A few weeks ago I poked gentle fun at distributists for being utopians. They didn’t find it funny—at all. Apparently, a distributist with a sense of humor is about as rare as a distributist corporation (Long live Mondragon!). Not only did the post annoy the self-professed distributists, it inspired rants from people like Front Porch Republic’s Jerry Sayler.
Sayler wrote a lengthy rebuttal aimed at me. I know this because the words “Joe Carter” were included in his essay. If he had not included my name I don’t think I would have recognized he was attacking my ideas since they don’t resemble either anything I’ve said or believe. I would have ignored the rant completely had I not been intrigued by a not-altogether surprising statement:
Just in case it’s not clear, I am not so interested in defending Distributism – an interesting and provocative theory of which I know little – as I am in addressing Mr. Carter’s premises. The question is not whether Distributism lives up to the creed of Western liberalism but whether that creed should be our measure.
For instance – who cares if Distributism contains “a hidden coercive impulse” or not? While I can’t speak for the Distributists I myself endorse coercion quite openly, much as I endorse gravity. Yes, tyranny is a nasty business, but then so is falling down a flight of stairs.
The tagline at FPR is “Place. Limits. Liberty.” Unfortunately, over the past year the “liberty” part has been all but excised from their vision of human flourishing.
But before I delve into that, let me first provide some context and explain my mixed feelings about FPR.
In a Facebook comment yesterday Jake Meador said, “If a line in the sand between FT and FPR hadn’t been drawn already, I think it’s probably getting drawn today.” While many of the commenters at FPR seem to be dismissive of First Things (“I don’t have as much of a stomach for First Things anymore. They are indeed a bunch of liberals, and they even say they are. Conservative liberals, maybe, but liberals none the less.”), the feeling is not mutual. Many of us here at FT are rather sympathetic to the goals and philosophy represented by FPR (our deputy editor, Matthew Schmitz, is even listed on their masthead as a contributor).
While I’ve never been fully on board with “Porcherism”—the affectionate name given to the site’s philosophy by both its critics and friends—I’ve considered myself something of a fellow traveler. I especially admire the way Porchers tend to present thoughtful criticisms of our culture of consumerism and radical individualism. However, though they raise the right questions, they tend to offer, at best, facile solutions.
For instance, a few months ago I attended a conference at Mt. St. Mary’s University in Emmitsburg, Maryland that was co-sponsored by FPR. I was excited to meet and learn from some of my favorite FPR writers (including Mark Mitchell, John Schwenkler, Jeremy Beer, Rod Dreher, and Caleb Stegall) and thrilled to see so many young college students in the audience. The libertarians have been snatching our children away for the past few decades so it was encouraging to see young people interested in localist and traditionalist philosophies. What I wasn’t expecting was that the conference would do so much to disenchant them.
For example, one professor (they were almost all professors) presented his localist bona fides by explaining how he bought his vegetables from a local food co-op. He was very proud of the fact that he paid a higher price to support a local farmer—despite the fact that the same vegetables from the same local farmer could be bought at Whole Foods. For most agrarians throughout history, food was considered fuel for survival and cheap food has made it possible for populations to grow and thrive. For the tenured agrarians, though, food is a totem, a symbol of how they are not only making the “right” consumption choices but how they are supporting the environment and the community in the process (a debatable assumption). The professor’s underlying message—though admittedly presented rather winsomely—was that if you bought bananas at Wegmans rather than whatever was in season from your local farmer, you were part of the problem.
During the question and answer session that followed, an earnest student stood up and asked how people like him—poor kids on the college’s meal plan—were expected to partake in the “luxury of buying local.” The professor’s rather dismissive and surprisingly smug answer was that the student should buy what he could afford and make his meals in his dorm room. And if the student couldn’t afford the higher prices charged by local farmers, then the right thing to do, said the professor, was to eat less food. Hunger was the price one pays for philosophic consistency. Can’t afford organic arugula? Let them eat leeks.
