Moral Algorithm DNA of American Governance

0:00

/1042.36

1×

John Adams' Vision as the Foundation of the USA

Introduction

John Adams' declaration 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" represents more than mere political rhetoric—it constitutes what might be termed a "Moral Algorithm" that has shaped American governance since the nation's founding. This thesis examines how this fundamental principle has served as the conceptual DNA of the United States, guiding its evolution through periods of both adherence to and deviation from this core algorithm.

The elegance of Adams' formula lies in its simultaneous simplicity and profundity: government exists primarily as an instrument of collective welfare rather than as a vehicle for individual or factional advantage. When governance aligns with this algorithm, society tends toward greater equality and shared prosperity; when it deviates, inequality rises and social cohesion weakens. By tracing the intellectual origins of this concept and analyzing key historical moments when American society has either embraced or rejected this principle, we can better understand the cyclical nature of American political development and identify patterns that continue to shape our contemporary landscape.

Origins of the Moral Algorithm

The Declaration of Independence: Planting the Seed

The "Moral Algorithm" that would later be articulated by Adams was first seeded in the Declaration of Independence—a document he helped create as a member of the Committee of Five appointed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776. This committee, consisting of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman, was tasked with drafting a formal statement justifying independence from Great Britain.

While Jefferson served as the primary author, Adams played a crucial role both in advocating for independence and in shaping the philosophical underpinnings of the document. As Jefferson himself later acknowledged, Adams was "the pillar of [the Declaration's] support on the floor of Congress, its ablest advocate and defender." It was Adams who persuaded Jefferson to serve as the primary drafter, recognizing Jefferson's superior writing abilities and positive reputation among the delegates.

The Declaration's famous assertion that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" represents the first national articulation of what would evolve into Adams' moral algorithm. This pivotal phrase establishes three fundamental principles:

1. The primary purpose of government is to secure rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness)
2. Government derives legitimacy from popular consent
3. Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around

When the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration on July 4th, 1776, they were not merely announcing independence; they were establishing the philosophical foundation upon which American governance would be built. The seed of Adams' moral algorithm was thus planted at the very moment of the nation's birth.

Intellectual Foundations

The moral algorithm articulated by Adams did not emerge from a vacuum but rather represented the culmination of Enlightenment political philosophy filtered through the unique American colonial experience. Three primary intellectual currents converged to form this distinctive American principle:

The Classical Republican Tradition provided the foundation for Adams' thinking about government and the common good. Drawing from Cicero, who argued that "the welfare of the people is the highest law" (salus populi suprema lex esto), Adams inherited a tradition that viewed government as fundamentally oriented toward public rather than private interests.

The Scottish Enlightenment, particularly through thinkers like Francis Hutcheson and Adam Smith, contributed the moral framework emphasizing "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" as the measure of good governance. Adams was deeply influenced by these ideas during his intellectual development.

Protestant Christian Theology, with its emphasis on covenant and communal responsibility, provided the moral language through which Adams and many founders understood government's purpose. The Puritan tradition in New England had long emphasized the idea of a "city upon a hill" governed for communal welfare.

Codification in the Massachusetts Constitution

The moral algorithm found its first formal American expression in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, largely drafted by Adams himself. Article VII of the 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 document, the oldest functioning written constitution in the world, represents the first full codification of Adams' moral algorithm. It established three critical principles that would later influence the federal Constitution:

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 to serve its primary purpose

The progression from the Declaration's seed ("to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men") to the Massachusetts Constitution's full flowering of the moral algorithm demonstrates how Adams refined and expanded this fundamental principle through practical governance experience. What began as a revolutionary justification evolved into a comprehensive theory of democratic governance that continues to inform American political discourse.

