How to Change the World Pt. 1: a moral problem

Maybe we should be more hesitant to label the existing system worthless, or harmful, and be more thoughtful in our consideration of how societal improvement actually occurs

On May 28th I checked the news for the first time in days. My week-long vacation had temporarily insulated me from the chaos of modern politics. Now, the contention and misinformation of America’s culture war came flooding back. In an instant my contentment and relaxation vanished and were replaced by anxiety and uncertainty.

Minneapolis was in flames. Protests were taking place all over the country. Activists claimed that the death of George Floyd, suffered at the hands of a white police officer, was a direct manifestation of the underlying and systemic racism plaguing our nation. And the proposed solution? The complete dismantling of the current capitalist system, which supposedly created, rewarded and enforced racial and class inequality.

It seemed like every article, social media post and protester was asking me, “where do you stand?”, “are you with us or against us?”. I became so filled with conflicting thoughts about what I thought I knew, and a recognition of my glaring ignorance, that I felt the need to leave our apartment and walk. The insuppressible thought revolving in my mind was this: “The world is in disarray, and you must do something about it.” I wondered whether it was my moral obligation to be part of the movement striving to fix the corrupt system. Or, if simply fixing my corrupt self was truly the most effective agent for societal improvement.

What role should I play as an individual in the betterment of society? This was the question I sought to answer. This was the question that had been hijacked by ideologues and turned into a way to distinguish between their allies and their enemies. If you answered that an individual’s role was to responsibly strive to be his or her best self, you would be labeled a privileged enabler of capitalist oppression. The politically correct answer seemed to read something like this: My role is to follow the enlightened intellectuals who will lead us to radical change and utopia.

I longed to know for myself, without having to rely on other’s opinions, what process actually led to societal improvement, and what I could do to be part of it. As I learned more about what politicians, opinion leaders and activist groups like Black Lives Matter were claiming I took a step back and re-thought not only our nation’s history, but the function of government and individual responsibility in society as well.

Black Lives Matter

The view being propagated by the Black Lives Matter movement made me uneasy. Their mission statement seemed soaked in ideology and steeped in aggression towards traditional values. The organization appeared so intent on abolishing our institutions and pursuing Marxist objectives that those black people, who it claimed to champion, became solely the means to an end. To what end? The destruction, and complete reimagining, of western society.

They justified this revolutionary mindset by claiming that the current socioeconomic system, built upon principles of oppression and inequality, was to blame for the continuing racism in America; so, it, along with all historical figures tied to it, must go. The replacement system, though unspecified, would be radically different in that it would prohibit inequality and intolerance.

Many youth of our day have become excited and impassioned by this revolutionary attitude. However, what these activists possess in energy, good-intentions and conviction, they lack in wisdom, caution and honesty. I’ve become convinced that their passionate campaign for change is built upon faulty assumptions which undermine America’s true exceptionalism, and faulty goals which distort human nature and government’s ability to mold it.

The exceptional society we have the privilege of living in has taken generations to structure, and millennia to prepare. Maybe we should be more hesitant to label the existing system worthless, or harmful, and be more thoughtful in our consideration of how societal improvement actually occurs.

Societal change: an outgrowth of individual change

Functional and long-lasting socioeconomic systems come into being as a result of elevated individual morality. As individuals in a given society hold themselves accountable to a higher standard of behavior the system in place changes and improves. This is because the process of systemic improvement only occurs as we collectively articulate the eternal truths we are already living out in our daily lives.

Positive societal change has always taken place incrementally as individuals and nations share ideas and implement the best of them, trying their best to live according to the truth as it is currently understood. This process is enabled by open-minded, but not necessarily like-minded, individuals who together work towards a more complete understanding of the world. This progression of ideas is impossible without the free exchange and consideration of all opinions.

Recently this understanding of societal improvement has been chipped away at by arrogant ideologues who are convinced “that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else”, as Bari Weiss put it in her resignation letter to the New York Times. This prideful attitude halts society’s progress as it neglects the sources of true societal improvement: the free exchange of ideas and a majority of individuals committed to transcendent values of goodness, accountability and the obtainment of knowledge.

Dostoevsky’s character Andrew Semenovich captures this self-righteously enlightened attitude perfectly when he preaches that “It is the duty of every man to develop others and disseminate propaganda, and perhaps the harsher one’s methods the better.” Semenovich, a political activist, had become so converted to the dogma of his cause that he viewed his role in societal improvement not as an individual responsible for virtuous behavior but as an enforcer of his own idealized vision of collective morality on others!

I agree with Jordan Peterson, who said, “The problem I have with the Marxist perspective…is that I don’t think you should trust people whose primary goal when they’re attempting to change the world for the better is to change other people.” The collectivist ideology embraced by Black Lives Matter and many modern intellectuals places the blame for the existing inequality and suffering at the feet of the current system and all its participants; or in other words, it places the blame on everyone who doesn’t agree with their enlightened worldview. For the world to improve, they say, the system must be replaced, and its supporters convinced of their ignorance or wickedness.

This attitude will not lead to an improved America. For there to be improvement we must first understand that prioritizing immediate systemic change can only lead to failure. Creating a better society is impossible if the focus is on revolutionary systemic change without regard to individual morality.

The system in place is a direct reflection/manifestation/magnification of the character of the individuals making up the population; of our character. C.S. Lewis explained this point succinctly in his book Mere Christianity, writing, “You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.” Good people are not made by government, or any other man-made system. “We can’t legislatively purge evil from men’s hearts”, as Rush Limbaugh wrote.

I ask with C.S. Lewis, “What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behavior, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them?…As long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system.” In other words, what's the point of a political revolution if we as individuals are unable to change ourselves? Collective progression is only possible if the majority of individuals live moral and virtuous lives.

I believe the way to fix our system, which admittedly does not live up to its ideals, is not to destroy the system or discard the ideals, but rather to hold ourselves more accountable to those ideals we wish to achieve. Let’s be careful not to be carried away by cheap ideological solutions, and instead let us remember the most essential factor of achieving an improved society: our individual morality.

Log in to leave a comment below! Please continue this conversation by sharing your opinion in the comments section and sharing this blog post with your friends.