“Liberty has never come from the government” writes President Woodrow Wilson, “Liberty has always come from the subjects of it. The history of liberty is a history of resistance”. Because freedom is characterized as one of the most American traits, we all assume that we are inherently connected to it some way. Whether through the choices we make in politics, speech, the rebellions of a hormonal teenager, freedom is something which we utilize daily. While freedom may seem as the birth of Americanism, safety supersedes this quintessentially American value. “The average person does not want to be free”, writes American essayist and social critic H.L Mencken, “They simply want to be safe”. His argument holds true in the actions of the average man, as freedom will always be secondary to safety due to the fundamental psychology of humans.
Safety remains a crucial part of existence, and it can be seen in our most basic behaviors. While humans have evolved a great amount from our first ancestors, we still are driven by the same motives. Our behaviors and responses in every sect of our lives are affected by this standard behavior. Abraham Maslow, in his 1943 paper “A Theory of Human Motivation”, recognizes the levels of motivations in humans, and standardizes these patterns in his Theory of Human Motivation. His theory demonstrates the hierarchy of needs in humans, describing them in relation to one another. The first need is physiological, such as water, food, and materials needed for bodily functions. Immediately after is the need for safety. This direct change from physiological needs to safety indicates that safety is the most crucial value in our behavior: “Practically everything looks less important than safety, (even sometimes the physiological needs which being satisfied, are now underestimated)” (Maslow). The importance of safety in the behavior of men is directly shown in Maslow’s research, where this need can surpass the most fundamental need to supplement our body. This need automatically usurps freedom, since safety can be so crucial to the point where our typical behavior is willing to make this trait of utmost importance. This results in freedom being secondary to safety to the average man.
One of the most notable areas of risk taking is the business world, where the choice between safety and freedom results in either a multimillion-dollar success, or a devasting loss. Michael Burry, a hedge fund manager, had recognized a huge fallacy in the assessment of mortgagors in 2005: “loans were available to some borrowers with “no income, no job or assets” as late as 2007.” (Baldwin). Many of the loan owners had no credibility or means to pay these mortgages back, making these loans extremely risky to the mortgagees. Due to this inflation of high-risk loans, Burry shorted the housing market. Essentially, he betted on the collapse in the value of these loans. This absolutely contradicted nearly all views of the financial market at the time, with “"Wall Street firms, they were on the other side of the bets" (Against the Market). He was mocked and widely criticized for his seemingly ‘stupid’ method: ““I believe no other hedge fund on the planet has this sort of investment, nowhere near to this degree, relative to the size of the portfolio”” (Dealbook). However, the market began to turn in his direction and the risks of the system become more apparent to the majority, causing multiple bankruptcies of banks, “first with Bear Stearns, then with Lehman Brothers, AIG, and the rest of the financial system” (Szramiakje). As a result, Burry’s investments had paid off well, leaving him owning $750 million in these bonds. The actions of Burry were incredibly unconventional, as he went entirely against the norm in investing. The vast majority of Wall Street firms, in this case the average man, had failed to use their freedom to research and instead relied on the prevailing notion of the credit worthiness of these loans. Despite the masses being incorrect, their approach was seen as safer and more reliable compared to Burry since the entire country was doing the opposite. Burry’s approach would be interpreted as freedom-based, since he went with his evaluation of the market. As seen, the majority of investors chose the safer option rather than the riskier one. The choice of the average man is again seen to be in favor of safety rather than freedom.