Historical Applications and Deviations

Throughout American history, we can observe clear patterns of both alignment with and deviation from Adams' moral algorithm. The following historical examples demonstrate how this principle has shaped the nation's development:

Colonial Resistance: The Moral Algorithm in Revolutionary Practice

The Boston Tea Party and Resistance to Special Interests

Perhaps the earliest instance of Americans rising up to defend the moral algorithm came in the years leading to revolution. The Boston Tea Party of 1773 represents a direct response to policies that privileged private interests over the common good. Parliament's Tea Act of 1773 exemplified governance counter to the moral algorithm—it granted the struggling East India Company a monopoly on tea sales in America and special tax exemptions, while maintaining taxes on American colonists.

This privileging of a single corporation's interests over those of the general population epitomized governance for "the profit, honor, or private interest of one man, family, or class of men." Samuel Adams (John's cousin) highlighted this principle in organizing resistance, arguing that the act represented not merely taxation without representation but the corrupt subordination of public interest to corporate advantage.

The Declaratory Act: Rejection of the Moral Algorithm's Core Principle

The Declaratory Act of 1766, which asserted Parliament's authority to make laws binding on American colonies "in all cases whatsoever," represented a direct contradiction of the moral algorithm's premise that government derives legitimacy from serving the common good of the governed. By claiming unlimited authority without corresponding responsibility to colonial welfare, Parliament exemplified the type of governance the moral algorithm was designed to prevent.

John Adams' arguments against the Declaratory Act helped formulate what would become his fully articulated moral algorithm. He contended that Parliament's claim to absolute authority without responsibility to colonial welfare violated the fundamental purpose of government—to serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people." This formulation directly influenced his later, more comprehensive articulation in the Massachusetts Constitution.

The colonial resistance movements, culminating in revolution, thus represented not merely a pragmatic response to economic grievances but a principled defense of the moral algorithm's core tenets. When the American colonists dumped British tea into Boston Harbor, they were not only protesting specific policies but asserting the primary of the moral algorithm against governance that privileged special interests.

The Founding Era: Contested Implementation (1776-1800)

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 represented both an embrace of and tension with Adams' moral algorithm. James Madison's famous statement in Federalist No. 51 that "Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society" echoed Adams' concern for the common good. However, the Constitutional compromises around slavery, the three-fifths clause, and limited suffrage demonstrated significant deviations from the algorithm's core principle of government for all people's welfare.

The early Republic witnessed ongoing tensions between Federalists (including Adams as president) and Democratic-Republicans led by Jefferson. Both claimed to represent the common good but differed dramatically in their understanding of how government should secure it. The peaceful transition of power in 1800 ultimately reinforced the primacy of the moral algorithm by demonstrating that constitutional processes, not personal power, would govern the nation.

Industrial Age: The Robber Barons and Corporate Power

The Rise of Industrial Magnates

The late 19th century witnessed perhaps the most dramatic deviation from Adams' moral algorithm with the emergence of the "Robber Barons"—industrial titans like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Cornelius Vanderbilt. These figures amassed unprecedented wealth and power through industrial monopolies, often employing brutal labor practices and manipulating political systems to serve their interests.

The Copper Kings of Montana—William Andrews Clark, Marcus Daly, and F. Augustus Heinze—exemplified governance counter to the moral algorithm at the state level. Clark infamously bribed the Montana legislature to secure a U.S. Senate seat in 1899, leading Mark Twain to describe him as "as rotten a human being as can be found anywhere under the flag." This brazen subordination of democratic processes to personal ambition represented the antithesis of Adams' principle that government should serve "not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man."

Corporate Capture of Government

During this period, corporations frequently captured government institutions meant to regulate them. The Supreme Court's decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), which extended Fourteenth Amendment protections to corporations, epitomized how governance structures could be repurposed to serve private rather than public interests. Railroad companies often controlled state legislatures, while banking interests exerted enormous influence over federal monetary policy through figures like Nelson Aldrich, known as "the General Manager of the Nation."

This corporate capture directly contravened Adams' insistence that government exist "not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." The resulting rise in economic inequality—with the top 1% controlling approximately 45% of wealth by 1900—validated the predictive power of the moral algorithm: when government serves special interests, inequality rises dramatically.