Other presenters denounced the current American trend (that has been going on for over 200 years) of people choosing careers that take them away from the local communities. Ironically, the laments were almost exclusively being made by college professors who had left their own local communities to take jobs in schools far away from their hometowns. (Of course they bought their veggies from a co-op so they could still consider themselves to be good “localists.”)
In America we all get to choose our traditions, so I can’t really fault folks for choosing to be traditionalists. They may be a bit preachy and lacking in self-awareness, but these types of Porchers mean well and are trying to do the right thing. They also tend to be pro-liberty. They may want you to buy your raw milk from a local farmer but they aren’t going to advocate laws to stop you from buying some pasteurized two-percent at the Walmart Supercenter. They respect freedom—they just want you to use it to make the right choices. I’m fully in agreement with them on that point.
There is another brand of Porcher, though, that is less enthusiastic about giving people the freedom to make choices for themselves. They believe the flaws of democracy and capitalism are so great—individuals continuously make the wrong choices—that we need to abandon (or at least seriously curtail) both. Last year, for instance, John Médaille published a provocative essay on FPR titled, “Why I am a Monarchist.” In a follow-up essay he explains the powers that should be afforded to the King of America:
Concerning the king, he needs to have real authority, an authority that extends to the executive, legislative, and judicial functions. Of course, he should not be the only authority in these areas, nor even necessarily the ordinary authority; but he should, in some sense, be the ultimate authority. The king’s government also needs to have its own revenue stream, one fixed in the constitution and independent of any legislative body. A king who has to beg his bread from the legislature is no king, and whoever holds the power of the purse will soon hold all other powers. The legislature may by its own will supplement the constitutional revenues, perhaps to pay for a war or some other extraordinary expense, and they may control the funds they levy. But for the budgeting of the constitutional revenue, the king should be primary, or even the sole, authority. Other authorities may comment, they may even censure a king, such as when a king neglects the defense of the realm to build himself palaces. But in the practical world, control of the budget is control of everything else. The king should also hold an absolute veto over both the legislature and the judicial functions. And finally, there needs to be a difficult but peaceful means of removing a king; without this, kings themselves become the cause of revolutions.
Your second reaction to this passage (assuming your first reaction was “That’s nuts.”) is likely to be, “But what if this king turns out to be a horrible ruler?” Médaille responds to just that question in the comment section:
To accept a monarch–or any ruler–is to accept the inevitability of a bad ruler. That’s the human condition, and there is nothing to be done about it.
Well then.
In a similar vein, there is a group of Porchers who are quite comfortable with socialism. In a comment to Sayler’s post, I questioned whether he might be advocating socialism. An FPR contributor Russell Arben Fox responded,
Incidentally, I’m one of the socialists you’re worried about–a democratic and decentralist socialist, I hasten to add, though that may not make much difference to you. Anyway, pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Pleased to meet you too, Mr. Fox. And to answer your question, no it does not make a difference. I’m opposed to socialism even if it is democratic and decentralist. Indeed, I find it rather disturbing that purported traditionalists would advocate a system that has a tradition of failure. Socialism doesn’t work, whether on small or large scales.
Ironically, my opposition to such socialism got me labeled a “liberal” by the other FPR commenters. To be fair, they qualified it by saying that I was probably a “conservative liberal” since I supported such travesties as free markets. Free markets are supposedly coercive in a way that is detrimental to human flourishing while decentralized socialism or distributism (headed by a king?) would presumably always make the right choices for us.
Since 2008, FPR has been a fascinating project. But the fusionism of self-sufficient and freedom-loving localists with monarchists and socialists can’t last forever. Either the various groups will go their separate ways or Porcherism will eventually be dismissed as a bizarre philosophy that has no connection to American life in the twenty-first century. It would be a shame if Porcherism failed. We need an attractive presentation of traditionalism that can inspire the masses, not another fantasy ideology that appeals only to quirky academics.
January 6th, 2012 | 8:03 am
Interesting. It appears that the Porchers instantiate many of the self-contradictions which relegate the Distributist impulse to the category of interesting-castle-in-the-air-which-can-never-be-implemented; eg, “Here’s your parcel of private property. We defend your right to freedom and property, and now it’s yours. But don’t try to sell it!” Carter calls it hidden coercion, but I don’t think the coercion is so hidden.
