begin to move forward we must first come

together for honest conversation. This conversation must be based on reason, which must be

stressed in our schools and the humanities must not be allowed to slip through the cracks because

they are vital to creating a more informed and active citizenry.

Applying the New Path Forward:

As he was stumbling out of Independence Hall, at the close of the Constitutional

Convention in 1789, the 83 year old Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of Government had

been formed, a republic or a monarchy. Franklin replied, “A republic, if we can keep it.” This

was a display of incredible foresight on the part of Benjamin Franklin. It was almost if he knew

the trials that would plague the new nation and its experimental system of government. Through

our history books we know well these trials and how they have affected us. As Franklin inferred,

the first step to progress is creating an environment that is suitable to sustain the progress.

Through the open communication of informed opinions by an actively involved public, the goal

of sustainability will be achieved. The Founding Fathers of the United States applied their

collective knowledge to the society that they saw around them. Now it is time for us to do the

same. To do this we must look at some of the specific issues that the thinkers in the

Enlightenment addressed and see how we can use their opinions to help continue on our own

path to progress.

13

The first, and probably the most impactful, development of the Enlightenment period was

the birth of what we now refer to as modern political thought. Men like Montesquieu, Burke,

Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, and Thomas Hobbes helped develop political systems that defined

the West in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries. Their writings also led to the development of

counter arguments and other critiques from the likes of Rousseau, Charles Fourier, Robert Owen,

Karl Marx, and Friedrich Nietzsche. Certainly there are good qualities of government that came

out of the Enlightenment, but these supposed “enemies” of the Enlightenment may give insight

into the blind spots. By analyzing both, we may be able to come to a conclusion on a way

forward.

The most fundamental issue as it pertains to government is establishing who has control.

This is something that the Enlightenment thinkers disagreed on. Depending on their views on

human nature, natural laws, and natural rights, the Enlightenment thinkers would propose a

number of variations on Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy. Most also admitted that there

was not one template that could be applied to all societies and that a government should be

developed within a society that would best serve the majority of its citizens. They were highly

focused on maintaining the rights and freedoms of the individual, but disagreed on how this

would manifest itself in government. John Locke believed in unalienable rights given to humans

at birth and that it is the primary responsibility of the government to protect those rights. The

genius of Adam Smith was that he saw politics and the economy not as two separate spheres, but

interconnected invisible spheres that manifest themselves through the individual. He believed

this meant that a healthy economic life will positively affect the political life, just as a negative

economic system will negatively affect the politics of a nation. Men like Montesquieu and

Jeremy Bentham believed that it was a solid foundation of laws that ultimately would provide

14

equality and freedom within a society. On the opposite side Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Karl

Marx were appalled by the social inequality seen in these new modern societies and created their

own counter Enlightenment ideas on how to address the flaws.

By no means was there a single conclusion reached and, as Rousseau points out, no

perfect government has been created. Any system that has been created has failed. However, as

21st century observers we have the opportunities to review the successes and unintended

consequences of governments based on all of these different theories. One thing that can be

concluded is that, though it is not perfect, the United States Constitution has held up against a

great deal of adversity. That is a credit to the many different Enlightenment theories that are

incorporated into it, such as the rule of law, separation of powers, rule by the one, the few, and

the many, and the protection of the rights of the individual. But there are some pressing issues

within the United States that threaten this tradition. We now have the opportunity to

reincorporate some of the Enlightenment ideas into our society, while adjusting for the blind

spots made apparent by time. We can also incorporate some of the legitimate insights of the anti-

Enlightenment thinkers.

One of the most prominent threats—and it is a dangerous effect of the highly polarized

and emotional rhetoric of our time-- is the idea of groupthink. In this scenario, rather than

creating their own opinion and demanding that it be heard, people conform to a system of beliefs

that they feel compelled to uphold. Out of this we have our political parties. Because of

groupthink we see people who are willing to compromise their values and their beliefs on certain

issues so that they align with one of the major political parties, believing that their party will

have the best opportunity of enacting positive change. This may very well be true, since it is hard

to get a political agenda pushed without widespread support. The dark side of this is that it

15

politicizes almost every facet of public life and creates a deep divide within a society. George

Washington warned about the dangers of this when he said

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in

the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and

unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves

the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust

dominion.”