Popular Resistance and the Progressive Response

The excesses of the Gilded Age provoked widespread popular resistance aligned with Adams' moral algorithm. The Populist Movement of the 1890s, led by farmers and laborers, explicitly invoked the language of government for the common good in opposing railroad monopolies and financial speculation. The Homestead Strike (1892) and Pullman Strike (1894) represented attempts by workers to assert their inclusion in "the people" whose welfare government should serve.

These movements eventually culminated in the Progressive Era reforms that sought to realign governance with the moral algorithm. Theodore Roosevelt's "trustbusting," the creation of regulatory agencies like the FDA, and later reforms like direct election of senators all represented efforts to restore government's primary orientation toward the common good rather than special interests.

The Great Depression: Market Failure and the New Deal Response

Laissez-Faire Policies and Market Collapse

The 1920s witnessed another profound deviation from Adams' moral algorithm with the ascendance of laissez-faire economic policies under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. These administrations championed minimal government intervention in markets, reduced regulation of financial institutions, and tax policies benefiting wealthy Americans and corporations. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon's famous "trickle-down" economics prioritized capital accumulation by economic elites over broader prosperity.

These policies—justified by claims that unfettered markets would maximize prosperity—represented a fundamental departure from Adams' principle that government should actively secure "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people." Instead, they prioritized the interests of what Herbert Hoover's Secretary of State Henry Stimson called "the naturally selected" economic elites.

The catastrophic market crash of 1929 and subsequent Great Depression dramatically demonstrated the consequences of abandoning the moral algorithm. With the stock market losing 89% of its value between 1929 and 1932, unemployment reaching 25%, and widespread bank failures, the laissez-faire approach had manifestly failed to secure "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people." Instead, it had privileged short-term financial gains for the few over long-term economic stability for the many.

The New Deal: Reassertion of the Moral Algorithm

Franklin Roosevelt's response to the Depression represented perhaps the most explicit reassertion of Adams' moral algorithm in American history. His inaugural declaration that "the money changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization" directly echoed Adams' concern with government serving special interests over the common good. Roosevelt's insistence that "the measure of the restoration lies in the extent to which we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit" could have been taken directly from Adams' moral algorithm.

The New Deal's comprehensive reforms—banking regulations, Social Security, labor protections, public works programs, and progressive taxation—all aimed to reorient government toward serving the common good rather than special interests. Roosevelt's explicit framing of these programs as securing "freedom from fear" and "freedom from want" aligned perfectly with Adams' insistence that government exist for "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people."

Glass-Steagall Act: Safeguarding the Financial System for the Common Good

Among the most significant New Deal reforms was the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as the Glass-Steagall Act. This legislation represented a direct application of Adams' moral algorithm to the financial sector—prioritizing the stability of the entire system (and thus the common good) over the profit-seeking activities of financial institutions.

Glass-Steagall established a firewall between commercial banking (holding deposits and making loans) and investment banking (underwriting and trading securities). This separation addressed a fundamental conflict of interest that had contributed to the 1929 crash: banks using depositors' money for speculative investments, prioritizing potential profits over the safety of customers' savings.

The Act embodied Adams' principle that government should secure "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" by preventing banks from gambling with ordinary citizens' money. It recognized that the financial system must serve the broader economy rather than narrow interests, directly applying the moral algorithm's insistence that government not serve "the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."

The dramatic reduction in economic inequality that followed the New Deal—with the top 1% share of national income falling from 23% to 8% between 1928 and 1979—validated the predictive power of the moral algorithm: when government reorients toward the common good, inequality tends to decrease. For nearly 70 years, Glass-Steagall's protections helped prevent systemic financial crises, creating the stability necessary for widespread prosperity.