January 6th, 2012 | 8:19 am
Distributism is a growing movement for Catholics who wish identify themselves with the teachings of Christ and the magisterium – rather than the teachings of the American Republican party.
Easy to poke fun and dismiss, distributists see an unholy alliance between big business and big government. If you value property ownership, self sufficiency and family more than welfare and Walmart then you might, unknowingly already be a distributist.
January 6th, 2012 | 8:53 am
“If you value property ownership, self sufficiency and family more than welfare and Walmart then you might, unknowingly already be a distributist.”
I think it might be better to say that you might have sympathies with the concerns that drive distributists. But I can never be a distributist if that means embracing a self-contradictory conception of how society ought to work, if everyone is not-coerced to act in the same way.
January 6th, 2012 | 9:03 am
I’ve not read Jerry Salyer’s post, Joe, but if it was half as uncharitable in its characterization of your views as you were in your characterization of those of my colleague, then it must have been pretty uncharitable.
January 6th, 2012 | 9:18 am
John,
How was my post uncharitable? Did I misrepresent your colleague’s presentation or his response to the student?
January 6th, 2012 | 9:24 am
Did I misrepresent your colleague’s presentation or his response to the student?
Saying that he described food choices as a purely “symbolic” matter? Offered a “smug” and “dismissive” response? Told the student just to go hungry if he couldn’t afford to shop at the co-op? Yes, you did.
January 6th, 2012 | 9:25 am
P.S. For anyone who would like to see what he actually said (though I don’t think it includes the Q-&-A), here is the offending talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrhzB7xlPWA
January 6th, 2012 | 9:30 am
Saying that he described food choices as a purely “symbolic” matter?
I didn’t say that. I was making a general (and admittedly somewhat snarky) comment about “academic agrarians” in general, not saying that was a claim made by your colleague.
Here is a video of the presentation. I’ll let people judge for themselves: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrhzB7xlPWA
Offered a “smug” and “dismissive” response? Told the student just to go hungry if he couldn’t afford to shop at the co-op?
Am I misremembering that exchange? It’s possible, though, I quite clearly remember him saying that a student should simply eat less if he can’t afford meat. I remember at the time being a bit ticked off by the dismissive way the question was answered. I’m sure your colleague is a fine fellow, but his response to the student was rude and unbecoming of a teacher.
January 6th, 2012 | 9:36 am
Either you are misremembering the exchange, being grossly uncharitable in describing it, or both. And let me note again the irony of your having begun this post with a complaint about being misrepresented. Rude and unbecoming, indeed.
January 6th, 2012 | 9:43 am
Honestly, John, I don’t believe I am misremembering the exchange or being uncharitable.
The day after the conference I expressed my disgust to a fellow colleague about the exchange. I was genuinely bothered by it. Now maybe there was some context I missed. Maybe the professor knew the student personally and there was some sarcasm intended. But from the perspective of a spectator, I found it to be rather nasty.
I wasn’t the only one at the conference so I’m sure other people can weigh in on what they thought about that particular exchange.
By the way, for what’s it worth, I admire your willingness to come to the defensive of your colleague. (Though I had intended to keep the speaker’s identity as anonymous as possible.)
January 6th, 2012 | 9:48 am
[...] Here’s Mr. Carter. I really do have a real job, and so I have only time to quote Joe on the pretentiousness of the Porchers through his reporting on what he learned at their recent conference: For example, one professor (they were almost all professors) presented his localist bona fides by explaining how he bought his vegetables from a local food co-op. He was very proud of the fact that he paid a higher price to support a local farmer—despite the fact that the same vegetables from the same local farmer could be bought at Whole Foods. For most agrarians throughout history, food was considered fuel for survival and cheap food has made it possible for populations to grown and thrive. For the tenured agrarians, though, food is a totem, a symbol of how they are not only making the “right” consumption choices but how they are supporting the environment and the community in the process (a debatable assumption). The professor’s underlying message—though admittedly presented rather winsomely—was that if you bought bananas at Wegmans rather than whatever was in season from your local farmer, you were part of the problem. [...]
