IT has been many years since I read Plato’s Republic. In it he offers his conception of what a (near) perfect nation-state would be. If I remember correctly it had limited personal freedom and lots of collective action. In essence Plato was saying that the government exists to make things better for its citizens. This is done by inhibiting people from doing wrong things. When the Soviet Union functioned I recall an official explaining their elections. The Communist Party candidate would generally get 95 to 99% of the vote. How or why he did not get every vote, I did not understand, a there was only one candidate. The official defended the results by saying that there was only one candidate because otherwise “the people might vote for the wrong candidate.” That is, voting was a type of educational experience and had a “right answer” exactly as did math tests. This was one way to run a state.
This type of approach offends Americans. If pressed to give an answer then the average American would argue that the state exists primarily to protect his individual rights. The Declaration of Independence declares (which is what declarations do) that the individual pursuit of happiness is a God given right. Rights are thus principles that govern governments.
A problem arises. A government can not meet both goals. The concept of better, or good, is largely objective. Primarily it means that the citizen is secure in his life, home and property. It means that contracts are enforced. It means that a public order, dependent upon common and routine cultural behaviors, is both known and practiced. This is a means for achieving peace and stability. Happiness is quite a different thing. I may love rap “music” (sic) played loudly at late hours. You may find that this disturbs both you and the peace. I may be happy driving in excess of the speed limit. Yet a sense of overall safety inspires police to catch me and arrange for my punishment. It does not take another Plato to figure out that the pursuit of individual happiness will irritate someone. That is (my) happiness will lead to (your) unhappiness.
These goals (good order versus pursuing happiness) are exclusionary. America, perhaps the most ideological civilization ever invented, is a house divided against itself. Consider the argument that was used to advocate single gender “marriages.” The mantra, offered with little or no variation, was “two people simply want to be with the person they love for all their lives.” The basic premise was that marriage leads to happiness… always, at least always in the case of homosexuals. The idea that laws should reflect a general sense of what citizens consider right or wrong was completely ignored, because pursuit of happiness was supreme. Yet the mere fact that only the government can authorize---and disallow!---marriages means that it follows the good order principle at the same time.
A stable state will have one overall goal, either of happiness or goodness for the citizen. The USA has never been stable, as it tries to achieve both. It has been blessed by the fact serious instability was suppressed (e.g. the Civil War), or given an outlet (e.g. the frontier). These days, as in the days of Imperial Rome, it is mostly “bread or circuses” that make the populace so complacent that the structure does not disassemble. The level of readily available pleasures (which are not happiness) continues to act as a tranquilizer. The most interesting question is this: is this supply endless, and what will happen if this supply ends?