Raymond Klassen – Ideals and Identities

If you look at the recent weeks of Donald Trump’s presidency, you will now be coming to terms with a radically different imaginary of what it means to live together. How does one understand and reconcile the seeming cross-pressures of the destruction of the administrative state that is underway in US domestic politics, with the contractualization of post-WW2 alliances that composed the international democratic world order? 

If you understand the domestic cross-pressures, you will see a vision of the administrative state that paints it as a matrix-like, totalitarian regime that is buttressed by elite liberal educated institutions, and technological giants like Google, Meta, Amazon and Apple that pushed a view of technocratic liberal society as achieving a narrow view of progress that benefited only the elite and under the mottoes of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). And Elon Musk’s gutting (and closing) of governmental departments makes sense in that imaginary that the very existence of DOGE (the Department of Governmental Efficiency) is to disembowel the administrative state. In that imaginary, the neo-liberal economic order with a progressive politics was actually like the movie depiction of The Matrix; people who were brought up in it didn’t even know that it existed, and these persons were subject to the unwitting control of the Matrix. I have pictured something very close to this in my depictions of Mass Society. Largely, there is a coup happening in domestic American politics, and those people who might consider themself on the political right might rejoice in cutting off such a totalitarian entity, even though it might only be a caricature.  For those that I know on that side of the spectrum, there has certainly been a liberation of speech, and an exhalation of a kind of laissez-faire attitude to issues of justice.

Not only have long-time domestic institutions started to undergo terminal political events but the poorly named “social contract” between the institution of government and the people of the United States has been severed. In the social contract, the government had some share in human thriving for Americans. That responsibility is now being off-loaded as unnecessary operational overhead – “negative externalities” to talk in business jargon. Technocratic rationality has outgrown its origins in business and economics and run amok: it now occupies the highest echelons of political life, and the deepest crevices of personal life.  

What were once homes to logics that aimed at the unconditional, are now being subsumed under the limitations of a contract. Covenantal relationships are now contractualized, e.g. when Trump has ushered in a bunch of Musk-led technocrats into the shared financial and identity-holding resources of American civil society. It is symbolized by USAID, forged during WW2 and before, which is now smelling a lot like the master-slave dialectic of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit. Some of the most trusted partnerships have also become transactional: Canada and the USA, America’s backing of European security, blustering about the acquisition of Greenland from Denmark, the turning of Gaza into a resort and the forthcoming annexation of the West Bank without acknowledging the agency of Palestinian people, the Panama Canal from its shared hinge point in global trade between the Atlantic and Pacific countries all have placed the very covenantal nature of international relationships under a contractual microscope. Such is the result of the most militarily powerful country turning back towards a seeming imperialism using authoritarian measures – an imperialism that doesn’t primarily grab land and minerals and resources (although it does that) but also challenges unconditionality as such.

As I had written before, the rapid reversal of course from unconditionality has the effect of psychologically overwhelming those people who practice covenants. We are overwhelmed because in every case what has been disregarded is the ability of an affected group to assert agency in situations that clearly concern them. In Panama and Greenland, it is the threat of domineering a country’s land; in Gaza and the West Bank it is even worse: it is the ethnic cleansing of an entire people to take away not only their agency, but their identity as a people; in Canada and Mexico, it is the rennegging of a relationship that was intended for mutual prosperity and security, and in Europe, it is removing the guarantee that backed democratic unity – and this, at the sacrifice of Ukrainian agency.

Agency is the key lynch-pin in all these moves – and thus, Trump’s moves as a president are now an attack on agency and its related concept of freedom, not just a freedom from encumbering relationships that limit, but also on the constitutive powers that these relationships fostered. The attack on these covenantal relationships – which housed not just this-or-that person’s agency, is an attack on agency as such. 

However, if we are to offer resistance to the coup attempt on both the administrative state and on the imaginary that agency is core to a meaningful life, we might consider pushing back on over-reach technological rationality. I invite you to follow me through the former categories of political right and left to discover that there is a mutual understanding of unconditionality that is valued over and above the technocratic rationality on offer by Trump. In other words, Republican / Democrat or conservative / liberal are actually only one side of a spectrum – whose polar opposite is a state of totalitarian control. If conservative and liberal are on the same side of the spectrum, then tyranny and totalitarianism are on the other.  