January 6th, 2012 | 10:20 am
Defending my colleague wouldn’t be admirable if what I’m saying weren’t true. But yes, your account of the event is snarky and exceptionally uncharitable (said the pot to the kettle), so I am glad to be the one speaking up.
January 6th, 2012 | 10:26 am
John, if you didn’t hear what Joe heard, what did you hear instead?
January 6th, 2012 | 11:02 am
I heard David argue that according to the traditional conception of the vice of luxury (as involving excessive consumption, waste, and exploitation of others), the patterns of consumption encouraged by McDonalds and Wal-Mart make people morally worse off than those encouraged by neighborhood restaurants, grocery co-ops, and so on. And I heard him tell a student that the proper response to financial difficulties is to sacrifice certain luxuries in order to live within one’s means, implying that many of us First-Worlders — at least the ones who made it up to Emmitsburg for our conference! — are in a position to save money by cooking for ourselves and buying less junk, instead of stuffing ourselves with garbage from discount stores.
January 6th, 2012 | 11:17 am
Mr Carter is shocked, shocked, that there should be a discussion of the 2,500 year-old tradition of constitutional monarchy that motivated not only Aristotle and Aquinas, but the founding fathers as well. In doing so, he gives us the First Principle of First Things: any real discussion of conservatism must be banned. Or rather, any conservatism which isn’t “neo.” The problem with Mr. Carter’s neo-conservatism is that it is neither new nor conservative. More precisely, what it seeks to conserve is the values of the Enlightenment, and what is new is the attempt to portray them as “conservative.” The only real function that such a “conservatism” can have is to regulate the rate of surrender to liberalism.
The conservatives are always surprised that they can run but they cannot rule. Victory after victory leads only to larger government and bigger deficits. The unintended consequences of such a conservatism, compassionate or otherwise, is to make the country more liberal. The implied motto of First Things is, whether stated or not, “We are all leftists now.”
As far as the “utopian” nature of distributism goes, well, let’s see. There are actual examples of distributist economic systems up and running, on large scales over long periods of time. You can actually examine them and make an informed judgement. Indeed, the Mondragon Cooperatives are the nearest thing in captivity to a functioning Libertarian society, certainly more so than anything that the Austrians have ever done.
But as for capitalism and socialism, they are certainly utopian in the sense that there are no real examples of them. The debate in socialist countries is always “How much market should we permit in order to survive?” and the debate in capitalist countries is “How much socialism must we have in order to keep from killing all our citizens?” Distributism goes from success to success, while capitalism goes from bailout to bailout. That history of bailouts, by the way, you will find amply documented in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, and the basic problem has never changed.
As for “smugness,” I will leave that discussion to Mr. Carter, who seems to be the expert.
January 6th, 2012 | 11:18 am
I too was at the conference. While I agree that mr. Carter is being snarky, his characterization of Cloutier’s talk is justified. In fact, the weirdest thing Cloutier said was that if one were to buy socks at Walmart one would be “involved in vice.” see the video from about 9:30 to 10:30 mark. Carter is also right that there is a serious split among so called “porchers”. See for example Stegall’s talk at the same conference. I seriously doubt he and Cloutier have much if anything in common. While he also talks about sticking at home he does so from the view of hardship and manly self sufficiency, not preening moralism. He is representative of legitimate small government porcherism, but i understand from google searching he left the website in protest over the movement Carter is describing towards kookiness. Stegall also talks about the problem of mobility in much more compassionate and practical/reasonable terms. See minute mark 19:00. Also good talks at the conference from Deneen, Carlson, Kauffman, etc. Kudos to Mr. Carter for pointing some of this out.
January 6th, 2012 | 11:42 am
In fact, the weirdest thing Cloutier said was that if one were to buy socks at Walmart one would be “involved in vice.”
Nothing like objecting to an argument by calling its conclusion “weird”. In what way do you dissent from the reasons that were given in support of this claim?
