David Davenport - Rugged Individualism: Dead or Alive?

Praise for

Rugged Individualism

Davenport and Lloyd do an exquisite job in reminding us that rugged individualism is and was a central feature of American character and civilization. More important, they detail the sustained attack on such individualism that commenced at the end of the nineteenth century, came to the forefront during the New Deal, and threatens to overwhelm us in the present. By focusing on the metaphor of rugged individualism they have made a major contribution in the ongoing debate about American national identity.

Nicholas Capaldi, Legendre-Soule Distinguished Chair of Business Ethics, Loyola University New Orleans

What is American rugged individualism? In this short volume the authors not only answer that question but also provide a thumbnail historical sketch of its friends and opponents, a discussion of the ways in which it continues to shape our political debates, and a meditation on its future. Most importantly, they encourage the reader to engage these concerns and to come to their own conclusions on its importance and what its future should be.

Steven D. Ealy, senior fellow at Liberty Fund, Inc., an Indianapolis-based educational foundation

In Rugged Individualism: Dead Or Alive?, David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd have produced a fascinating and insightful examination of a concept that is an essential part of the history and philosophy of the American spirit. This masterful analysis of a critical component of our national DNA, and the cogent exploration of its current status and future prospects, are most timely in view of our existing cultural confusion and moral ambiguity.

Ed Meese, III, former Attorney General of the United States

With its eminent scholars and world-renowned library and archives, the

Hoover Institution seeks to improve the human condition by advancing ideas that promote economic opportunity and prosperity, while securing and safeguarding peace for America and all mankind. The views expressed in its publications are entirely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution.

www.hoover.org

Hoover Institution Press Publication No. 676

Hoover Institution at Leland Stanford Junior University,

Stanford, California 94305-6003

Copyright 2017 by the Board of Trustees of the

Leland Stanford Junior University

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher and copyright holders.

For permission to reuse material from Rugged Individualism: Dead or Alive?, by David Davenport and Gordon Lloyd, ISBN 978-0-8179-2024-1, please access www.copyright.com or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and registration for a variety of uses.

First printing 2017

23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Manufactured in the United States of America

Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available from the Library of Congress.

ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-2024-1 (cloth : alk. paper)

ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-2026-5 (epub)

ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-2027-2 (mobi)

ISBN-13: 978-0-8179-2028-9 (PDF)

B OTH AUTHORS have mothers in their late nineties. When one of us asks his mother about her favorite hometown sports teams, she says, Oh, theyre up and down, up and down. The others mother likes to say, Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Although we are more passionate and specific when we discuss our teams, there is something attractive about the greater patience and acceptance about the ups and downs that apparently come with older age.

American rugged individualism has had its share of ups and downs, wins and losses, since its birth at the founding of our nation and its coming of age on the frontier. Weve sought to dramatize it a bit by asking in the title whether it is dead or alive. Its not a purely academic question since there have been those who have sought to kill it. As Henry Kissinger said, Even a paranoid has some real enemies. Although it has taken some tough blows, somehow American individualism has lived to play another day. Indeed, we wonder whether the new social and business frontiers of the information age might be fruitful ground for yet another important chapter of rugged individualism.

Why should we care? Because rugged individualism is a unique component of Americas DNA, a key ingredient in what makes America exceptional. Underlying all the freedoms that the pioneers and founders sought to establish in the new country was individual liberty. It would be the individual, not the monarchy or the social class, who would be the essential unit of analysis and action in the New World. Herbert Hoover, who actually coined the phrase rugged individualism in 1928, contrasted it with the soft despotism and totalitarianism of Europe.

To place our work in the context of other writing about individualism, ours is not a book that looks at individualism primarily through the lens of psychology or sociology. Rather, we are interested in the political context in which American rugged individualism flourishes or declines. As Stephanie Walls argues in her 2015 book, Individualism in the United States: A Transformation in American Political Thought, at the founding American individualism was primarily political in nature, protected by the Constitution and fully compatible with democracy.

During the Progressive Era, however, rugged individualism became more about economics. Progressives both attacked rugged individualism directly and caricatured it as the myth of the robber barons and captains of industry. This economic critique of rugged individualism continues today through the work of French economist Thomas Piketty and others about income inequality, proposing both an economic and a political revolution in order to restore the equality of conditions that French journalist Alexis de Tocqueville found and admired in America.

Then, in the last thirty years, the battleground about rugged individualism has come to include the realm of sociology. Sociologists such as Robert Putnam and Robert Bellah worry that Americans have turned inward, staying home and disengaging from social and especially civic life. Putnam is concerned because Americans are now bowling alone. Their solution is both a societal and a political transformation in civic engagement to protect against the dangers of rugged individualism, which they convey as anti-communitarian.

Our view is that, while nearly everything undergoes change over time, rarely is a transformation or revolution called for, especially over something as fundamental as American rugged individualism. Whereas the Progressives seek an economic revolution and the sociologists a social one, we see more continuity with the founding, believing that an awakening to the continuing value of political individualism is needed. Therefore, we go back in order to come back. We go back to the founding and to the American frontier in order to come back to public policy today.

As we travel the road of rugged individualism from the founding to today, we note persistent efforts to detour from that path, or even to destroy it. During the period 18901940, the Progressives launched full frontal attacks on rugged individualism and also sought to minimize and end its influence through caricatures of it as a myth of the rich. In particular, President Franklin Roosevelts New Deal sought to replace the rugged individual with the forgotten man as the object of government policy. The rise of the New Left and also Lyndon Johnsons Great Society posed major threats to rugged individualism in the 1960s. Today, rugged individualism faces a host of enemies, from the rise of executive power, to the advance of narratives such as income inequality or our antiquated Constitution, to the federal takeover of health care and education. But even rugged individualisms enemies acknowledge its continued existence.