Jacksonian Democracy: Selective Application (1828-1848)

Andrew Jackson's presidency represented a complex relationship with Adams' moral algorithm. His opposition to the Second Bank of the United States was framed as a defense of common people against elite financial interests—aligning with the algorithm's opposition to government serving "any one class of men." Yet simultaneously, Jackson's Indian Removal policies and support for slavery represented profound contradictions of the algorithm's requirement that government serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people"—by explicitly excluding Native Americans and enslaved people from consideration as part of "the people."

This period illustrates how the moral algorithm could be selectively applied—embraced when opposing economic elites but abandoned when considering racial equality. The rising inequality of this period, particularly for Native and Black Americans, demonstrates the algorithm's predictive power: when governance departed from Adams' principle, inequality indeed increased.

Civil War and Reconstruction: Algorithm Restored and Abandoned (1861-1877)

The Civil War represented perhaps the most dramatic test of Adams' moral algorithm in American history. Lincoln's defense of the Union explicitly invoked the principle that government must serve the common good rather than sectional interests. His Gettysburg Address reimagined the nation as one "of the people, by the people, for the people"—a direct echo of Adams' formulation.

The Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th) represented the most significant expansion of the moral algorithm's application in American history, extending its guarantees of equality before the law to formerly enslaved people. Yet the abandonment of Reconstruction in 1877 and the subsequent rise of Jim Crow demonstrated how quickly the nation could retreat from this principle when powerful interests opposed it. The resulting century of legalized segregation and racial terror represents one of the most profound and sustained deviations from Adams' moral algorithm in American history.

Progressive Era: Algorithm Reclaimed (1890-1920)

The Progressive movement explicitly embraced Adams' moral algorithm as a counterweight to the excesses of the Gilded Age. Theodore Roosevelt's "Square Deal" and Woodrow Wilson's "New Freedom" both invoked the language of government serving the common good rather than special interests. Progressive reforms including antitrust legislation, food and drug regulation, labor protections, and eventually women's suffrage all represented efforts to realign governance with Adams' principle.

This period demonstrates the algorithm's cyclical nature in American history—following periods where government increasingly served narrow interests, reform movements have consistently emerged to reassert the primacy of the common good. The declining inequality that resulted from Progressive Era reforms validates the logical flow the algorithm predicts: policies advancing the common good tend to reduce inequality.

New Deal and Great Society: Algorithm Expanded (1933-1968)

The New Deal represented perhaps the most comprehensive application of Adams' moral algorithm in American history. Franklin Roosevelt's inaugural declaration that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" framed government as the guarantor of collective security and prosperity. Programs like Social Security, banking regulations, labor protections, public works projects, and progressive taxation all represented government actively securing "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" during economic crisis.

The Great Society programs under Lyndon Johnson furthered this trend, with Medicare, Medicaid, civil rights legislation, and anti-poverty programs all aligned with Adams' vision of government serving the common good. The resulting decline in economic inequality and expansion of civil rights during this period again validates the predictive power of Adams' algorithm: when government serves the common good, inequality tends to decrease.

The Powell Memo and Corporate Counterrevolution (1971-1980)

The Powell Memo: Strategic Blueprint Against the Moral Algorithm

The period of alignment with Adams' moral algorithm that characterized the New Deal and Great Society eras provoked a deliberate and coordinated response from business interests seeking to reverse this trajectory. This countermovement found its intellectual and strategic blueprint in what has come to be known as the "Powell Memo," a confidential document titled "Attack on American Free Enterprise System" written in 1971 by corporate attorney Lewis F. Powell Jr., shortly before his appointment to the Supreme Court.

The Powell Memo represents perhaps the most explicit and strategic challenge to Adams' moral algorithm in American history. Where Adams insisted that government must serve "not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men," Powell explicitly called for the business community to mobilize its resources to reshape American governance in service of corporate interests. He wrote:

"Business must learn the lesson... that political power is necessary; that such power must be assiduously cultivated; and that when necessary, it must be used aggressively and with determination—without embarrassment and without the reluctance which has been so characteristic of American business."