This is incredible, and almost prophetic, foresight by our first president as he was seeing this

division emerge within his own cabinet because of the sharp differences in opinion between

Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. I cannot think of any greater enemy to the values of

the Enlightenment than this system of politics. In the two party system we are witnessing a

gradual decay of the spirit of Constitutionalism into an American Oligarchy, highlighted by the

election that we just witnessed. If we settle for the lesser of two evils consistently, our society is

doomed, because we will never have the kind of leadership that is so important in a functioning

society, and because we citizens are ill equipped to demand a higher standard for leadership.

The polarization of the society is not a new phenomenon, but it seems that the gap is

widening. How do we break down the walls of groupthink? The first thing we all need to do is

acknowledge it and begin to think independently, based on our own world views, and participate

in government based on those views, not based on an obligation to a pre set package of beliefs.

Our Constitutional system was design to prevent the deterioration of our government. Leaders

have made irrational decisions in the past, but our country has moved forward because the

system was designed to continue to move forward, while limiting the damage of incompetent

16

leadership. We must continue to abide by the values of the American Constitution. An example

of how this may be slipping away is the opinion of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in NFIB v Sebelius. In

this case, involving the individual mandate to obtain healthcare, she took the opinion of the

court, given by Justice Roberts, to the next level by saying that the federal government had the

right to force individuals under the commerce clause into the market for healthcare. This is a

huge expansion of government power that could be used in ways neither we, nor Justice

Ginsburg, can imagine. Aside from Justice Ginsburg’s more extreme position, the majority

opinion in this case gave the Executive Branch the ability to put a “tax”, which in the original

legislation was labeled a penalty, on any states that were unwilling to comply with the

legislation. This case was decided in the context of healthcare, in an administration that was

favorable to Justice Ginsburg. Now as we usher in a new administration, we are seeing a very

similarly structured “tax” against sanctuary cities. The politics of the Supreme Court would

suggest that those same justices who were in favor of the tax in the instance of healthcare will

not maintain their views as it pertains to a tax on sanctuary cities. The two party politics is

clearly killing the spirit of the Constitution, which was meant to be interpreted above political

influence, and the spirit of the Enlightenment ideas about individual liberty and the rule of law.

We the people must be able to see the deterioration and demand more of our government,

rather than passively watch our liberties slip away from us. To do this we also must not get

sucked into the politics of partisanship that George Washington saw as so deadly to our national

health. In an effort to try to move past the politics I think it is important in the first instance to

realize that the political spectrum is not set in a straight line. We have fears about the “far left”

and the “far right”, but in reality communism and fascism aren’t polar opposites. The spectrum is

instead circular, with both extremes meeting at totalitarianism. Moderation is at the antithesis on

17

the opposite side of the circle. Along with understanding this concept, we must understand that,

as humans, we are incapable of forming a perfect society. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize

winning economist and proponent of capitalism, makes this very clear. He does not believe

capitalism, or our own system of government for that matter, is perfect. He simply believes that

it is the best way to enhance the welfare of the majority. In today’s political scene we seem to be

riveted by the mistaken notion that government can bring us into a utopia.

This Utopian image is something that I think the Enlightenment thinkers underestimated,

because they did not take fully into account the emotions that always are at work within a

society. This is something that Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche tapped into. Karl Marx wrote

about the alienation caused by the capitalist market. He believed that this system alienated the

individual from the product he was producing, alienated him from his own labor, alienated him

from himself, alienated him from mankind, and alienated him from nature. He believed that

greed took away all meaning of life for those in a capitalist society and that the only way to

achieve a more perfect human society is to eliminate competition and bring class struggle to an

end. This exposed one major blind spot of the enlightenment, especially after British capitalism

had grown such a reputation for brutality, especially in India, South Africa, and the Far East. On

the opposite side of the spectrum was Nietzsche, who believed that this competition was a

natural occurrence and could not be stopped and that a form of “survival of the fittest” mentality

should be applied to government. With this he put forth his “superman” theory that stated

individuals will come along that will transcend good and evil and seize control. He believed that

these individuals should be completely above the law and should be able to rule as they see fit.