January 6th, 2012 | 11:49 am
“Either the various groups will go their separate ways or Porcherism will eventually be dismissed as a bizarre philosophy that has no connection to American life in the twenty-first century.”
This all sounds reminiscent of those notorious and pedantic fights on the left between anarcho-syndicalists, libertarian socialists, international socialists, Trotskyists, etc.
But advocating monarchy in America? Isn’t this just warmed over 19th century romanticism with “no connection to American life in the twenty-first century”? What’s next? The joys of feudalism and state-run churches?
January 6th, 2012 | 11:53 am
Thanks for your take, John. I wish I had been there but it would have violated my localist principles to travel that far for a conference.
January 6th, 2012 | 11:59 am
John,
Just curious, do you believe that buying a pair of socks at Wal-Mart is involvement in vice?
January 6th, 2012 | 12:05 pm
John Médaille In doing so, he gives us the First Principle of First Things: any real discussion of conservatism must be banned.
Oh, c’mon, Mr. Médaille. Even your fellow contributors at FPR have distanced themselves from your views on monarchy. Are you saying that Patrick Deneen is a “leftist” too?
But if we want to compare who is truly conservative I’ll trump you by going back to the ancient Hebrews before Saul. Anyone who supports a king must be some sort of “neo-con.”
There are actual examples of distributist economic systems up and running, on large scales over long periods of time.
Really? Can you name one other than Mondragon? Because that’s the only one that ever gets mentioned.
Indeed, the Mondragon Cooperatives are the nearest thing in captivity to a functioning Libertarian society, certainly more so than anything that the Austrians have ever done.
Wait, a minute. I thought distributism was “conservative.” Libertarians are more liberal than the liberals, so why would you think that is a positive?
Distributism goes from success to success,
Really? Where?
January 6th, 2012 | 12:32 pm
… do you believe that buying a pair of socks at Wal-Mart is involvement in vice?
Is it an involvement in vice (including: crony capitalism, the destruction of natural environments, the exploitation of workers, the general promotion of sinful luxuries, and so on)? Yes, it is. Though it doesn’t follow from this that it’s never justifiable: sometimes one just needs a pair of socks.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:43 pm
“Is it an involvement in vice (including: crony capitalism, the destruction of natural environments, the exploitation of workers, the general promotion of sinful luxuries, and so on)? Yes, it is. Though it doesn’t follow from this that it’s never justifiable: sometimes one just needs a pair of socks.
Exactly, which is what makes the comment in my opinion not necessarily weird, but in the context of a bunch of colleges students who are likely as broke as I as a student a bit pretentious.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:45 pm
Mr. Carter,
What I find most startling in your comments is this call for some kind of Porcher-purging whereby people who disagree about the best ways of instantiating distributist goals must ideologically split themselves from one-another or run the risk of being labeled kooks. First Things stands as proof that people who disagree strongly can write for the same publication without destroying the publication. For instance, I probably wouldn’t read First Things if I thought George Weigel’s views about just war theory were shared by everyone at the publication. But because I think discourse is valuable, I trust that his inclusion is meant less as proof of everyone’s opinion at First Things and more as evidence of the belief that his opinion is worth discussing.
What Porchers all agree on (I think) and what you apparently objected to in the talk you heard is that certain things (localism, person-centered/human scale economies, real food that is not dependent on the oil industry) are important enough to sacrifice certain luxuries for, even luxuries that are now commonplace in modern America. What some people, like John Medaille, seem to think is that the power of the state should be used to enforce those values. Others — including G.K. Chesterton (see his essay Two Difficulties http://distributistreview.com/mag/2011/12/two-difficulties/ — oppose the use of such coercive force. Whether the coercive power of government should be used (and, if so, at what level) to prevent certain societal harms is a legitimate debate between people who share concerns about certain harms.
Finally, do the distributists (even the most pro-coercion of them) really propose an unheard of level of coercion? Wouldn’t you oppose a government enforced ban on pronography? Couldn’t such a ban be characterized as exactly an attempt to enforce one’s aesthetic choices on others? But isn’t it really exactly what the distributists propose — use of the state to cure a societal harm that is currently permitted by the free market because people use the freedom the market unwisely?
