Starship Troopers: On Liberal “Rights”

Numerous columns of The Exonian have, in the name of promoting discourse, fixated on a crusade to protect conservatives on campus. The authors of these recent tracts—senior Julie Chung and upper Emma Dyer—have emphasized, respectively, the de-marginalization and tolerance of right-leaning views at Exeter. Both Chung and Dyer are understandable; they recognize the value of scholarly discourse in a heterogeneous community. They are correct in their assertion that a forum cannot exist in an environment that persecutes nonconformist views. I deviate from Chung and Dyer, however, by calling attention to the raison d’etre of discourse itself.A debate is never a means to its own end. Never forget that the sharing of ideas comes with it a responsibility to defend one’s interpretation of truth, and also, to critique others. Discourse is very much a Darwinist process, predicated on the killing and birthing of ideas to serve a greater interest. In her article, Chung notes that Exonian conservatives “feel they are not able to say what is on their minds for fear of being branded a racist, misogynist or bigot by our school’s ‘frightening’ liberals.” If this is true, they have placed their reputation above their duty to the body-politic and should reconsider their cowardice. Weak spirits create weak nations.In truth, I bring this up to preface my own right-leaning views. I would like to lead by example and establish a vanguard against what I hear is an indomitable blue tide. Notice that I am not playing devil’s advocate—too many liberals have lauded themselves for acting the stubborn, old conservative. In fact, I am a conservative who happens to be a teenager. The juvenile heart is just as attuned to the temptations of self-sacrifice and national pride as the hearts of its stereotypically-rightist seniors. To deny this would be to discount the millions of youths who were enraptured by fascist folklore prior to the Second World War. The extent of an individual’s conservatism is not so much a function of age, but that of exposure. “Conservatism” itself is a broad and diluted term, but generally refers to an inclination towards tradition, self-reliance, and most importantly, institutional power. I myself am a purveyor of authoritarian democracy; I advocate a populace that, via civic virtue,  binds and submits itself to a selective and therefore merited democracy.My own political leanings were marked when, as a sixth-grader, I chanced upon a copy of Robert Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, published in 1959. This science-fiction novel can claim credit for inaugurating most of my political views, from my disdain of anarchy and reverence of military order, to a fundamental disagreement with the subject of this article: the liberal idolatry of “rights.” Starship Troopers is not only a tale of a youth serving in the Mobile Infantry, but a vehicle for Heinlein’s dissatisfaction with an Americana intoxicated by their individual freedoms, rather than collectivistic purpose.As is a habit among many leftist notions, liberalism dreams a halcyon Utopia. That civil liberties, including a right to vote, should exist universally and manifest themselves in an unlimited democracy, is a foolish idea. Rights are an arbitration between the State and Citizen, and should be rewarded only in exchange for civic virtue. When privileges are instilled within a meritless individual, he is falsely aggrandized in relation to society. Most criminally, when one such privilege is the right to vote, and it is carelessly bestowed upon an idiot, a fraction of the encompassing republic thereafter becomes a devotee of idiocy. A democracy is most powerful when every constituent is somehow assured to be deserving of a vote, and also cognizant of his political responsibilities, both qualities that liberal democracy cannot guarantee.Perhaps it is a legacy of its humanistic origins during the Enlightenment that classical liberalism spoils the individual with privileges. It creates, in the words of Heinlein, a “mythology of ‘rights’” that imbues within civilians a misconception that they exist above the natural plane. Liberals are conducive to harboring a gross sense of entitlement: socialists to wealth, anarchists to freedom and populists to power. Heinlein mocks such naiveté through the speech of a History and Moral Philosophy instructor, looking back on the Declaration of Independence:“Ah yes, the ‘unalienable rights.’ Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries… As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. The third ‘right?’—the ‘pursuit of happiness?’ It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition…I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can insure that I will catch it.”The root cause of liberal arrogance is a prevailing belief in the sanctity of human life. Every individual, purely by virtue of existence, seems to be deified for his non-accomplishment. The result is an egalitarian, yet deeply flawed society with amnesia; everyone walks about as if his or her own rights are a physical aura, when in fact they are a relatively recent human invention. Rights must be artificial, because there exists no universe that sufficiently worships the act of genesis, to automatically reward all newborns with immunity from suffering. As for abstract rights such as suffrage and free speech, nature simply does not care about their implementation.To biology and beyond, humans are purely agents with real and variable worths. Some evaluations are less “humane” than others, depending on the interests of the measuring authority—a  cannibal would grade a human by the cut and quality of his meat. Regardless of pricing, the essence is that life is never valuable enough to warrant an omnipotent protection of rights. Accordingly, a liberal democracy founded on universal and “unalienable” rights is an impossibility.Furthermore, such democracies are not only futile, but unsound. The conferral of false confidences and votes, particularly upon the stupid, allows their inappropriate representation within the State. This is a national vulnerability. I advocate limited suffrage because I know unlimited democracy to be dangerous. In actuality, so too, do current liberal governments, as pointed out by Heinlein’s speculation of a future lecture:“...the intent has always been moralistic: to provide stable and benevolent government. All systems seek to achieve this by limiting franchise to those who are believed to have the wisdom to use it justly...even the so-called ‘unlimited democracies’ excluded from franchise not less than one quarter of their populations by age, birth, poll tax, criminal record or other.”Conservatism, although historically reviled for being monarchical, aristocratic, oligarchic or authoritarian, has always been so out of necessity. It enforces a rational doctrine: the choosing of capable rulers based on selective definitions of virtue. In the past, these criteria included royalty, wealth and influence. Rulers with these qualities were always preferable to the chaos of the common herd.  The very real threat of “open” franchise is evidenced by how even liberal democracies have limits on their voting pools. Unfortunately, these restrictions are still insufficient; the average voter cannot appreciate the responsibility and importance of his function.How can we expect a man, made citizen from birth and taking for granted his rights, to maintain any semblance of civic virtue? Moreover, how can we expect a pool comprising such men to vote with a consideration for a cause greater than themselves?These are the concerns that led many conservative thinkers, including Heinlein, to look favorably on military service. They reasoned that a willingness to shed blood was a clear indicator of one’s civic commitment. Voters could not always be made more intelligent or more ethical, but could be verified to have a sense of responsibility, based on a record of taking arms. In the world of Starship Troopers, it is stated, “Since sovereign franchise is the ultimate in human authority, we insure that all who wield it accept the ultimate in social responsibility—we require each person who wishes to exert control over the state to wager his own life—and lose it, if need be—to save the life of the state.” Thus, Heinlein created a society with a duty-based ruling class.Many liberals will surely disagree with this criticism of rights and universal suffrage. This is tolerable, not because it creates discourse, but because via this discourse, liberals should be made at least nominally aware of conservative reasoning. Too often, conservatism is depicted as apathetic, or even adverse towards society. This is quite untrue; no ideology gains adherents by promoting stagnation or negativity. Conservatives are visionaries. Of course this is not for liberals to recognize on their own, but for conservatives themselves  to sufficiently explain, as I hope I have done here.The liberal notion of universal rights is based on the singular quality of existence, not merit. Those granted rights thusly do not deserve them and are incapable of comprehending their value. Hence, when unleashed upon an unlimited democracy, these sub-citizens perform inadequately. Classical conservatives seek to rectify this situation through limiting franchise. Liberals generally counter by attempting to create useful citizens through higher education, as is provided here at Phillips Exeter Academy. Both conservatives and liberals endeavor to benefit their governments. Be what you may, strive to serve your state.