American conservatism is a weird thing.

My favorite current blogger, the Cistercian Father Edmund Waldstein of Heiligenkreuz Abbey in Austria, notes the-now-embroiled-in-controversy Joseph Bottum’s apt description of this political movement as “a balance between the Bible and the Enlightenment,” two poles that are in various ways irreconcilable.

I won’t pretend to be as knowledgeable about political theory as Fr. Edmund is, but there is one area where I can see this tension in modern conservatism: the concepts of “rugged individualism” (which conservatives view as something good) and collectivism (which conservatives view as something bad).

In short, I don’t believe in rugged individualism (a concept that has its roots in Rousseau and other social contract theorists), and I don’t think it is actually the learned experience of Americans, as some modern conservatives would allege.  I believe St. Thomas’ teaching that man is inherently social is far more operative in American life, and that social and political communities—beginning with the most fundamental building block of the family—are genuinely at the heart of the “American dream” mythos.

The Two Poles


The exaltation of the concept of “rugged individualism” is most commonly heard on conservative talk radio.  This modern American mythos exalts the idea of the individual entrepreneur, the man who takes risks, works hard, invests his time and energy and talents in order to fulfill the American dream and become a success.  Most importantly, he does it without a government handout, or a government social welfare program; he doesn’t need the nanny state to spoon-feed him gruel when he can go hunt a bear himself.  He is self-reliant, and overcomes all obstacles to pull himself up by his bootstraps and seize a piece of the American pie for himself.

The enemy of this idea is that of the collectivist nanny state.  In this narrative, the government must use its social welfare spending power to balance the scales of economic equity.  If you are poor, the government pats you on the head, gives you some subsistence-living handouts for health insurance, welfare, etc., and views with horror any proposal that such provisions be distributed on a limited basis.  In this nanny state universe there is no initiative, no drive, no fierce desire to improve oneself.  One simply becomes a ward of the government, a vote that is purchased by whichever political party can offer it the most handouts.  Even for those who do have jobs, their existence is necessarily dependent on others: labor union members and government employees (military personnel excepted) are similarly deemed dependent on government largesse in this narrative.  The conservatives’ most hated slogan from the “collectivist” mindset is Hillary Clinton’s quote, “It takes a village to raise a child.”

Rugged individuals?  No.  Rugged family/civic men?  Yes.


The hyperbole of talk radio doesn’t often allow for a lot of nuance, and the nuance is lacking here.  While these are the two narratives presented (with the “good guy” conservatives in the “rugged individual” camp, and the “bad guy” liberals in the collectivist camp) I don’t believe that those are the two main narratives.  Certainly, the nanny state is the sadly lived-out experience of too many Americans, and is opposed to the authentic social teaching of the Popes (See Bl. John Paul II Centessimus annus 48, Benedict XVI Caritas in veritate 57).  We should fight against policies that reduce human beings to such a condition.

Is there a tertium quid between rugged individualism and collectivism?  Well, not exactly.  Really, I just don’t think rugged individuals did much to help build our nation.  The individuals who did this were rugged, but they certainly weren’t individual.

Who were they, then?


The fact is that most of the alleged examples of rugged individualism in the United States were in fact intensely solicitous for the societies in which they lived: the communities from which they arose, the private communal organizations they assisted, and (most importantly) their families.

The quintessential “rugged individualists” of American history, many believe, were the pioneers.  Yet, they weren’t particularly individual.  Most of them traversed the country in ethnic and familial groups, and almost all of them left the Eastern United States specifically so they could provide for their families.  Once they had traversed the west and settled down, these pioneering individuals quickly set up communities that revolved around their families, churches, and local civic bodies.

People think of Daniel Boone as a typical “rugged individual.”  Yet the man had 10 children by his wife Rebecca, and his migration west DBto Kentucky was in large part the result of his need to provide for them.  While he is known for a number of individual exploits, he was actually a prominent civic leader in the early Anglo-American settlement of Kentucky.  He did not spurn community; he simply spurned Pennsylvania!  The man was profoundly concerned for his wife, his family, and the community that formed around him as a settler in Kentucky.

When one looks at the 20th Century American business success stories, one typically sees men who were not simply isolated individuals, but who were rather profoundly oriented towards their communities and families.  How many of the great industrialists gave massive endowments to the universities they attended, served in public office, and pursued their success for the sake of their families?  How many men of lesser, but still significant, success in 20th century America had large families, and were prominent in their local communities and community organizations like Rotary, the Knights of Columbus, and local ethnic organizations?  How many women were involved in sewing clubs, book clubs, charitable organizations, church sodalities, local political groups, state political groups, etc.?  These groups were essential societal entities—and they are very much on the decline.

Tomorrow I will examine the difference between this lived American experience of community, and the liberal collectivist concept. Also, I’ll discuss the new threat to cultural conservatism spawned by our culture: the unrugged individual.

This essay first appeared on Gerardi's blog, Christfidelis Laicus, on September 2 and is posted with permission.