The Good Life: Different Visions for a Thriving Society

Recently, Donald Trump threatened 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, and 10% on China. This is in contradiction to overarching legal frameworks over economic issues such as the USMCA (formerly NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization. He has since paused those tariff threats, and threatened steel and aluminum tariffs. The principle that undergirded these agreements was a collaborative relationship, and not a competitive one; by working together for economic well-being, so the principle goes, we jointly increase our economic prosperity and our individual national security interests.

The reaction in Canada has been strong. Not only did the current Prime Minister of Canada announce retaliatory tariffs, but some of my most respected Canadian friends have also responded with a fervent Canadian patriotism that honestly, I would have to muster. After all, I have many American friends (some of whom are dual Canadian/American citizens), and just because Donald Trump wants the US to go it alone doesn’t entail that the lifelong friendships I have are now different. We have shared visions of the good life that are not distinctly Canadian or American. However, some of these friends do tend to prefer one version over another. And I see the value of both.

The point of this article is to articulate both such visions, and identify what is worth articulating and being explicit about. My belief is that both visions have something important to say about agency as such. The inherent aspirations of each view have their place in living authentic and fulfilling lives.

 
The pursuit of the “good life” has long been a central concern of political and philosophical thought. Both have something to say about agency and its character as addressing an underlying anxiety that we all must face, that we are only finite creatures. The good life is seen as an answer to this core existential worry: that we will die and our individual selves are not that important. We must, in some sense, transcend ourselves. We must enter into structures of being that are rooted in unconditionality.

Two dominant visions emerge in this discourse of the good life: the liberal view, which emphasizes collective well-being and shared responsibility, and the conservative view, which prioritizes individual character and personal accountability. While these perspectives may seem at odds, both offer valuable insights into how societies can thrive. Further, both offer important components in addressing our existential concerns. 

The liberal vision reminds us that systemic barriers and inequalities require collective solutions, while the conservative vision underscores the importance of personal responsibility and moral integrity. Together, they provide a more holistic understanding of what it means to create a just and prosperous society. They also both address the underlying existential anxiety of our own particular transient natures as persons.

However, integrating these visions is not without challenges. The liberal view often overemphasizes the role of government and institutions in addressing societal problems, sometimes neglecting the agency of individuals and pre-existing social groups – like religious-based charities. Conversely, the conservative view can assume that individuals, even when isolated or disadvantaged, bear sole responsibility for their circumstances, with religious-based charities being just that – a charity (and not an entitlement). Conservatives often overlook the systemic factors that shape their lives. To bridge this divide, we must recognize the role of “significant others”—families, communities, and institutions—in shaping individual lives and fostering collective well-being. By doing so, we can create a society that balances shared responsibility with personal accountability, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to thrive. 

Part 1 – The Liberal Vision of the Good Life: Thriving Together in a Just and Prosperous Society

In a world characterized by profound inequality, demographic diversity, and systemic barriers, the liberal view of the good life presents a compelling framework for societal progress. This vision is grounded in two core principles: first, that society should provide opportunities for all individuals, regardless of their background, to thrive; and second, that prosperity—distinct from mere economic wealth—should be equitably shared. These principles are not merely aspirational but represent a moral imperative in addressing systemic inequities and the collective suffering they engender. However, it focuses on those who are currently marginalized under the banner of EDI.

The Good Life: Beyond Individual Success
The liberal vision of the good life challenges the conventional notion of success as an individual achievement. Instead, it posits that true prosperity is collective and interdependent. A society cannot be considered truly prosperous if it allows entire communities to be left behind. This perspective is particularly relevant in the West, where increasing demographic diversity coexists with persistent systemic inequalities rooted in race, gender, class, and other identities.

For instance, disparities in access to quality education, healthcare, and housing illustrate the systemic barriers faced by marginalized communities. In the United States, Black and Latino communities often encounter structural obstacles that limit their access to these basic necessities. Similarly, Indigenous populations in Canada and Australia continue to grapple with the legacies of colonialism, which have left them disproportionately marginalized. These inequities are not relics of the past but ongoing realities that demand a collective response.

The liberal view insists that addressing these disparities is not merely an act of charity but a fundamental responsibility of society. It recognizes that the suffering of marginalized groups reflects broader systemic failures, necessitating systemic solutions. This perspective calls for a reimagining of prosperity—one that transcends GDP or stock market indices to include measures of well-being, equity, and inclusion. Perhaps the most understated of the EDI goals is diversity. Again, progress is pictured as primarily economically driven.

Prosperity as Shared Well-Being
Prosperity, in the liberal view, is, however, not synonymous with economic wealth. While economic growth is important, it is not an end in itself. True prosperity is about shared well-being: the ability of all individuals to live fulfilling lives, free from the burdens of poverty, discrimination, and exclusion. This vision of prosperity is inherently relational, recognizing that our well-being is interconnected.

