Americas Choice Common Good vs Private Power

0:00

/957.8

1×

John Adams' Moral Algorithm vs. The New Authoritarianism

The Fundamental Crossroads

America stands at a profound crossroads. The choice before us is not merely between competing policy platforms or partisan ideologies, but between two fundamentally different conceptions of governance—two visions that trace their origins to the nation's founding yet point toward radically different futures.

On one path lies John Adams' "Moral Algorithm"—his vision that "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." This principle, first seeded in the Declaration of Independence and later fully articulated in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, represents the foundational DNA of American democracy—a commitment to governance that serves collective welfare rather than sectional advantage.

On the other path lies what might be called the "Algorithmic Inversion"—governance explicitly designed to serve private interests, concentrate power in the hands of a self-appointed elite, and subordinate democratic accountability to executive authority. This vision, which finds contemporary expression in movements like the "Dark Enlightenment" and institutional blueprints like "Project 2025," represents not merely a deviation from Adams' algorithm but its fundamental rejection.

The stakes of this choice could not be higher. As we will see, historical periods when America has embraced Adams' moral algorithm have generally correlated with expanding equality and shared prosperity. Conversely, periods when the nation has abandoned this principle have typically seen rising inequality, declining social cohesion, and the subordination of democratic processes to concentrated power.

The Moral Algorithm: America's Democratic DNA

From Revolutionary Seed to Constitutional Principle

The moral algorithm that would guide American governance was first seeded during the revolutionary period. As a member of the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence, John Adams helped articulate the principle that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." This revolutionary assertion established the foundational premise that government's legitimacy flows from its service to the people's welfare rather than from divine right or aristocratic privilege.

Adams later expanded this principle into a comprehensive theory of democratic governance in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which he largely drafted. Article VII of its Declaration of Rights states:

"Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or class of men: Therefore the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it."

This formulation—the fully articulated moral algorithm—establishes three fundamental principles:

1. Government exists primarily for collective welfare
2. Private interests must be subordinated to public good
3. The people retain the right to reform government when it fails its primary purpose

These principles would profoundly shape American political development, serving as both descriptive theory explaining historical patterns and prescriptive standard for evaluating governance.

The Algorithm's Cyclical Expression in American History

Throughout American history, we observe clear patterns correlating with adherence to or deviation from Adams' moral algorithm:

When America has embraced the moral algorithm—during periods like the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Movement—the nation has generally moved toward greater equality and shared prosperity. Roosevelt's New Deal reforms, including banking regulations like the Glass-Steagall Act, labor protections, and social safety net programs, all exemplified governance oriented toward "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" during economic crisis.

When America has abandoned the moral algorithm—during periods like the Gilded Age, Jim Crow era, and the neoliberal turn of recent decades—inequality has typically increased and collective welfare has declined. The Robber Baron era saw government increasingly captured by industrial monopolists like Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Morgan, while the financial deregulation of the 1990s-2000s privileged Wall Street's interests over broader economic stability.

This cyclical pattern demonstrates the predictive power of Adams' algorithm: when governance serves the common good, inequality tends to decrease; when it serves narrow interests, inequality rises.

The Declaratory Act and Dark Enlightenment: Authoritarian Echoes Across Time

The Declaratory Act: Parliament's Assertion of Absolute Authority

The Declaratory Act of 1766 represents one of the earliest and most explicit rejections of what would become Adams' moral algorithm. Passed by the British Parliament alongside the repeal of the unpopular Stamp Act, this legislation asserted Parliament's authority to make laws binding on American colonies "in all cases whatsoever."

This claim to unlimited authority without corresponding responsibility to colonial welfare embodied governance antithetical to Adams' vision. It privileged institutional power over the welfare of the governed, claiming legitimacy not from service to the common good but from traditional authority structures.

Three aspects of the Declaratory Act particularly reflect this inversion of Adams' principle:

1. Unaccountable Power: Parliament claimed absolute authority without acknowledging any corresponding duty to consider colonial interests or welfare.
2. Denial of Consent: The act explicitly rejected the emerging American principle that legitimate governance requires the consent of the governed.
3. Hierarchical Legitimacy: It affirmed that governing authority flows downward from traditional power structures rather than upward from the people's consent.

For American colonists like Adams, the Declaratory Act represented not merely an objectionable policy but a fundamental misunderstanding of governance's purpose. His objections helped formulate what would become his fully articulated moral algorithm—the principle that legitimate government must serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" rather than institutional self-perpetuation.

The Dark Enlightenment: Contemporary Rejection of Democratic Equality

Across centuries, the philosophy known as the "Dark Enlightenment" or "NeoReaction" (NRx) echoes the Declaratory Act's rejection of Adams' algorithm with remarkable fidelity. This intellectual movement, articulated by figures like Curtis Yarvin (writing as "Mencius Moldbug") and Nick Land, explicitly rejects democratic equality in favor of hierarchical governance models.

Like the Declaratory Act, the Dark Enlightenment philosophy displays three core features inverting Adams' moral algorithm:

1. Unaccountable Power: It advocates replacing democratic accountability with rule by a self-selected elite, claiming that expertise and competence should supersede popular consent as the basis for governing legitimacy.
2. Denial of Consent: It explicitly rejects the principle that governance derives legitimacy from the consent of the governed, instead arguing that effective government requires insulation from popular opinion.
3. Hierarchical Legitimacy: It asserts that governing authority properly flows from superior competence or intelligence rather than from popular consent, advocating what Yarvin calls "neocameralism"—a governance model likening the state to a corporation with a CEO-like sovereign.