Powell's memo identified key institutions—universities, media, courts, and political structures—that he believed had turned against business interests during the New Deal/Great Society period. He outlined a comprehensive strategy for the business community to recapture these institutions, recommending sustained funding for pro-business intellectuals, media campaigns promoting free enterprise, legal activism to shape judicial decisions, and aggressive political lobbying.

Implementation and Institutional Development

The impact of Powell's strategic vision quickly manifested in the creation of powerful institutions designed to reorient American governance away from Adams' moral algorithm and toward privileging business interests. The Business Roundtable, founded in 1972, brought together CEOs of major corporations to coordinate political action. Conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation (1973) and the Cato Institute (1977) were established to develop and promote policy frameworks prioritizing business interests over broader welfare concerns.

These institutions represented the infrastructure for a deliberate effort to dismantle the New Deal regulatory framework and reorient government toward serving the "private interest" of a "class of men" that Adams had explicitly warned against. Their explicit purpose was to challenge the primacy of the common good in American governance—the core principle of Adams' moral algorithm.

Ideological Transformation and the Birth of Neoliberalism

The Powell Memo helped catalyze not merely institutional change but a profound ideological transformation in American politics. It provided intellectual legitimacy and strategic guidance for what would become known as "neoliberalism"—a political-economic philosophy that explicitly rejected Adams' vision of government actively securing the common good in favor of prioritizing market mechanisms and corporate freedom from regulation.

This ideological shift found academic expression in the work of economists like Milton Friedman, who argued that "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits"—a direct inversion of Adams' insistence that private interests be subordinated to public welfare. It found political expression in figures like Ronald Reagan, whose 1981 inaugural declaration that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" represented a fundamental rejection of Adams' moral algorithm.

The Powell Memo thus represents a pivotal moment in American governance—the point at which business interests deliberately organized to contest and ultimately reverse the alignment with Adams' moral algorithm that had characterized the New Deal and Great Society eras. Its influence on subsequent American development cannot be overstated, as it provided both the intellectual framework and strategic blueprint for a systematic reorientation of governance away from the common good and toward privileging private interests.

Neoliberal Turn: Algorithm Challenged (1980-2008)

Reagan Revolution: Preliminary Assault on the Moral Algorithm

Building on the foundation laid by the Powell Memo, the political realignment beginning with Ronald Reagan's presidency represented the first phase of a comprehensive challenge to Adams' moral algorithm. Reagan's famous declaration that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem" directly contested Adams' vision of government as the guarantor of common welfare. Policies including tax cuts disproportionately benefiting wealthy Americans, deregulation of industries, and reduction of social services reflected a shift toward prioritizing market efficiency over collective welfare.

While Reagan's rhetoric explicitly rejected Adams' moral algorithm, many New Deal-era protections remained intact during his administration. Despite initial attempts to roll back banking regulations, powerful legacies of the New Deal era—including Glass-Steagall's separation of commercial and investment banking—continued to provide guardrails against the complete subordination of the financial system to private interests.

Clinton and the Bipartisan Embrace of Neoliberalism

The decisive break with Adams' moral algorithm in the financial sector came not under Republican leadership but during Bill Clinton's Democratic administration (1993-2001). Clinton's presidency represented a pivotal moment when both major political parties embraced key elements of neoliberal ideology, creating a bipartisan consensus around prioritizing financial sector interests over broader economic stability.

Clinton framed his approach as a "Third Way" that transcended traditional left-right divides. In practice, this meant embracing deregulation and market-oriented policies long advocated by business interests while maintaining rhetorical commitment to progressive social values. This approach reflected the influence of figures like Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs executive who championed financial deregulation as necessary for economic growth.

Dismantling Glass-Steagall and the Reversal of the Moral Algorithm

The most consequential manifestation of Clinton's neoliberal turn was the dismantling of Glass-Steagall's firewall between commercial and investment banking. This process began with regulatory reinterpretations that weakened the law's implementation and culminated in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act), which effectively repealed Glass-Steagall's core protections.