It is easy to see how the blind spots of the Enlightenment were exploited and people

bought into these ideas because there was an emotional connection to either the spirit of equality

18

or the spirit of competition. However, these theories also had their blind spots. Rousseau

believed that societal institutions themselves played the largest role in the corruption of society.

In a communist system, the federal government becomes the ultimate facilitator of equality and,

as we saw with the rise and fall of the Soviet Union, that state is highly susceptible to corruption,

at the expense of the general public. We saw Nietzsche’s theories play out with another

emotional response that I don’t think the Enlightenment thinkers saw coming, extreme

nationalism. As opposed to the “left wing” ideas of open borders and a perfectly equal world,

nationalism aimed to close the borders and perfect the society of the nation itself. This took place

in the second half of the 19th century in Britain, where they began to assert more centralized rule

over their many colonies. With this they ushered in British governing practices and accepted

nothing less than total compliance from their colonies. In many ways the British government

looked past the unique culture of each of their colonies and tried to force the European system

into cultures that were not hospitable to it. This ended in oppression, then bloody riot and

revolution. The most extreme example of “right wing nationalism” was seen in Nazi Germany.

In the Nazi state, the people, the government, and the land itself were all inseparably connected.

Adolf Hitler was a reflection of this connection. The Nazi state was seen as a living organism

and every action taken was done so to improve the health of the German state, including the

purification of the German population by killing 6 million Jews. Communism and Fascism are

two supposedly opposite ideologies that arrived at the strikingly similar conclusion of

authoritarianism.

We are in a situation in which we are letting a pendulum swing from the extreme right to

the extreme left and back again in our society. Each time it is getting closer and closer to the

climax of totalitarianism, no matter which route it takes. To combat this we must reassess the

19

values of the Enlightenment in order to account for these new ideologies that have developed in

the 18th through the 21st century. One key difference between our world and the Enlightenment

period is that the primary focus of government in the Enlightenment era was on negative liberty,

or protecting the individual from harm or totalitarianism. Our world is now shifting to a focus on

positive liberty, which is the right to things like education, healthcare, etc, rather than from

tyranny. This is done with the best of intentions; all of us want to live in a more affluent society.

But the cost of this is giving more and more power to a central authority. This is dangerous

territory because we are creating a leviathan in government that may be intended for good but,

just as Justice Ginsburg is now realizing, when an individual that doesn’t share your values gets

to run the machine you may rue the outcome. This is something that the Founding Fathers took

into account when they created the Constitution, and it is an idea that gave us the stability that

France has never enjoyed after their enlightened Revolution. It would be in our own best interest

to return to the era of skepticism seen in the Enlightenment. Be skeptical of the government and

its ability and efficiency in proactively creating change. Be skeptical of all institutions, whether

political or economic, and push back against corruption. We must learn from the Enlightenment

thinkers and embrace the human emotions like the desire for equality or a sense of national pride

because they can be highly productive. However, we also must be skeptical of the emotions,

knowing that they are more likely to lead us to extremes, like the desire for utopia. In reality, as

imperfect humans, we are incapable of utopia, so any effort made with that in mind just leads to

the creation of the dystopian society that we all fear. As Milton Friedman said, “A society that

puts equality before freedom will get neither, a society that puts freedom before equality will get

a high degree of both.” We must honor the processes that have been laid out for us and

understand the reason that governing was made so complex. Above all, we, as citizens, must take

20

the responsibility on ourselves to reassert the primacy of public opinion in governing, in a

reasonable and productive way. We cannot allow the problems created by a modern and complex

world us to cause us to slip into tyranny because of short sighted decisions and emotional

responses.

