Rugged Individualism
In 2022, Scientific American published an article called “How a Virus Exposed the Myth of Rugged Individualism” that hypothesized that, because this is a myth, “we must invest in national policies of communal care.” It should be noted that rejection of rugged individualism on the part of the journal came after they endorsed one presidential candidate because the other candidate ‘rejected evidence and science.”
In 2024, the Scientific American again endorsed the presidential candidate in the same party. The endorsement of national policies of communal care and presidential candidates is the opposite of endorsing rugged individualism. To me, that suggests a science journal with an agenda.
Because of the vast number of people telling us what to believe—and this is particularly true of science—I start by dismissing those with obvious agendas, particularly political agendas. I don’t look for truth with most politicians as most stick to their party’s platform.
Contrary to Scientific American, I think the COVID virus helped us rediscover something that has served Americans well, what the historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 described as “rugged individualism.” The term was further popularized by Herbert Hoover in his 1928 presidential campaign speech contrasting the “doctrines of paternalism and state socialism” with the system of “upon which we have advanced beyond all the rest of the world.”
In the 18th and 19th century the isolation of frontier conditions, including low density and remoteness, made traits such as self-reliance and regulation of behavior based on personal attitudes rather than social norms. It also includes more of a focus on work ethics and efficiency instead of viewing success as luck or help from government.
Today, I think individualism manifests itself in entrepreneurialism, including invention, innovation and risk taking, as well as a resistance to groupthink. I also believe it is growing among Americans, not just because of COVID policies but also out of concern that social programs like social security will not be there—leading to less reliance on the government to take care of them.
In fact, trust in both government and media has gone down as these are the biggest sources of agenda-driven groupthink. But most people also distrust private companies because of their obvious agenda, greed.
It is true that companies are trying to sell you something to make a profit. It’s also true that some sellers ignore the safety of their products which ultimately will prove to be unlawful. In addition, much of what appears in company ads are products you don’t need, such as an expensive car that splashes through a creek or junk food because an athlete endorses it.
But the vast majority of sellers are just trying to satisfy what you want or need because they know they don’t have the ability to alter your preferences. And private companies aren’t the only group trying to “sell” us something.
The U.S. government (Department of Health and Human Services) tried to persuade people to believe in and follow their preferences for COVID policies by spending massive amounts (nearly $1 billion) on vaccine propaganda. This effort was coupled with silencing so-called “deniers,” i.e. independent thinkers. Just as with skepticism about cool cars or junk foods, we should be wary of government advertising campaigns.
The result of the government COVID campaign was that trust in science declined. Lockdowns, mask mandates and mandatory vaccines for those not at high risk have been now challenged. In fact, some people that were fired for not getting the vaccine are now winning reparations in court.
In science (and all areas of life) we need rugged individualists to continually challenge the narrative. Without such positions, we would still be bleeding people of the four humors, worry about sailing of the edge of the world or, more recently, treating ulcers with surgery or antacids (instead of treating it as a microbial infection). There were numerous independent challenges to the “settled” COVID theories and policies that were met with derision, but some of the challenges proved true.
I believe the vaccines were necessary and were helpful (for some), but it was wrong not to listen to alternative voices coming from today’s rugged individualists. While we need cooperation on a lot of matters, we also need rugged individualists for this nation to get back on the path Hoover described—advancing beyond the rest of the world.