The Dark Enlightenment thus represents not merely a contemporary deviation from Adams' moral algorithm but its comprehensive philosophical rejection. Where Adams insisted that "Government is instituted for the common good," this philosophy explicitly advocates governance oriented toward efficiency, order, and hierarchy regardless of its impact on collective welfare or democratic equality.

Connecting Authoritarian Impulses Across Time

The parallels between the Declaratory Act and Dark Enlightenment philosophy reveal a persistent authoritarian impulse that periodically challenges Adams' moral algorithm. Both position unaccountable authority as superior to democratic consent, both privilege institutional power over common welfare, and both reject the premise that government derives legitimacy from serving the people it governs.

This authoritarian impulse represents the fundamental counterpoint to Adams' moral algorithm throughout American history. From the Declaratory Act to Gilded Age robber barons to contemporary techno-authoritarianism, this impulse consistently resurfaces to challenge the primacy of the common good in American governance.

Trump Administration and CEO Governance: Implementing the Algorithmic Inversion

The CEO President: Implementing Unaccountable Executive Power

The Trump presidency (2017-2021) represented the first significant implementation of governance principles aligned with Dark Enlightenment philosophy. Though presented in populist rhetoric, Trump's approach to governance embodied the CEO-like sovereign model advocated by NeoReactionary thinkers.

Trump's famous declaration at the 2016 Republican Convention that "I alone can fix it" epitomized this model's rejection of Adams' principle that government should serve collective welfare rather than individual ambition. Throughout his presidency, Trump consistently privileged personal authority over institutional processes, treated expertise with suspicion, and positioned democratic checks as illegitimate constraints rather than essential safeguards.

Three aspects of Trump's governance approach particularly reflected the Dark Enlightenment's CEO model:

1. Personalized Authority: Trump consistently positioned his personal judgment as superior to institutional expertise, dismissing career civil servants as the "deep state" and elevating personal loyalty over professional competence as the primary qualification for government service.
2. Institutional Hostility: Rather than viewing government agencies as instruments for securing common welfare, the administration treated them as obstacles to executive will, systematically dismantling regulatory frameworks designed to subordinate private interests to public welfare.
3. Democratic Skepticism: From questioning election results to attacking independent media, Trump exhibited fundamental skepticism toward the democratic processes that Adams saw as essential for ensuring government serves the common good.

These governance patterns represented not merely policy disagreements but a fundamental challenge to Adams' moral algorithm. Where Adams insisted government exists "not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man," Trump's approach explicitly privileged executive authority over democratic accountability and collective welfare.

Project 2025: Institutional Blueprint for Algorithmic Inversion

What distinguishes the contemporary challenge to Adams' moral algorithm from previous deviations is the development of comprehensive institutional blueprints for implementing its inversion. The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025," a 922-page "Mandate for Leadership" document released in 2023, represents perhaps the most detailed roadmap for systematically replacing Adams' algorithm with governance oriented toward unaccountable executive power.

Project 2025 proposes three fundamental shifts in American governance, each representing a direct inversion of one of Adams' core principles:

1. Expanded Executive Control: Where Adams insisted government exists for collective welfare, Project 2025 advocates dramatically expanding presidential control over the federal bureaucracy, including reclassifying tens of thousands of civil service positions as political appointments to maximize executive authority.
2. Prioritizing Private Interests: Where Adams insisted private interests must be subordinated to public good, Project 2025 proposes systematically dismantling regulatory frameworks designed to constrain corporate power, transferring public functions to private entities, and reorienting government to serve business interests.
3. Constraining Democratic Reform: Where Adams insisted the people retain the right to reform government when it fails its purpose, Project 2025 proposes mechanisms to insulate governance from democratic accountability, including restrictions on voting access and reduced transparency in government operations.

These proposals represent not merely policy differences but a comprehensive vision for inverting Adams' moral algorithm—replacing government for the common good with governance explicitly designed to concentrate power and privilege private interests over collective welfare.

The Fundamental Choice: Common Good or Private Power

The choice confronting America is thus not merely between competing policy agendas but between fundamentally different conceptions of governance. Will we reaffirm Adams' moral algorithm—the principle that "Government is instituted for the common good"—or will we embrace its inversion in the form of governance primarily serving private interests and concentrated power?

Historical evidence suggests the stakes of this choice could not be higher. Periods when America has embraced Adams' moral algorithm have generally correlated with expanding equality, growing middle-class prosperity, and stronger democratic institutions. Conversely, periods when America has abandoned this principle have typically seen rising inequality, economic instability, and the erosion of democratic safeguards.

The challenge to Adams' algorithm has never been more explicit or comprehensive than it is today. From the Dark Enlightenment's philosophical rejection of democratic equality to Project 2025's institutional blueprint for concentrated executive power, contemporary America faces a coordinated effort to invert the moral algorithm that has guided the nation's democratic development.

Ultimately, America's future depends on which path we choose. Will we reaffirm government "for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people," or will we accept governance primarily serving "the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men"? The answer to this question will determine not merely our policy direction but the very nature of American democracy in the coming generation.

Just as the colonists faced a fundamental choice when confronted with the Declaratory Act's assertion of unaccountable authority, so contemporary Americans face a choice between Adams' democratic vision and its authoritarian alternative. The cycle of American history suggests that periods of deviation from Adams' algorithm eventually provoke reform movements seeking to reassert its primacy. Whether such a reassertion occurs in our time will depend on our collective commitment to governance that genuinely serves the common good rather than narrow interests or concentrated power.