Another issue that many of the Enlightenment thinkers wrestled with is religion. Many of

them disagreed on what role religion should play within a society. One fact remains true, that

religion has always played a role in civilization and always will. Like politics and the economy,

religion is a third indivisible force that is acting on the individual and does so in a variety of

ways. The disagreement and inability to settle on one consistent set of beliefs is a large reason

why it is hard to come to an agreement on what role it should play in society. One popular belief

system that came out of the Enlightenment was the religion of Deism. In this system, there is a

creator, but he does not play a substantial intervening role on earth, so it is not as important to

incorporate strictly religious beliefs into secular policy. It’s pretty easy to see why this would be

a favorable viewpoint at the time. Throughout the entire history of the Western world, after the

fall of the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church had played a major role in the secular policy of

the nation states. Even after the rise of the Protestants, religion was a major factor in decision

making. As with any institution, institutionalized religion was susceptible to corruption and often

affected the nation states negatively because they were forced to submit to the over arching goals

of the Church, or risk being put at a severe disadvantage within the Christian world. It was the

Enlightenment thinker’s study of history that allowed them to see the potential flaws within a

theocracy. However, the Enlightenment thinkers underestimated the emotional connection that

individuals had to religion and the possible effects of a society that focuses solely on logic, while

disregarding moral reasoning that was based in an individual’s religion.

21

Though they had different ideas about the role it should play, it is safe to say that the

Enlightenment brought to light some of the flaws in relying on religion to solve secular

problems. However, Marx and Nietzsche took this to the extreme and presented a vision of a

completely godless society. Marx hoped to achieve a perfectly equal society that would

ultimately render religion useless. He believed that religion actually helped to maintain the class

structures plaguing society in his time. Nietzsche, on the other hand, looked to create a radical

nationalist state in which the state itself became the religion, and the superman that rose to lead

the state would be seen as the God figure. Both these ideas are highly dystopian, but what role

should religion play? Edmund Burke believed that institutionalized religion could serve as a

countervailing force to the economic and political institutions, which may in some ways be true.

However, as Rousseau believed, if a corrupt institution was meant to counteract another corrupt

institution, it would just lead to a more tyrannical society. This was certainly seen in the

theocratic nature of the Catholic Church. It is now being seen in the modern theocracies based

around Islamic extremism. As this intense religious movement of Islamism is happening in the

Middle East, our nation is moving progressively away from religiosity and focuses more on

social justice, rather than moral justice. There are clear issues with religion acting as the law

within a society, but what purpose does eliminating religion completely serve? History has

shown that it is an inevitable force that acts on the individual’s decision making process. In this

sense it does act as a counter balance to all of the noise going on in the world, but not at an

institutional level, instead it is at an individual level. If religion is completely eliminated from

society, and this counter balance is lost, what is stopping people from pursuing their own self

interests with no regard for morality or the common good? Also, what is stopping people from

filling the void left by a godless society with earthly god figures? This idea has profound

22

ramifications. Our nation was founded on the idea of freedom of religion and the tradition must

be kept in order to promote a more morally just society. Just as those that choose to be atheist

should not immediately be labeled immoral, those that openly practice their religion should not

be labeled fundamentalists. Institutions of religion that were given political power have

traditionally played a harmful role in society, but personal religion can lead to better citizens and

a better functioning society, so it should be embraced rather than criticized.

Another pressing issue within our society is the problems associated with social class and

diversity. This is something that Enlightenment thinkers wrote about, but there is no way that

they could have imagined a nation so diverse as the United States. For this reason, it is important

that we think in a new way, appropriate for a new era, rather than returning to old ways of

thinking about race, gender, income inequality, etc. This truly is one of the most divisive topics

in the present and one that threatens to cripple our nation from the inside. There is a feeling of

total disconnect among different groups of citizens and the leaders that are supposed to be

representing them. Drawing racial lines is the ultimate form of groupthink because there is a set

system of beliefs that people are supposed to buy into and anyone who disagrees is not

questioned or debated in a rational way, but instead is labeled an enemy and cast out. There is no

doubt that it is a highly emotional topic, but in the tribal nature of the discourse, on all sides,

perspective is thrown away and honest dialogue collapses.