Universal healthcare exemplifies this principle. In societies that value shared prosperity, healthcare is not a privilege reserved for the affluent but a right accessible to all. Countries like Sweden and Canada have embraced this approach, providing healthcare as a public good rather than a commodity. This not only improves individual well-being but also strengthens the social fabric by reducing disparities and fostering collective responsibility.

Similarly, the liberal vision emphasizes the importance of social safety nets, affordable housing, and accessible education. These are not mere policy preferences but essential components of a society that values the dignity and potential of every individual. By investing in these areas, according to this view, societies can create conditions where everyone has the opportunity to thrive, regardless of their starting point in life.

The Moral Imperative of Shared Responsibility
At the heart of the liberal vision is the assumption of shared responsibility. This principle acknowledges that societal suffering—whether in the form of poverty, discrimination, or exclusion—is not the fault of individuals but the result of systemic failures. Addressing these issues requires collective action and a commitment to justice.

Climate change illustrates this moral imperative. While wealthy nations and individuals bear the greatest responsibility for carbon emissions, the poorest and most vulnerable communities suffer the most severe consequences. The liberal view insists that addressing climate change is not just an environmental issue but a moral one, calling for a global response that prioritizes equity and justice.

Shared responsibility also extends to immigration and refugee resettlement. In an interconnected world, the movement of people across borders is often driven by factors beyond individual control, such as war, persecution, and economic instability. The liberal vision rejects exclusionary policies, advocating instead for approaches that uphold the dignity and rights of all individuals. Recognizing that collective well-being depends on our ability to welcome and support those in need, this perspective calls for compassionate and inclusive policies.

Building a Society Where Everyone Thrives
Achieving the liberal vision of the good life requires more than policy changes; it demands a cultural shift. This shift involves moving beyond the myth of the “self-made individual” and embracing a more inclusive and relational understanding of success. It begins with recognizing the inherent worth of every individual and the interconnectedness of our lives.

Practical steps toward this vision include policies that promote equity and inclusion. Affirmative action programs, for example, aim to address historical injustices by providing opportunities to marginalized groups. Progressive taxation can help reduce economic inequality by ensuring that those with the greatest means contribute proportionally more to the common good.

However, policy alone is insufficient. Achieving the liberal vision also requires a commitment to empathy and solidarity. Individuals must examine their own privileges and biases, taking action to support marginalized communities. This might involve volunteering, advocating for policy changes, or amplifying the voices of those who are often silenced.

The Conservative Vision of the Good Life: Cultivating Character and Responsibility

The conservative vision of the good life is deeply rooted in the belief that individual character and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of a thriving society. This perspective emphasizes self-reliance, moral integrity, and the cultivation of virtues that enable individuals to contribute meaningfully to their communities. At its core, the conservative vision is not just about personal success but about fostering a society where individuals are accountable for their actions, civic responsibilities are taken seriously, and merit is recognized and rewarded.

In a world where instant gratification and the erosion of personal accountability often dominate public discourse, the conservative view offers a counterbalance. It calls for a return to principles that have stood the test of time: hard work, discipline (i.e. character formation), and a commitment to doing what is right, even when it is difficult. This vision is not without its challenges, particularly in addressing the complexities of human behavior and the realities of those who may be suffering due to their own poor choices. However, it seeks to uplift individuals by empowering them to take control of their lives and contribute to the common good.

The Importance of Individual Character
At the heart of the conservative vision is the belief that individual character matters. Character is not just about personal success but about the moral and ethical qualities that define who we are as individuals. Virtues such as honesty, integrity, courage, and self-discipline are not innate but cultivated through deliberate effort and practice.

A society composed of individuals with strong character is more likely to be stable, prosperous, and just. When individuals act with integrity and take responsibility for their actions, they contribute to a culture of trust and mutual respect. This, in turn, fosters social cohesion and enables communities to thrive.

For example, in the workplace, an employee who demonstrates reliability, diligence, and a strong work ethic not only advances their own career but also contributes to the success of their organization. Similarly, a business leader who acts with integrity and treats employees fairly helps create a positive and productive work environment. In both cases, individual character has a ripple effect, benefiting not just the individual but also those around them.

The conservative view also recognizes that character is shaped by external influences, including family, education, and community. Strong families, schools, and religious institutions play a crucial role in instilling values and providing guidance, serving as the foundation for moral development.