PS — yes, I’d argue that purchasing socks at Wal-Mart is at least a cooperation with vice insofar as it is a manifestation of our societal obsession with cheap consumer goods that don’t reflect the real cost (human, envirnmental, social) of getting those goods at that price.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:46 pm
I enjoy many of the writers at FPR, but there a few who are very bizarre and narrow-minded. Telltale signs of them include the belief that no one who isn’t a Thomist is a “true conservative,” advocating monarchy, giving absurd definitions of liberalism (e.g. “the belief that man is not a social being”), and a general contempt for the beliefs and choices of mainstream America. This shows no charity for their fellow citizens, so it’s not surprising to hear open endorsement of coercion to impose distributism or monarchy.
These writers I have in mind fit only the “Limits” part of the FPR motto, not the “Place” or “Liberty,” so they really should stop appearing on the same website with reasonable and charitable writers like Deneen, Peters, Wilson, etc.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:47 pm
But it wasn’t just a “comment” — it was the conclusion of a lengthy argument, based on exploring the traditional philosophical and theological understanding of luxury as a vice. And sorry, but few if any college students are so broke that they really can’t bear not to shop at Wal-Mart.
January 6th, 2012 | 12:51 pm
Distanced themselves? I have no evidence of this. If you mean they are not monarchists, okay. But obviously they don’t think a discussion of monarchy is beyond the pale or they would not have published the series. And that is the point. The question is, “What is the range of permissible discussion within conservatism?” In the pages of “First Things,” this confined to a sliver of the Tradition and a large chunk of the Enlightenment. It may be the most politically correct publication in America, witness the rather incoherent attack on MacIntyre, the pre-eminent conservative philosopher, in your publication last year. “Neo-conservatism” is simply conservatives marginalizing themselves and attacking their own tradition; they perform a function the liberals would otherwise have to do.
I’m surprised you don’t have more examples of distributism in action, since they are so common. There is the cooperative economy of Emilia-Romagna, where 40% of the GDP comes from cooperatives and where the average wage is twice that of the rest of Italy. There is the Land to the Tiller Program of Taiwan, which catapulted that island from a backwards semi-feudal state to an industrial powerhouse in just one generation, and did so (unlike Mainland China) with an enormous degree of social equality. There are the Georgist (an allied theory) economies of Hong Kong and Singapore. There is micro-credit programs. There is the Fabricas sin Patrones of Argentina, Semco of Brazil, Springfield Remanufacturing. How many examples would you like? I can do this all day.
As far as Libertarianism goes, it is not a monolith. There is the Austrian variety, which is a betrayal of the original principles, there are mutualist and anarchist strains. I am none of the above, but I am in sympathy with the mutualist and anarchist goals, goals which have been largely achieved in Mondragon and are always achieved wherever the state leaves the distributists alone to find their own path. What do you find objectionable in all that?
We’ll just put the “King Saul” comment down to pure snark.
January 6th, 2012 | 1:27 pm
Chris this call for some kind of Porcher-purging whereby people who disagree about the best ways of instantiating distributist goals must ideologically split themselves from one-another or run the risk of being labeled kooks.
That’s not what I said, and certainly not what I meant. I don’t think distributists should be purged from FPR (at least not the ones that aren’t pro-monarchy). Although I’m ideologically opposed to socialism, I don’t necessarily have anything against distributism. For many reasons, I don’t think it’s realistic (e.g., most modern people have no interest in owning the capital resources necessary for their own employment), but I don’t think it’s kooky.
I have no problem with distributism as an intellectual hobby. But until its advocates start proposing ways of implementing the system, they give us no reason why we should take it seriously. Why are all the examples of collectives outside the U.S.? Why haven’t distributists in America started their own collectives?
What Porchers all agree on (I think) and what you apparently objected to in the talk you heard is that certain things (localism, person-centered/human scale economies, real food that is not dependent on the oil industry) are important enough to sacrifice certain luxuries for, even luxuries that are now commonplace in modern America.
