OMT: The Decline of Conservativism?
Norm over at OMT begs the question, commenting on this article from Bradley Thompson of Virginia's very own Objective Standard: Reading this piece to the end takes a bit of stamina. But it raises a number of questions that conservatives ought to ask themselves, not the least of which is 'Are we really conservatives, dedicated to defend what is right and true...or are we merely shadows of the left? Whenever I hear the arguments for "vision" from Republicans, I tend to lean towards the latter answer than the former.
What do we want government to do? Less, dammit. That means cutting my taxes, giving me school choice, and dismantling the nanny state (or the avuncular state which I have critiqued before), and allowing the free market to operate.
Good government is no substitute for self-government.
Unfortunately, the national record for conservativism mimics the record here in Virginia. Republican government doesn't mean smaller government anymore. In fact, it's sadly the opposite: Here are some hard facts. Government spending has increased faster under George Bush and his Republican Congress than it did under Bill Clinton, and more people work for the federal government today than at any time since the end of the Cold War. During Bush’s first term, total government spending skyrocketed from $1.86 trillion to $2.48 trillion, an increase of 33 percent (almost $23,000 per household, the highest level since World War II). The federal budget grew by $616.4 billion during Bush’s first term in office. If post 9/11 defense spending is taken off the table, domestic spending has ballooned by 23 percent since Bush took office. When Bill Clinton left office in 2000, federal spending equaled 18.5 percent of the gross domestic product, but by the end of the first Bush administration, government outlays had increased to 20.3 percent of the GDP. The annualized growth rate of non-defense and non-homeland-security outlays has more than doubled from 2.1 percent under Clinton to 4.8 percent under Bush. That damages our brand, but it does something much more radical than this. It pushes away the more libertarian-minded Republicans that are spot-on when it comes to fiscal policy.
Indeed, the old fusionist alliance between libertarians and conservatives seems to be headed in the same direction as the progressive/liberal alliance was in the aftermath of 2000 -- divorce court.
The problem with the Republican Party isn't vision; it's moorings. We don't know what we stand for other than preserving power. While we may fool ourselves into believing such a situation saves American families, it does nothing unless we are pro-actively dismantling wasteful government at every turn.
Allow me a Hobbesian moment....
Individuals are given 100% power over their own lives. Thomas Jefferson believed this: "Almighty God hath created the mind free," says the Sage of Monticello. We reduce that freedom by entering compacts, whether it is governance or in business, by shopping at Wal-Mart or borrowing a friend's hammer.
That power is inevitably reduced by interacting with other individuals. From individualism, to society, to culture, to government -- these things sap our freedom. Sometimes necessarily so, other times unnecessarily.
The trick isn't necessarily balance, but restraint. Like any organization, the Leviathan of government quickly becomes "self-aware" of its own existence and will continue to consume resources as it sees fit.
What individuals in a free society must do is restrain government so that rather than government relying on individuals for its existence, individuals should never begin to rely on government.
This has an effect on perspective. Certainly there are things government provides that are necessary: common defense, the adjudication of disputes, the rule of law. But these items are items where government relies on the participation of the governed for benefit. Flipped over to an issue such as state-mandated public education, and now government has provided a monopoly on a service individuals must use. Given no other choice, individuals now become reliant upon government for provision, handicapping themselves.
Now there are a myriad of different item government "provides" that could be held up for dispute. Does the federal government really need to be funding space exploration? Public housing? Corporate welfare? Education? Transportation and commerce? Health Care? The Internet?
Some items go on a case-by-case perspective. Certainly there are items on this list that are free from government interference (the Internet for example) that are well-regulated. Other responsibilities such as education are in the best interest of any publically elected government.
Others could use compromise positions, but the general theme of self-governance and a government out of the business of proscribing "thou shalls" is implicit.
Now naturally, one would expect the following prescription for what ails the GOP from an objectivist (Randroid if you prefer): In the 1950s and 60s, conservatives could be faulted for lacking the courage to morally defend capitalism and for diluting whatever good principles they had with an admixture of bad or contradictory principles. Today’s conservatives, however, have either rejected principles as such, or, as is increasingly the case, have explicitly embraced the moral premises of the Left.