The Enlightenment stressed the importance of granting fundamental rights to all men. We

know that at the time, this mostly meant land owning white men, which was simply a product of

the times. Now, there is a tendency to discredit everything being put forth by previous

generations, because it was written in a “racist era”. This makes using the past as a tool to move

forward impossible, because to matter how much research you do, it all took place in a “racist

23

era” so it should be discredited. This is nonsense and counterproductive. If this were true, then I

could just as easily discredit Martin Luther King Jr. because he plagiarized his PhD dissertation,

and while being a practicing Baptist reverend, had multiple extramarital affairs. Dr. King is and

should be remembered as one of the most important figures in United States history and a

champion of protecting the rights of all people but, as with all people, he was humans and he

made mistakes, that does not mean that his impact should be discredited. It is easy to go back in

history to discredit someone, in reality I could do it to anyone, but again, what’s the point? Over

time our society has made an effort to extend the Enlightenment ideas of individual rights past

the narrow scope of the 18th century. If however, our nation is expected to change history, then

the effort is lost, which will result in tyranny, either by the minority if government stands, or the

majority if government collapses. This is what leaders in the Black community such as Clarence

Thomas, Thomas Sowell, David Clarke, and many more are saying but it is falling on deaf ears

because of the increased level of emotion within the conversation, so the opposing viewpoint is

never even understood, let alone contemplated. The way forward is not to allow either side’s

ideology to rule. It is to create an environment where open conversation can happen and people

are given the opportunity to take personal responsibility for their own success or failure and not

look to “the system” as either an excuse or a crutch. Hopefully if we are able to come together

rather than become further divided, honest and productive leaders will arise and we will be able

to correct some of the racial blindness of the Enlightenment era. Thomas Sowell said,

“disagreements can be productive, while misunderstandings never are”. We are a nation that is

not communicating. We misunderstand other’s perspectives, especially on issues such as

diversity and social class. This must be corrected before we are able to move forward.

24

A final issue that we face that may be comparable to the time of the Enlightenment is the

emergence of new technology and how it should be incorporated into society. The Enlightenment

occurred on the heels of the Industrial revolution that vastly expanded the economies of the

major European powers. Europe suddenly was thrust into an era of economic success never

before seen. The Governments were forced to make changes in order to keep up. Britain in

particular struggled with this. In the beginning, monopolies such as the East India Company

ruled over large portions of the British Empire. This led to widespread exploitation of foreign

resources and workers, but also led to tremendous wealth for the British people. British citizens

were given land all over the world to use for the benefit of the industrial economy. However,

eventually the British government reasserted tighter control in these territories and broke up the

tyrannical monopolies, but they soon found that they were ill equipped to manage such a large

Empire from London. This resulted in what was essentially martial law across the world. The

effects of this policy were brutally felt by the native peoples. The return to direct political control

would eventually lead to the breaking apart of the British Empire.

These were clear signs that the technical innovations of the period were clearly outpacing

the rate at which government could adapt to handle such changes. This gap widened and, then

was closed quickly and aggressively by the government seizing control, the results were

disastrous. A similar enormous expansion of technology is occurring today. New technology is

emerging and is creating a world that our parents could not have imagined, let alone

Enlightenment thinkers. New medical technology is saving lives, new robotics technology is

making work more efficient, and Elon Musk, one of the greatest entrepreneurs on the planet and

someone who should be admired, is almost single handedly redefining the automobile industry.

If put into large scale production, Tesla’s Model 3, at a price of only $35,000, will represent the

25

largest shift in the automobile industry since Henry Ford. Unlike things like the atomic bomb and

the Apollo 11 mission, these innovations are coming from the private sector. The government did

put us on the moon, but Musk aims to put us on Mars. Not only is the technology being produced

making life easier on humans, but the business practices in Silicon Valley are revolutionizing the

way businesses operate. They are simply the best at fostering new, innovative, and creative ideas

because they transform their employees job into their employees passions.