Actually, what I object to is that it’s mostly a pose. It’s easy to sacrifice a few cents to buy local produce. It’s much harder to give up your dream of being a well-respected professor to stay close to home. Too many Porchers are only willing to sacrifice on the trivial stuff (though they are happy to suggest that other folks make the sacrifices on the big issues of life).
And as John S. pointed out, they are all for holding to their principles—until they need socks. (I suspect he was being funny, but there is a lot of truth in his statement.)
Whether the coercive power of government should be used (and, if so, at what level) to prevent certain societal harms is a legitimate debate between people who share concerns about certain harms.
I agree—up to a point. If we are talking about whether coercion should be used to stop moral pollution like pornography, then yes, there is room for a legitimate debate. If we are talking about whether the King of America should have the power to coerce people into building him a castle (because work is good for them!), then we’ve wandered off into fringe territory.
Finally, do the distributists (even the most pro-coercion of them) really propose an unheard of level of coercion?
Not all of them, I’m sure. But some do.
PS — yes, I’d argue that purchasing socks at Wal-Mart is at least a cooperation with vice insofar as it is a manifestation of our societal obsession with cheap consumer goods that don’t reflect the real cost (human, envirnmental, social) of getting those goods at that price.
If that’s the case, then you should oppose Farmer’s Markets. The real cost of buying produce there can be higher in environmental and human terms than buying it in the grocery store.
John Médaille Distanced themselves? I have no evidence of this.
Here is the comment by Deneen on your essay “Why I am not a Monarchist”:
That certainly sounds like he has distanced himself from your view on crowning an American king. And are you really not aware of FPR contributors that left after your essay series?
But obviously they don’t think a discussion of monarchy is beyond the pale or they would not have published the series. And that is the point.
I think your series of essays on monarchy were well-written, engaging, and—as I said—provocative. But I also think that they are completely outside the realm of mainstream American politics. If “Porcherism” is to advance (as I think is should) then it doesn’t need to be saddled with ideas that will never, ever, ever be implemented in America.
How many examples would you like? I can do this all day.
Fair enough. Do you have any examples where the per-capita income exceeds that of a modern capitalist country?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all in favor of people having the right to choose cooperatives. If it works for them, more power to them. But I don’t see that system working in areas in which communism/socialism/collectivism wasn’t once the norm.
January 6th, 2012 | 1:29 pm
Do I get a sense that the FPR’s are suggesting that there might be at First Thing something like political correctness? The FT’ers would say there is a version of it at FPR too, I take it. Interesting take on this issue here:
http://www.cfmpl.org/blog/2012/01/06/political-correctness/
January 6th, 2012 | 1:40 pm
Chris, Patrick merely said he is not a monarchist and that few or none of his colleagues were; hardly surprising and nothing wrong with that. But he certainly had no objections to the discussion. Personally, I agree with Aristotle: democracy always ends in pure oligarchy, and the only way to avoid an oligarchy is polity with elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. As I said in the article, I am a monarchist because I am a democrat. If democracy is implementing the traditions of the people, there is doubt that electoral democracy actually does this. After all, we live in a “democracy” where the religion of the people is excluded from the public square, while all sorts of things that were objectionable only decades ago are now enshrined in our system, things such as gay marriage and abortion. Is it really unreasonable to look at other forms of polity, or are we the standard by which the world must be judged?
January 6th, 2012 | 1:49 pm
These writers I have in mind fit only the “Limits” part of the FPR motto, not the “Place” or “Liberty,” so they really should stop appearing on the same website with reasonable and charitable writers like Deneen, Peters, Wilson, etc.
Oh, I don’t know about that, Stephen P.; I think those of us who recognize that a foundational infatuation with individual liberty isn’t terribly conducive to a sustainable and moral community are actually pretty good on the “place” element of that slogan as well. Not that we detest liberalism–I’m pretty liberal in a lot of areas of my life, and would prefer my polities be such also–but I think we (meaning those of us who are on what might be called the “communitarian” side of the FPR project, whether we get there via distributism or Christopher Lasch) are mostly in agreement that, in modern capitalist societies today, liberty is doing mostly okay, and it’s the principles of “place” and “limits” that need the most defending.