This legislation represented a profound rejection of the moral algorithm's core principle—that government should secure "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" rather than serving "the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men." By removing the firewall that had protected ordinary depositors from financial speculation for nearly seven decades, the Clinton administration prioritized the interests of financial institutions seeking expanded profit opportunities over the stability of the broader economic system.

Clinton's Treasury Secretary Larry Summers explicitly framed financial deregulation as "updating" Depression-era laws for the modern economy. This framing obscured the fundamental shift in governance philosophy—from prioritizing systemic stability for the common good to prioritizing profit opportunities for financial institutions. When signing the legislation, Clinton declared that it would "enhance the stability of our financial services system" while creating "new competition"—a claim that would be dramatically disproven in the subsequent decade.

Bipartisan Rejection of the Moral Algorithm

The repeal of Glass-Steagall received overwhelming bipartisan support, with the Senate passing the measure 90-8 and the House 362-57. This broad consensus reflected the triumph of the Powell Memo's strategy—the successful reorientation of both political parties toward serving business interests rather than prioritizing the common good as Adams had envisioned.

Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND), one of the few opponents, presciently warned: "I think we will look back in 10 years' time and say we should not have done this, but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that which is true in the 1930s is true in 2010." His warning embodied Adams' moral algorithm—the recognition that prioritizing private financial interests over systemic stability would ultimately undermine "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people."

Consequences: The 2008 Financial Crisis

The predictive power of Adams' moral algorithm became dramatically evident less than a decade after Glass-Steagall's repeal. The global financial crisis of 2008—the worst since the Great Depression—demonstrated the consequences of subordinating the financial system's stability to the profit-seeking activities of financial institutions.

The newly deregulated financial giants had engaged in precisely the kind of risky behavior Glass-Steagall had been designed to prevent—using ordinary deposits to back speculative investments in complex financial instruments. When these investments failed, the entire financial system teetered on the brink of collapse, requiring massive government intervention to prevent a complete economic meltdown.

The crisis validated the moral algorithm's prediction: when government abandons its responsibility to secure "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" in favor of serving "the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men," the result is not greater prosperity but systemic instability that ultimately harms the common good.

The dramatic increase in economic inequality during this period—with the share of national income going to the top 1% more than doubling between 1980 and 2008—further confirmed the algorithm's predictive power. As governance increasingly served the interests of financial elites, inequality rose and collective welfare declined for many Americans.

Contemporary America: The Moral Algorithm's Greatest Challenge (2008-Present)

The 2008 financial crisis created a moment of potential realignment with Adams' moral algorithm. The Occupy Wall Street movement's framing of conflict between the "99% and the 1%" explicitly invoked concerns about government serving narrow rather than broad interests. Similarly, movements for racial justice, healthcare reform, and economic equality have appealed to the principle that government should serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people."

However, rather than leading to a restoration of the moral algorithm's primacy, the post-crisis period has witnessed the emergence of what may constitute the most fundamental challenge to Adams' principle in American history—a direct ideological assault on the very concept of government serving the common good.

The Philosophical Antithesis: Dark Enlightenment and the Rejection of Democratic Egalitarianism

At the intellectual margins of American political discourse, a set of ideas known variably as "Dark Enlightenment," "NeoReaction" (NRx), or "post-libertarianism" has emerged that represents a comprehensive philosophical rejection of Adams' moral algorithm. Unlike previous deviations from the algorithm that maintained at least rhetorical commitment to the common good while privileging narrow interests in practice, this intellectual movement explicitly advocates abandoning democratic egalitarianism entirely.

