'All claims that bind and sweeten life...'

Thine, Freedom, thine the blessings pictur'd here,
Thine are those charms that dazzle and endear;
Too bless'd, indeed, were such without alloy,
But foster'd e'en by Freedom, ills annoy:
That independence Britons prize too high,
Keeps man from man, and breaks the social tie;
The self-dependent lordlings stand alone,
All claims that bind and sweeten life unknown;
Here by the bonds of nature feebly held,
Minds combat minds, repelling and repell'd.
Ferments arise, imprison'd factions roar,
Repress'd ambition struggles round her shore,
Till over-wrought, the general system feels
Its motions stop, or frenzy fire the wheels.

Nor this the worst. As nature's ties decay,
As duty, love, and honour fail to sway,
Fictitious bonds, the bonds of wealth and law,
Still gather strength, and force unwilling awe.
Hence all obedience bows to these alone,
And talent sinks, and merit weeps unknown;
Time may come, when stripp'd of all her charms,
The land of scholars, and the nurse of arms,
Where noble stems transmit the patriot flame,
Where kings have toil'd, and poets wrote for fame,
One sink of level avarice shall lie,
And scholars, soldiers, kings, unhonour'd die.''

I was prompted to think of the above passages of Oliver Goldsmith's poem The Traveller when I read Stephen Hopewell's piece titled 'How Individualistic Should We Be?', in which he examines the idea of American individualism as expressed by Emerson and others.

It seems that American individualism, although it only really came to full flower as a popular idea in the 19th century, was always a part of the American character, and as Goldsmith's poem indicates, the British character originally.

Alexis de Tocqueville said, in a passage from Democracy in America, which rings true today:

...I see an innumerable multitude of men, alike and equal, constantly circling around in pursuit of the petty and banal pleasures with which they glut their souls. Each of them withdrawn into himself, is almost unaware of the fate of the rest. Mankind, for him, consists in his children and his personal friends. As for the rest of his fellow citizens, they are near enough, but he does not notice them. He touches them but feels nothing. He exists in and for himself, and though he still may have a family, one can at least say that he has not got a fatherland.

Men like Emerson, Thoreau and others popularized the idea of individualism further since Tocqueville's day, and have had an influence, especially on young college students, through the generations. I happen to admire Emerson's work; he wrote many things that were good and true. I quote him here from time to time. However even during my liberal period, I was appalled by sentiments such as his professed indifference to the death of his son.

Even during my deluded youth, I always knew in my bones that no man is an island, and that the bonds of kin and community have a vital importance, and those who disclaim any such feelings are at their core, empty people.

My rejection of the extremes of individualism inoculated me against libertarianism, which shuns 'collectivism' or any kind of racial/ethnic bonds.

Certainly, human nature, at least what Christians call 'the flesh' inclines us towards self-centeredness. It feels natural to us; it's the default position of the human being. We are all born selfish, and the extent to which we can be taught to go outside ourselves to others is the extent to which we can be called somewhat civilized human beings.

On the other hand, this can be carried to an extreme, as with liberals who believe self-immolation on behalf of people to whom we have no natural ties is the epitome of goodness, and who think preferring those close to us is evil.

Surely there is a balance to be struck between self-interest and self-abnegation.

Goldsmith was right; independence or what later came to be called 'rugged individualism', "keeps man from man" and severs the natural social bonds, leaving a vacuum which is filled by less exalted bonds like 'the bonds of wealth and law.' And Goldsmith was right in foretelling what would befall a society that had exchanged the natural bonds for the 'fictitious' ones.

But please do read Stephen Hopewell's excellent piece at Heritage American; he examines the subject much more in depth. It's well worth reading.