What is doctrinaire philosophy? Can it be sustained?
A doctrine is a self-imposed set of rules on how to handle a
given condition. The rules are not legally binding but are adhered to rigidly
by some people, and less so by others. The doctrine is usually formulated when
circumstances show the need to have a road-map that can serve as guide on how
to respond when the stated condition requires restoration.
For example, the president of a superpower might say: “freedom
has worked well for us; therefore we'll do what we can to help the world become
as free as us.” This is the kind of doctrine that will forever carry his name.
He may or may not have the time to implement it before leaving office, but the
doctrine will not be forgotten. For a long time after him, academics and
politicians will debate the doctrine, and will advocate rejecting it outright
or ignoring it or implementing it the way they understand it.
The discussions that ensue will expose an infinite number of
possible permutations because each new case in world affairs will fall on a
point between the extremes of two spectra. There will be the spectrum of
substance which will range from the corner of the purist to that of the
tolerant. And there will be the spectrum of execution which will range from the
threat of military action to that of friendly persuasion.
When it comes to substance, the purists will consider being
free only a system of governance that replicates the one under which they live.
The tolerant will consider being free any system that allows the citizens to
elect a government even if it rules like a benevolent authoritarian. As well,
when it comes to enforcement, there are those who advocate regime change by
military means if necessary, and those who advocate persuasion and the use of
economic and developmental aid as leverage.
In the middle of the 1940s, America emerged as the undisputed
winner of the wars, having fought against dictatorships both in the Pacific and
the European theaters. The world was lucky that America was governed by an
Executive and a Congress that stood generally in the middle of both spectra.
They were mildly tolerant of other systems, but also clear-eyed as to what
needed to change. And they were inclined towards using persuasion rather than
coercion to bring about change, but were also firm when negotiating with
others. This attitude worked well for America and the world, the proof
being that considerable progress was made globally during the two decades that
followed the end of the Second World War.
Things changed after that and continued to worsen in that America itself
became polarized. Most people fled the middle of the spectra to huddle at one
extreme or the other, both on the substance and the execution of the doctrine.
The interesting part is that the change touched not only America 's
dealings with the world, but also its dealings with itself. It is that the
culture had changed in such a way that the scenarios pitting America against
other nations were replicated and let loose on the local scene. They pitted the
various extremes against each other, thus paralyzed the nation and prohibited
the moderate voices from rising.
What you have now is a younger generation that's growing up
at one extreme of the spectrum or the other not knowing there is something
worth considering in the middle. By and large, its members see things in black
and white – be that in matters relating to the local scene or those relating to
the world stage.
You can see an example of this sort of situation in the
article that came under the title: “Europe 's
Free-Speech Crackdown” and the subtitle: “Punish Anti-Muslims, Ignore
Terrorists,” written by Noah Daponte-Smith, and published on June 23, 2017 in
National Review Online.
The writer espouses a doctrine of free speech as extreme as
any. He argues that the dilution of the doctrine happens when the need to
suppress free speech “interacts with decisions taken or not taken in other
domains of policy and public debate.” His point is that dragging other domains
in a discussion robs it of its purity. This is why he chooses to be an absolute
purist.
But is he really that pure? Look what else he says:
“Those who yearn for an America
that looks more like the orderly, regulated, universal-health-care systems of Western Europe should keep this fact in the back of their
mind always”.
There it is. Unable to sustain a one dimensional stance for
long, the young man dragged the subject of health-care into a discussion about
free speech to buttress his point. But in doing so, he violated the inscription
on his forehead that says: I am a purist.