The Dark Enlightenment philosophy, articulated most prominently by figures like Curtis Yarvin (writing as "Mencius Moldbug") and Nick Land, represents a direct inversion of Adams' moral algorithm. Where Adams held that "Government is instituted for the common good," Dark Enlightenment thinkers argue that governance should be reconceived on a corporate model, with efficiency and competence as the primary virtues rather than representativeness or concern for collective welfare.

At the core of this philosophy lies a fundamental rejection of democratic equality—the very foundation upon which Adams built his moral algorithm. Instead, NeoReactionary thought advocates for what Yarvin calls "neocameralism"—a governance model likening the state to a corporation with citizens as shareholders and a CEO-like sovereign wielding near-absolute power. This represents a direct assault on Adams' insistence that government exists "not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men."

Project 2025: Institutional Blueprint for Algorithmic Inversion

What distinguishes the current challenge to Adams' moral algorithm from previous deviations is the development of comprehensive institutional blueprints for implementing this philosophical antithesis. The Heritage Foundation's "Project 2025," a 922-page "Mandate for Leadership" document released in 2023, represents perhaps the most detailed roadmap for systematically inverting Adams' moral algorithm within American governance.

Project 2025 advocates dramatically expanding executive power while curtailing legislative and judicial checks—a direct rejection of Adams' insistence that government be accountable to the people it serves. It proposes restructuring federal agencies to maximize presidential control, eliminating civil service protections that prevent partisan capture of government functions, and systematically dismantling regulatory frameworks designed to subordinate private interests to public welfare.

The project's vision of governance embodies the Dark Enlightenment's preference for hierarchical authority over democratic accountability. Its core premise—that expertise should supersede democracy in determining policy—represents a fundamental rejection of Adams' principle that "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."

Trumpism: Populist Vehicle for Algorithmic Inversion

The presidency of Donald Trump (2017-2021) represented the first practical implementation of governance principles antithetical to Adams' moral algorithm. Though often characterized as populist, Trumpism embodied many of the hierarchical, authoritarian tendencies advocated by Dark Enlightenment thinkers, while operationalizing aspects of Project 2025's vision for expanded executive power.

Trump's explicit rejection of democratic norms—from attacking independent media to questioning election results—reflected a governance philosophy fundamentally at odds with Adams' moral algorithm. His famous declaration that "I alone can fix it" during the 2016 Republican National Convention epitomized the rejection of Adams' principle that government exists to serve collective welfare rather than individual ambition.

The administration's systematic dismantling of regulatory protections—from environmental standards to consumer protections—reflected the Dark Enlightenment's preference for efficiency over equity. Its immigration policies, particularly family separation, represented perhaps the most dramatic rejection of Adams' insistence that government serve "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people"—explicitly excluding vulnerable populations from consideration as part of "the people."

Empathy versus Rationalism: The Philosophical Divide

What makes the current challenge to Adams' moral algorithm particularly significant is its explicit rejection of empathy as a governing principle. Where Adams' algorithm implicitly assumes that government should be guided by concern for collective welfare—an inherently empathetic orientation—the Dark Enlightenment and its political manifestations explicitly privilege what they term "raw rationalism" over empathetic governance.

This philosophical divide represents the deepest possible challenge to Adams' moral algorithm. Previous deviations from the algorithm typically maintained at least rhetorical commitment to empathetic governance while implementing policies that privileged narrow interests. The current challenge, by contrast, explicitly rejects empathy as a governing principle, advocating instead for technocratic expertise and hierarchical authority regardless of human consequences.

The Algorithmic Cycle at its Breaking Point?

Throughout American history, periods of deviation from Adams' moral algorithm have provoked reform movements seeking to reassert its primacy. The current challenge, however, represents something qualitatively different—not merely a deviation from the algorithm but an explicit rejection of its fundamental premises.

Whether this challenge represents a genuine breaking point in the cyclical pattern of American governance remains to be seen. What distinguishes the present moment is the emergence of a comprehensive philosophical alternative to Adams' moral algorithm—an explicit argument that government should not prioritize the common good but should instead function as a hierarchical, CEO-led entity prioritizing efficiency, order, and narrow expertise over democratic representation and collective welfare.

