Even if you are a good person, even if you want to get along with
everyone, you should still have enemies. Of course, this injunction may
seem immoral. After all, wouldn’t it be better to preach a political
doctrine of universal brotherhood?
Although it may seem like a good thing, the doctrine of universal
brotherhood in practice often leads to tyranny and war. This is because
utopian ideas typically produce the opposite of what they intend. In
reality, all men are not suitable objects of brotherhood. Brotherhood,
in fact, is a special relationship. To paraphrase Aristotle: If all men
were brothers, then brotherhood would be meaningless.
In reality, the world is populated by the good, the bad and the
indifferent. Every human heart, of course, has bad impulses. But as a
general rule: some men are committed to doing the right thing, however
imperfectly, and others are committed to serving themselves at the
expense of society. This fact can be seen in daily life and is
especially obvious in politics.
A bad human being, in the name of getting what he wants, will exploit
the goodness and the trust of others. Such people are secretly at war
with their neighbors. They smile and make promises, but they are
villains. It is best to avoid such people in daily life. In politics
such evasion is impossible.
Youth and inexperience are vulnerable to the wolf in sheep’s
clothing. Eventually we learn that some people, with a pretense of
friendship, will always attempt to take advantage of us. It seems that
a battle of wits is always being fought. It is a battle for position,
for money and sometimes for love. In politics this battle is fought
between factions and parties, nations and ideologies. Sometimes it is
not a case of the “good side” versus the “bad side.” Sometimes the good
side itself is tainted. Bad conduct is, after all, quite natural.
Therefore, the good man must be on guard not only against the bad man,
but against himself. As Epictetus said: “If you would be good, first
believe that you are bad.”
Those who achieve good results in politics know that human nature is
corrupt. Our Founding Fathers were pessimistic about the “goodness of
mankind.” They knew that unchecked power tends to corrupt those who hold
it. Therefore, power must be limited. That is why our government was
fashioned, originally, as a system of checks and balances.
Think of it like this: a good man restrains himself and a good
government has self-restraint built into it. On the other side of the
equation, a bad man does not restrain himself and a bad government
observes no rule of limitation. From this it also follows that bad men
instinctively seek to extend the power of government, while good men
seek to limit this power. Therefore, under republican government, there
is an unwritten law of enmity between those who seek to break the system
of limitation and those who uphold it.
This fact brings us to a surprising conclusion. Because of the
realities of human nature, enmity is the basis of republican
government. Through a system of opposing powers, republicanism
obligates men to oppose one another and to check one another’s
appetites. This is a realistic system, which has survived the test of
time. It is based on the realization that enemies cannot be avoided,
that universal brotherhood exists only in the utopian imagination.
Raving idealists, determined to establish universal brotherhood
through political revolution or lamentable reforms, naturally hate and
despise republican government as “obstructionist.” Robespierre and Lenin
had this in common. They attempted to use political power to make a
better world. In doing this they brought hell on earth. In reaching
for a world without enmity, and a world without war, Robespierre and
Lenin produced the “Reign of Terror” and the Soviet gulag.
It seems that political idealists are the last to suspect themselves.
Since bad people are at work in politics, since their values are in
conflict with the public welfare and right conduct, we are obligated to
oppose them and the policies they engineer. In the conflict between
right and wrong, neutrality is not an option. “Neutrals are doused from
above and singed from below,” says a German proverb. And there is a
Latin proverb which says: “He hurts the good who spares the bad.”
If we mean to do what is right, if we want to live in a better world,
then we must know how to attack the bad and defend the good. We must
understand that a system of limitation is the principal good in
politics. Defending freedom means defending a system of limitations.
Attacking totalitarian ambition means attacking the double-headed dragon
of universal brotherhood and pacifism. We must know how to be an enemy
through self limitation and the limitation of others. To be harmless,
to seek universal cooperation rather than systematic opposition, is to
relinquish the republican system created by the Founding Fathers.
As our civilization has passed into a period of moral decline, as the
number of bad men continues to grow, it becomes increasingly difficult
and dangerous to maintain our system of checks and balances. Since bad
men hate everything that restrains them, they must also hate the very
principles of limited government. As a rule, those who have overthrown
republican government in the past have been models of licentious
conduct. Julius Caesar, who overthrew the Roman Republic, was described
sarcastically by the poet Catullus as a “noble pederast.” Today we have
a president whose licentious conduct is publicly acknowledged.
Are we nearing the end of the republic?
Some observers believe that we have reached a point of no return.
Our best leaders are hobbled in their opposition because their own
conduct is questionable. This is the curse of the conservatives — the
problem of imperfect men in a battle against less perfect men. The
party of license, the party of rebellion and immorality, cannot be
accused of hypocrisy because it believes that morality is found in
socialism — not in personal behavior.
We had the spectacle, a year ago, of a presidential impeachment. In
that process, lamentable as it was, we saw the successive departure of
two congressional leaders from the side advocating impeachment. Even
worse, we saw a famous pornographer openly threatening to expose
incidents of sexual misconduct by those attempting to curb the
president’s abuses.
The party opposed to self restraint and limited government knows how
to be an enemy. It pushes back the boundaries of acceptable behavior
for a reason. Every citizen who is tempted to experiment with the “new
morality” is thereby compromised, neutralized and defeated. Seduction
itself has become a weapon in the hands of ambitious demagogues, social
engineers and closet totalitarians.
Our republican system of political limitation cannot survive without
the self restraint of the individual. If we expect to uphold the
Constitution, if we expect to avoid a totalitarian state, our first
weapon is self control. It is true, of course, that we cannot be
perfect. Hypocrisy comes with the territory. But this should not deter
us. Limitation is not invalidated by human weakness. Human weakness,
in fact, is the reason that limited government should be defended.