A less monetary based instance of Mencken’s claim can be seen in our Entertainment as well. Deal or No Deal, a prime time show in the United States, revolves around the choices of a single contestant where they must choose “to keep an unknown amount of money the contestant holds in a closed briefcase or exchange a known amount of money offered to the contestant for their briefcase” (Grohol). The contestant must make a risk aversion choice, where they attempt to lower the uncertainty of their decision. While it may be thought that since humans are typically greedy, and desire more money, they would choose the higher valued briefcase to gain more. However, the average man favors safety rather than the risky freedom of the higher valued option. In Deal or No Deal, the contestants continually attempt to lower the risk in an effort to increase the safety of their decision: “people are often more likely to take a seemingly more conservative choice, even when that choice carries less financial reward” (Grohol). In this instance, the choice of a higher amount with a higher risk is categorized as freedom, since they aren’t hindered by the need to lower risk in favor of safety. And again, instead of choosing the riskier, higher monetary option, we choose the safer, yet lower valued choice. This is in part to our fundamental behavior, where our need for safety will surpass our need for freedom. Within entertainment, our choice of safety over freedom is seen again.
In our jobs, our trend in behavior is shown in Barbra Ehrenreich’s study of low-income workers. In her book, Nickel and Dimed, she takes multiple low-wage jobs to see if it is possible to make ends meet with their typical income. Along with her monetary calculations, she accounts the other aspects of these jobs such as the psychological and societal sides. She finds that the employers of these jobs attempt to increase efficiency in the work place, even if it puts the worker’s health at risk. She finds that the workers are constantly oppressed, “forced into a subordinate status within their social systems adapt their brain chemistry accordingly, becoming 'depressed” (Ehrenreich 197). In their job, they are constantly strained of their will to the point where the avoid “fighting even in self-defense” (Ehrenreich 197). This demonstrates the lack of free will, or freedom, of these workers, in favor of their safety. If they were to speak against their employers, they would have faced reprimanding or getting fired. However, if they remain silent, they deal with being falsely accused, yet not being fired since they aren’t expressing ‘rebellious’ actions. The workers choose safety of their job instead of liberating themselves, although, the reason behind this is not directly because of the employees. This behavior of choosing safety over freedom is not due to the worker themselves, but in response to their superior’s nature. In this case, the workers must act based on what their employer wants rather than their own desires if they are to keep their job. Their employers want to maximize the efficiency of their workers to gain the most profit, so they choose their monetary safety rather than their freedom to change the workplace environment.
While the average man is limited to their behavioral instinct of choosing safety over freedom, what makes a person extraordinary is their unconventional choice of freedom over safety. This can be seen in Burry’s unconventional shorting, and as well in Rafael Nadal’s tennis strategy. In tennis, Nadal is royalty. He is “widely regarded as the finest clay court player in history” (Nadal). He began playing at the age of three and became an ace player at the age of fifteen. He is one of two men to have won all four majors and Olympic gold. He reigns as one of the “Big Four” in men’s tennis, among other renowned players such as Roger Federer, Novak Djokovic, and Andy Murray. Nadal, however, has a major difference in his technique which few players have accomplished. What is it? He purposely uses his non-dominant hand while playing. Born with a dominant right hand, his uncle “encouraged him to play left-handed, thinking it could give Rafael an edge on the court” (Nadal). What this allows Nadal to do is to play with a powerful shot on his opponent’s weaker side for the whole game. He took a common weakness in his opponents and made it his forte. What is important is that Nadal chose to play unconventionally, at the possible risk of failing at tennis. Since going against the natural behavior of your hand has a profound impact on the quality of your shots, Nadal had taken a drastically riskier route to playing tennis than the average athlete. The choice of freedom – to choose the style of playing, regardless of his hand dominance, above the safety of being good at using his dominant hand has made him exceptional in the tennis world – over safety is atypical to the average man. But this change is the difference in the extraordinary and the ordinary man.
While President Wilson’s sentiments are still true, the fundamental behavior of man is clear, safety will always come before freedom. Mencken’s claim holds true throughout the all of the functions of average men, from their sports to finances. This choosing of safety over freedom is exactly what makes an ordinary man, ordinary. It is when we choose to take liberty above our safety, and step out of our security, that we change the world. When we choose to do as we wish, instead of remaining in the confines of our comfort, it is then that we become men of significance, and change the world.