Individual Responsibility: The Path to Empowerment
Closely tied to the concept of character is the principle of individual responsibility. The conservative view holds that individuals must take ownership of their actions and decisions, recognizing the consequences of their choices and taking steps to address them. This perspective is not about blaming individuals for their circumstances but about empowering them to take control of their lives.

This principle is particularly relevant in addressing issues such as welfare dependency. While it is important to provide support to those in need, enabling dependency is not the solution. Instead, policies and programs should encourage self-reliance and personal responsibility. For example, workfare programs that combine financial assistance with job training or community service can help individuals regain their independence and dignity.

Civic Responsibilities and the Common Good
The conservative vision also emphasizes the importance of civic responsibilities. Being a member of a society entails obligations such as obeying the law, paying taxes, and contributing to the common good. These responsibilities are not just legal requirements but moral imperatives that reflect a commitment to the well-being of the community.

Active citizenship, including voting, staying informed, and engaging in civil discourse, is essential to the health of a society. At the same time, civic responsibilities must be balanced with individual freedoms. A society that places too many demands on its citizens risks undermining personal liberty, while one that places too few demands risks becoming fragmented and dysfunctional.

Meritocracy: Praise and Blame
A key component of the conservative vision is the belief in meritocracy—the idea that individuals should be rewarded based on their abilities and efforts. This principle values hard work and talent while discouraging laziness and incompetence. Meritocracy fosters a society where individuals are motivated to strive for excellence and contribute to the common good.

However, the conservative view also recognizes that meritocracy must be tempered by compassion. While accountability is important, support and guidance should be provided to those who are struggling. This balance ensures that society remains just and humane.

Addressing Suffering and Bad Choices
One of the challenges of the conservative vision is addressing the suffering of individuals who may be in difficult circumstances due to their own poor choices. While compassion is important, enabling dependency is not the solution. Instead, approaches that empower individuals to take responsibility for their lives and make better choices are needed. For example, addiction recovery programs that emphasize accountability can be more effective than those that provide temporary relief.

A Vision of Empowerment and Accountability
The conservative vision of the good life emphasizes individual character, personal responsibility, and civic duty as the foundations of a thriving society. It calls for a return to principles such as hard work, discipline, and meritocracy while balancing accountability with compassion. This vision seeks to uplift individuals, empowering them to take control of their lives and contribute to the common good. In a world where personal accountability is often eroded, the conservative view offers a counterbalance, advocating for a society that values dignity, potential, and the enduring principles of responsibility and merit.

Is there something that the conservatives and liberals miss?

In the face of the tyrannical and totalitarian forces under the steering of Donald Trump, each of these frameworks miss something entirely crucial: the infrastructure of authentic freedom is eroded by tyrannical and totalitarian forces. The liberals focus primarily on the marginalized and their integration, or lack thereof, into a monolithic society, and this misses the real strength of individualism – that strong individuals emerge from cultures that have strong social bonds formed in groups of significant others – who help each individual form their identity. It isn’t that individuals show up and are thrown into society-at-large; they exist and are nurtured within smaller groups and communities. If we assume, from a liberal perspective, that individuals are in a kind of combative state with society that primarily needs a state to be responsible when the structures of society-at-large are unwelcoming, then we will undercut any notion of merit or natural well-being that makes and sustains a life lived-well. But more importantly, they will have laid the groundwork for individuals to be dominated. The conservatives make the same mistake as well, and lay the blame at the feet of individuals. According to the conservative view of thriving, there must be some individual or heroic character to the individual, and those that lack it are not the responsibility of a large state. The conservative viewpoint, surprisingly, is the most susceptible to tyrannical takeover both because a strong and charismatic leader will take advantage of a situation where individual heroism is a rare occurrence and not. They will open the door to suppress nationalistic forces that a liberal administrative state had been suppressing. If nationalistic forces are the only alternative to the individual’s need for social recognition and identity formation, an autocrat will capitalize on it to create a tyrannical regime.

So, what is to be done? Certainly, democracy is not powerless in the face of tyranny – however, it must account for the conscious generation of free individuals. Tyranny doesn’t care about individual freedom. Instead, democracy must keep freedom at the center of political life. Arendt herself reminds us that freedom is the raison d’etre of politics, and we must also remember that a free society is indeed buttressed by illiberal forces.  In the meantime, we should understand that the opposite of conservatism is not liberalism; it is totalitarianism. The opposite of the contract is a covenant. The opposite of the conditional contracts on offer in America right now are unconditional covenants.