Was Gaugin justified? French painter Paul Gaugin moved to Tahiti at a crucial time in his life, and at an even more crucial time in the life of his five children. Mr. Gaugin painted beautiful canvas in Tahiti, while his children got nothing from him. Was his choice a moral one? By the lights of our liberal friends, the answer is ‘yes’.
To better understand our liberal neighbors, we must understand atomistic individualism. In the liberal mind, only the individual matters. All other connections, all other acquired responsibilities, must give way to a person’s dreams. That explains their love for unfettered abortion; a woman ought to be able to get rid of her ‘parasite’ at any time she wishes, for whatever reasons of her own. To restrict her ‘liberty’ in any way would be a crime against her freedom as an atomistic being.
Atomistic individualism explains many things. It explains, for example, why liberals are obsessed with providing cradle-to-grave care. Suppose you are a seventeen-year-old girl, a senior in high school looking for guidance. You go to your school counselor and ask her whether you should major in Russian literature. If you are a reasonably bright girl, chances are your school counselor will validate your dream. It doesn’t matter that the job prospects of your major are awful, and that you are almost certain to acquire responsibilities along the way; a husband and children lurk just above the horizon. If your school counselor implicitly believes in atomistic individualism, she will tell you to follow your dreams. Even if your dreams make no practical sense, the state should subsidize them, because only the individual matters.
Atomistic individualism explains the liberal fascination with single-payer healthcare. Acquiring private quality health insurance is a hassle. A man or a woman would have to hold a quality job, presumably not in Russian literature, then buy an insurance policy from a reputable provider. But the behavior necessary to buy a reputable insurance policy infringes on an individual’s ability to pursue her dreams. Too often, you implicitly choose between insurance and Russian literature. Liberals hate that. Anything that restricts individual choice, even reality, must be swept away.
I don’t mean to belittle atomistic individualism, because it is extremely powerful. We have all had our “screw you, I do what I want” moments. To (metaphorically) give the finger to people who want to constrain us is a powerful, liberating experience. Individual freedom, personal choice, these are values that matter. But they are not the only values.
We conservatives ought to be aware of the power of individual freedom. This is a value we treasure after all. But the corruption of freedom into atomistic individualism we should oppose. Sometimes we want to do what we want, but most of the time we do what we ought. Life is full of constraints, no matter whether our liberal neighbors act as if it doesn’t.