Because they refuse to defend capitalism morally, on the basis of egoism, conservatives have compromised and sold-out the rights of the American people. They have ceded the principled high ground to the Left by accepting the moral rationale for the welfare state—altruism and its attendant notion that “need” is a legitimate moral claim.
Those who value freedom and capitalism must abandon altruism and the fantasy philosophies that support it (including religion). They must embrace egoism and the factual foundation for individual rights. They must defend capitalism—not only because it works better than any other social system—but also, and more fundamentally, because it is the only moral social system. Obviously I would firmly disagree that religion or altruism are negative impulses that prohibit a free society. In fact, I would argue that both are essential components to culture, which is the only moral substitute for government.
I would also attack the idea that "need" is not a legitimate moral claim. Need is the basic starting point for every human being. It is a moral question because it exists. The moral answer may indeed be capitalism and the application of a truly free market (that doesn't descend into what Pope John Paul II would criticise as unfettered capitalism), but that doesn't erase the moral question of and individual dealing with the question of need.
Different methods are applied to the question of need under capitalism, one of which is opportunity. Another is a judicial system that aims for harmonization rather than vauge notions of "fairness" or "equality" in the eyes of Rawls.
To turn the tables on libertarianism, the sole reason why it doesn't work and hasn't coalesced is because the libertines have taken over the madhouse. Libertarianism isn't a rejection of authority, but rather a rejection of government excess. What it has systematically failed to do (and what objectivists fail to recognize) is establish an authority that applies universally.
Now an objectivist or a utilitarian might argue that capitalism is that bond, but it cannot be at the price of altruism. Altruism is what allows cultures to form, and culture is the bearing that gives sacrifice meaning. To argue that altruism is an abberation or disorder begs the question as to the cause. Many would argue there is no cause; human beings are hardwired to be altruistic. As such, there is a benefit to being giving, both socially and individually.
It is when altruism ceases to be voluntary and instead mandated that objectivists and utilitarians come closer to reality. Government demands involuntary altruism through taxes, businesses demand involuntary altruism through monopolization and usury, etc.
In fact, virtually every act where an individual grants power -- either by buying a product, entering a compact, or paying taxes -- is an act deemed to benefit mutually. Altruism does this as well, even though there is no material benefit to the provider.
But altruism does build something called trust. Any compact that becomes mutually beneficial to both parties builds trust, and trust is what makes capitalism work.
When capitalism ceases to build trust, laws are imposed and socialism enforced to the benefit of either the consumer or producer of said goods. Both ultimately chip away at society by integrating it into government, and in doing so saps the power (and the need) for culture and individualism.
Hence we come full circle. Human beings are essentially social creatures, but they are not rocks unto themselves, nor do they desire to be cogs in a Leviathan. Belonging has a large part to do in our choices. I choose to be Catholic because I choose to belong to a 2,000-year old institution founded by Jesus Christ. I choose to live in the country because my children can grow up enjoying a life I enjoyed. I choose to home-school so I can teach my kids how to think and not what to think. I choose to drive a Ford truck because Chevy trucks break down.
My list of reasons could go on forever, but there are several choices that I make that are linked to like-minded individuals whom I can share experiences. That builds culture. Culture builds trust. Trust establishes capitalism. At it's very root, this is the early idea of classical liberalism.
So how do we regain our footing? Not by rejecting altruism or discerning what is and what is not "good government," but rather dismantling the edifice of socialism and re-establishing the breathing room culture once enjoyed in America. Never did the phrase summa ius, summa iniuria hold so much gravity.
When laws begin to replace trust, good government begins to replace self-government, and a government that can be good one election can quickly swing back to bad in the next. Only in an ethic that demands self-government over total government (or worse, no government at all) can hope to resist the excesses of either socialism or capitalism.
|
 |
Doogman 
4 Comments:
---
Typo or Freudian slip?
Looks like you might be a 'shadow of the left'
;->
I was struck by the overtly Randian tone to the original article. Objectivism has its place -- usually in college dorm rooms. But even outside that environment, it can prod some serious thinking (as your post shows).
My only deep and pointed criticism of your piece is your choice to drive Ford trucks over Chevy's because Chevy's break down.
Have you forgotten that Ford stands for "Fix Or Repair Daily"?
That having been said, you run into so many different objectivists that it's hard to tell which ones are hardcore, which simply see value in it, or those who just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.
Post a Comment
Home