AMERICA’S ETHICAL ARCHETYPE

Certified financial planning and analysis professional Dubose reimagines America’s political future through the lenses of Jungian and Objectivist thought.

This ambitious, densely written philosophical overview examines moral authority in politics, in which consensus often proves elusive. The author’s prescription for restoring a fractured democracy draws on two seemingly disparate schools of thought: novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and psychotherapist Carl Jung’s groundbreaking psychological theory. The common thread, Dubose suggests, is “a shared recognition that human psychology must reconcile individual and collective lives,” from which readers can draw certain inferences about building a better political system; in his view, only “introverted,” self-interested ethics have a place—not extroverted notions of “the so-called ‘greater good.’” An ethics centered on the individual, he asserts, can produce a system based on logic and a respect for autonomy, especially in a capitalistic context—the only economic system, he argues, “that can accommodate a country of rational individuals at scale.” Along the way, he critiques specific policies, such as the Green New Deal, asserting that “sweeping environmental regulations, often championed as altruistic efforts for the greater good, many times lead to unintended consequences like economic hardships for small businesses or increased costs for consumers.” He also asserts that diversity, equity, and inclusion programs are coercive and inefficient, “allowing the politicization of personal grievances.” Over the course of this book, readers will likely find many of Dubose’s economic arguments familiar, as they extend back to Gilded Age-era laissez-faire ideas that the wealthy, working in their own self-interest, will typically do the right thing for society; those who disagree with this view may argue that the historical record suggests otherwise. Still, the author presents his case in an enthusiastic and eloquent manner, and for casual readers, Dubose’s arguments will work well as conversation openers or as grist for a spirited debate about the merits and demerits of his approach.

A passionate plea for a more individualistic political system, but one that’s unlikely to convince skeptics.