Getting along.

[A slightly shorter version of this entry was originally posted on my old, defunct blog; unfortunately the problems noted in it don't seem to be in danger of changing or improving anytime soon.]

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, a day when we should reflect that our official culture, especially the universities, are dedicated to judging people on the color of their skin and, except for a couple of extra-double-naughty sins, not on the content of their character.

But I was pondering the most famous quote of that other King, the late Rodney King: "Why can't we all just get along?"

A lot of people made fun of that, but I never thought it worthy of mockery. Really, why can't we all just get along? Aren't we taught to do that from the time we're small? Why all the fighting?

You think about that when you're young, and you think about it again when you're older and you get tired of all the B.S. But I'm coming around to an idea that I think is not only realistic, but is one of the unique building blocks of American exceptionalism and the secret to her success: Fighting is not good, but it is necessary.

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote famously that a separation of powers in the government was necessary so that they would fight each other for power.

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

A quick skim though the twentieth century shows you the worst of what happens when men fight, but the most horrible examples started with men getting along. The powers of Europe fought World War I, for example, because each nation was united in its desire to fight, the old guard and the new progressives alike---the old guard from national pride, the new progressives as a means to remake the world.

Fascism got its name from the fasces, the bundle of rods that were weak individually but mighty together. Even if they were friendly, smiling fascists who would never lead their nation to war, they by definition required all those rods sticking together. So conformity had to be enforced. "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Beware any politician who says things will be sunshine and lollipops when we all pull together (i.e., do things his way), because the only way to get us all pulling together is to engineer strong and evil consequences for those who don't.

America's founders said it would be better to have an arena where everyone can fight, and factions form as needed to stop any person or group from taking over and killing the rest.

So we should strive for peace, for getting along, but be aware that human beings are not made that way, at least not in this world. 

Jesus said (in John 14:27, KJV) "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you." The world's peace is at best fragile, or requires placating evil, but Jesus tells us his peace is of a different and better order. It is our best hope until men become like angels or someone puts the angels in charge.