The outcome of this contest between Adams' moral algorithm and its philosophical antithesis will likely shape American governance for generations to come. As citizens debate the proper role of government in addressing inequality, climate change, healthcare, and other collective challenges, they are ultimately engaging in a fundamental question about whether governance should prioritize "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" or should instead privilege hierarchy, efficiency, and narrow expertise regardless of their impact on collective welfare.

Conclusion: The Cyclical Nature of the Moral Algorithm

The historical evidence demonstrates that Adams' moral algorithm has indeed functioned as the conceptual DNA of American governance, expressing itself cyclically throughout the nation's development. When the nation has embraced this principle—during Reconstruction, the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights Movement—it has generally moved toward greater equality and collective prosperity. When it has abandoned this principle—during slavery, Jim Crow, the Gilded Age, and periods of economic deregulation—inequality has typically increased and collective welfare has often suffered.

Throughout American history, periods of deviation from the moral algorithm have consistently provoked popular resistance movements seeking to reassert its primacy—from the Boston Tea Party to the Populist Movement, the Civil Rights Movement to Occupy Wall Street. This pattern reveals the algorithm's deep embedding in American political consciousness, resurfacing whenever governance strays too far from its core principle.

The moral algorithm provides not only a framework for understanding American political development but a standard against which to evaluate contemporary policies and institutions. By assessing whether governance serves "the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people" or "the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men," we can predict likely outcomes for equality and collective welfare.

Adams' moral algorithm thus offers both descriptive and prescriptive power for American democracy. As a descriptive theory, it explains the cyclical pattern of American political development, with periods of increasing inequality provoking reform movements that reassert the primacy of the common good. As a prescriptive theory, it provides an enduring standard for evaluating governance and predicting its likely consequences for equality and collective welfare.

In the final analysis, Adams' moral algorithm constitutes America's true constitutional DNA—the fundamental principle that has guided its development through periods of both adherence and deviation. The nation has progressed when it has embraced this principle and regressed when it has abandoned it, suggesting that America's future development depends on its continued commitment to government "instituted for the common good."

Bibliography

Adams, John. "Constitution of Massachusetts, 1780." The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States. Vol. 4. Boston: Little, Brown, 1851.

Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967.

Beard, Charles A. An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. New York: Macmillan, 1913.

Diggins, John Patrick. John Adams: The American Presidents Series. New York: Times Books, 2003.

Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2000.

Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877. New York: Harper & Row, 1988.

Heritage Foundation. "Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise." Project 2025, 2023.

Hofstadter, Richard. The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Knopf, 1955.

Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.

Johnson, Simon and James Kwak. 13 Bankers: The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown. New York: Pantheon Books, 2010.

Josephson, Matthew. The Robber Barons: The Great American Capitalists, 1861-1901. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1934.

Katznelson, Ira. Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time. New York: Liveright, 2013.

Land, Nick. "The Dark Enlightenment." 2012.

Lepore, Jill. These Truths: A History of the United States. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2018.

Maier, Pauline. American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. New York: Knopf, 1997.

McCullough, David. John Adams. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

McGerr, Michael. A Fierce Discontent: The Rise and Fall of the Progressive Movement in America, 1870-1920. New York: Free Press, 2003.

Phillips-Fein, Kim. Invisible Hands: The Businessmen's Crusade Against the New Deal. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2009.

Piketty, Thomas. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014.

Powell, Lewis F., Jr. "Attack on American Free Enterprise System." Memorandum to Eugene B. Sydnor, Jr., Chairman, Education Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, August 23, 1971.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. The Price of Inequality: How Today's Divided Society Endangers Our Future. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2012.

Teles, Steven M. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement: The Battle for Control of the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Wood, Gordon S. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969.

Yarvin, Curtis (Mencius Moldbug). "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations." 2009.

Young, Alfred F. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999.