It is exciting to think about all of the opportunity that is out there and I can’t even

imagine what innovations will come in my lifetime. However, the question should be posed, is

the private sector once again outrunning a government that is ill suited to keep up, and what steps

will the government take to regain control? Also, what are the correct ethical considerations

when it comes to technology? These are all very important questions and how we answer them

will have some very serious consequences. I don’t think the right answer is for the government to

absorb all of these innovative companies. The government has proven its ineffectiveness and

inefficiencies and would only stunt the growth created in a competitive market. However, they

must be able to enact some regulation or we risk technological advancement running out of

control and tyranny ensuing. Along with Stephan Hawkins and Steve Wozniak, Musk warned

against the dangers of the emerging reality of Artificial Intelligence. At an International Joint

Conference he stated, “The ethical dilemma of bestowing moral responsibilities on robots calls

for rigorous safety and preventative measures that are fail-safe, or the threats are too significant

to risk.” He, and other great thinkers like him, are in favor of promoting regulation of this new

progress simply because of the unknown ripple effects that the new technology will cause. This

seems like a sci fi movie, but it is all too real when you take into account that the military already

is using unmanned drones as a modern form of warfare.

26

The speculation of what may happen with the development of AI is endless, from the

collapse of human institutions, to oppressive control by a central power, to human population

control, to the end of economies as even an idea. The fact still remains that they are just that,

speculations. It is an incredible new world that we live in and one in which we are forced to face

enormous new and complex issues. We must be very cautious when diving into these new and

uncharted waters and focus on not letting the effects slip out of the control of humans or risk the

safety of human civilization. A simpler example of emerging new ideas is the concept of a

cashless society. It may seem like an efficient way to conduct an economy and may prevent any

black market dealing, but it also grants control of economic assets to a single body. The body

would then have complete control over the livelihood of the individuals. To move forward in the

safest and most stable way, we must appeal to reason and not let the spirit of innovation cloud

our judgment. There is a continued need for innovation, but there is also a need for complete

transparency. We must find a way to adapt to these new situations while keeping in mind what is

best for the people of our nation and the world. If that means drawing an ethical line in the sand

that cannot be crossed because we do not fully understand the ripple effect, then so be it. We

already have established how easy it is for the tyranny that we all fear to mask itself as

innovation.

I fully admit that I am not an expert on any of these subjects, or any subject for that

matter. I can only give my opinion in hopes that it will lead to honest discussion and debate. I

may be proven wrong and that’s okay. Disagreement can be productive. As a member of the

“thinking class” but most importantly as a citizen, it is my goal to encourage as many people as

possible to have this same debate. The route that I have chosen is in education, because that is

where I think that progress is to be found, but I encourage people in all professions, from all

27

walks of life, to share their opinions and partake in honest debate. I hope that in these

conversations there are more questions than statements. Open mindedness is the most important

factor in progress. I will work to teach kids how to understand, analyze, and learn from the

opinions of others. This may not spark the widespread intellectual revolution that was the

Enlightenment, but it will provide for a more stable future and prevent disagreements from

slipping into tyranny. The Enlightenment values of reason, individualism, and skepticism are still

very much an important part of progress. Now it is time that we come together and use them, as

well as the endless amounts of other wisdom and experience found in our history books, to forge

a new road forward.

28

Works Cited

"A Quote by Milton Friedman." Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.

"A Quote by George Washington." Goodreads. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.

Sainato, Michael. "Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates Warn About Artificial

Intelligence." Observer. N.p., 2015. Web. 22 Nov. 2016.

Sowell, Thomas. The Thomas Sowell Reader. New York: Basic, 2011. Print.

Sowell, Thomas. The Vision of the Anointed: Self-congratulation as a Basis for Social Policy.

New York: Basic, 1995. Print.

Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present. New York HarperCollins,

2003