The Personal is Not Political: The Proper Role of Government

In recent years, the idea that "the personal is political" has gained significant prominence in discussions surrounding social justice and activism. This concept, which originated in feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s, suggests that personal experiences and choices are inherently political and, therefore, open to scrutiny and critique.  Politicians and political activists have seized this idea and used it to justify a whole range of intrusions into the lives of Americans. We reject this concept entirely and posit instead that the personal is not political.

In discussing the idea that "the personal is not political," it is crucial to address the proper role of government in individuals' lives. While the concept of personal choices having political implications is undeniable, we must also acknowledge that the proper role of government extends only to safeguarding intrinsic natural rights and not encroaching into the private domain of citizens. In this article, we will expand on the notion that the personal is not political by arguing that the government's primary role is to protect these essential rights while respecting the boundaries of personal autonomy.

The Insidious Lie of Collectivism

The problem with the progressive idea that "the personal is political" is that, like all language from collectivists, it doesn't mean what it seems to promise.  The progressive lie here is that if we give more power over our personal lives to the political collectivists, then we will finally achieve individual freedom and equality. It won't. The truth is that this approach has and will always lead to totalitarianism.

The collectivist left would recoil in horror to see the same tactics they are employing used by the political right and correctly decry it as right-wing totalitarianism. The paradox here is not that they are ignorant that their tactics are totalitarian, but that they know and are OK with such totalitarian tactics being used for what they consider a worthy goal. 

The Courageous Stand of Individualism

How does an individualist respond to this?  It is crucial to recognize that "the personal is not political" and that individuals should be allowed their private spheres, free from constant political scrutiny and interference. In our contemporary world, the political landscape often seems saturated with politicians who eagerly promise an array of "free" benefits to the public. "Free healthcare! Free education! Free (insert your favorite cause)," they proclaim.

Yet, amidst the allure of these promises, it is essential to reflect on the fundamental principles that underpin the role of government in society. The core argument here is that "the personal is not political." The government's role is not one of charity, responsibility for individuals, or moral guidance; rather, its primary purpose is to protect citizens from physical aggression, facilitate fair and equitable trade, and uphold the foundational principle that all power is derived from the governed.

The Intrinsic Natural Rights Framework

The idea that the "personal is not political" is intrinsically linked to the concept of intrinsic natural rights. These rights, often associated with thinkers like John Locke, include the rights to life, liberty, and property. These rights are considered fundamental, inalienable, and inherent to all individuals. The proper role of government, according to this framework, is to protect and uphold these rights, ensuring that individuals can lead their lives with minimal interference from others and from the government.

For instance, an individual's choice of religion, romantic partner, or personal habits should not necessarily be open to public critique or regulation. The belief that personal choices in these areas are inherently political can lead to a climate where individuals feel pressured to conform to a particular set of beliefs or behaviors. Respecting intrinsic natural rights means acknowledging that people have the right to make choices that align with their individual values and preferences without being subject to government approval.

Respecting Personal Autonomy

The importance of respecting personal autonomy cannot be overstated when discussing the role of government in safeguarding intrinsic natural rights. A government that values personal autonomy recognizes that individuals have the right to make choices that align with their values and preferences. These choices may include decisions about their bodies, relationships, or personal habits, and as long as they do not harm others or violate their rights, they should be beyond the reach of government interference.

One of the fundamental principles underlying the argument that "the personal is not political" is the concept of personal autonomy. While social and political forces undoubtedly shape our choices and experiences to some extent, individuals should have the freedom to make decisions about their personal lives without fearing constant judgment or interference. Respecting personal autonomy is essential for fostering a society that values individual freedoms and the right to privacy.

The Complex Interplay of Personal Experiences

Another reason that "the personal is not political" is because personal experiences are multifaceted and often defy neat categorization. These experiences are shaped by numerous factors, including cultural background, upbringing, and individual circumstances. It's impossible to capture the full complexity of a person's life through a purely political lens.

Consider the example of a person's dietary choices. While one may argue that food choices are political due to their impact on health and the environment, they are also influenced by cultural, personal, and health-related factors. Attempting to reduce such choices to mere political statements oversimplifies the intricate web of influences at play in any individual's life.

The Minimalist Role of Government

Government is not a charity; it is not meant to provide for individuals. The essence of government lies in protecting and defending its citizens from all acts of physical aggression, safeguarding their life, liberty, and property. This foundational principle acknowledges that the government's power is derived from the governed, and it cannot possess a power that individuals do not possess themselves. Therefore, government should not overstep its role by becoming the arbiter of what choices an individual is allowed to make in their personal sphere.

This idea challenges the notion that the personal struggles or needs of individuals should become political agendas, suggesting that personal responsibility and self-sufficiency should play a greater role in society.  For instance, citizens should have the right to make personal decisions regarding their religious beliefs, choice of partner, or lifestyle, as long as these choices do not infringe upon the rights or safety of others. A government that respects this boundary will not impose its values or interfere in the private lives of its citizens.

A government's primary function is to safeguard the intrinsic natural rights of its citizens. This minimalistic approach to governance emphasizes that the government should not extend beyond this core responsibility. It should not intrude into the personal choices, beliefs, or lifestyles of its citizens unless those choices directly infringe upon the rights of others. In essence, the government should act as a guardian, ensuring that individuals have the freedom to make choices that do not harm or infringe upon the rights of others.

Some Proper Boundaries for Government

When a government oversteps its boundaries and becomes overly intrusive in the personal lives of its citizens, it risks violating individual freedoms and stifling personal autonomy. Such overreach can lead to a society where conformity is prioritized over diversity, and personal choices are heavily regulated, creating a climate of fear and repression.

In this context, several key points arise. Firstly, it is not the role of government to define language. Language and communication are deeply personal and cultural matters, and government intervention risks infringing upon free speech rights. The government's authority lies in defending the rights of the individual, as outlined within the constitution, rather than shaping linguistic norms or values.

Secondly, the government should not favor one group over another in protecting rights. Equality before the law is a cornerstone of any just society. In the realm of identity politics, this principle suggests that government should not grant special privileges or protections to any particular identity group at the expense of others.

Thirdly, the government should not define marriage, sex, or gender. These concepts are deeply personal and often rooted in cultural, religious, and individual beliefs. To avoid infringing on personal liberties and values, the government should maintain a neutral stance on these matters.

Lastly, government should not demand or coerce speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and individuals must have the autonomy to express their views and beliefs without fear of government reprisal. The government's role should be to protect this liberty, not to dictate what can or cannot be said.

In conclusion, the idea that "the personal is not political" underscores the fundamental principles of individualism that should guide the proper role of government in society. It requires that government not assume the role of a charity, guardian, or moral authority, but instead focus on its core functions of protecting citizens, facilitating fair trade, and upholding individual rights. This perspective also emphasizes the importance of individual responsibility and self-sufficiency while encouraging a society where personal choices and beliefs are respected and protected.

By acknowledging these limitations, we can foster a society that values both personal freedom and social harmony.  It is only when personal choices directly infringe upon the rights of others that government intervention is warranted. By maintaining this balance, we can foster a society that respects individual freedoms, upholds essential rights, and allows citizens to make personal choices without undue political scrutiny or government interference.