Joe, thanks for putting this up; it’s resulting in a wonderful thread. And John Schwenkler, great to see your name again! Hope you and the family are doing well. I miss reading your stuff.
January 6th, 2012 | 1:53 pm
We are presently living in an “inverted totalitarianism” to use the words of Sheldon Wolin, no right-wing ideologue he!:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Incorporated-Managed-Inverted-Totalitarianism/dp/0691135665
January 6th, 2012 | 2:02 pm
Russell Arben Fox Joe, thanks for putting this up; it’s resulting in a wonderful thread.
I agree that it’s been interesting. And let me say to my FPR friends and anyone else who may disagree with me (i.e., everyone): The exchanges may be blunt and snarky at times, but that does not mean that they should be taken personally. I may have strong opinions about the direction FPR should take (I really would like to see it separate into two sites, and each interacting with the other) but that does not mean that I don’t appreciate the contributors. I even thought Mr. Sayler’s piece was well-written and made some good points.
Everyone is welcome here—even socialists and monarchists. ; )
And John Schwenkler, great to see your name again!
January 6th, 2012 | 2:14 pm
Steve
To answer your question: if you choose to buy prison labor made Chinese socks at Walmart when you could buy American made socks at a local store for a dollar more, then yes, I’d suggest this is a vice and possibly a seriously sinful.
January 6th, 2012 | 2:19 pm
Mr. Carter,
I’m not sure I buy your distinction between “moral pollution” like pornography and the other forms of moral pollution the distributists are apparently trying to get at. To go back to your original post, who gets to appoint the czar of moral pollution?
It looks to me like the distributists to whom you are objecting (we’ll say the pro-coercion ones) are just making a different judgment than you are about what counts as moral pollution sufficiently repugnant to warrant state action. You don’t really disagree with them about using coercion to limit market choices; your disagreement is about the relative badness of, I guess, Wal-Mart.
Finally, I do see what you are saying about porcherism (or distributism) being a pose; that is part of the reason, I suspect, for Wendell Berry’s relative popularity — he decided to leave life as a professor at a relatively prestigious university to farm his own land. That said, Chesterton provides something of an adequate response in Two Difficulties (the essay I linked earlier). He basically argues that for non-coercive distributism to work, you need both people who leave their current life to live the distributist life and people who are still in the current system to write about and encourage others to leave it. The money quote:
As many as can do so will return now to the land or to craftsmanship, attempt to provide for themselves and their families without reliance on powerful, financially-minded masters, secure ownership over small property and give allegiance as they owe it in right order. They are the pioneers to be assisted, encouraged, imitated. And they can play a further part, by making known to everyone ready to listen to them, the reasons that have impelled them to work independently, on the prevailing system. Others still tied to the system may look forward to eventual liberty of action, while carrying on the most important work of propaganda.
January 6th, 2012 | 2:27 pm
PS — I don’t think anyone has adequately complimented you on the sheer awesomeness of this blog post title. It manages to convey an awful lot about the substance of the post without taking away the need to read the post. And it got what is probably Bob Dylan’s catchiest song stuck in my head for the remainder of the day.
January 6th, 2012 | 2:29 pm
John Medaille: [T]he First Principle of First Things: any real discussion of conservatism must be banned. Or rather, any conservatism which isn’t “neo.”
On the contrary: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2011/02/letters
January 6th, 2012 | 2:45 pm
Henry Belton,
I would agree with that if it is always so clear cut. But it isn’t. Some of the clothing sold at Wal-Mart is made in the U.S. and local stores sometimes sell the “made in China” brands as well. I am a bit dubious of some of the marketing that surrounds these kinds of purchases because it has become clear in recent years that many of the “organic” and “fair trade” products of various kinds are nothing more than marketing slogans and that the standards and oversight of how “organic” or “fair trade” these products actually are is a bit lacking, to say the least.
My opinion is that more than a little of the “localism” and “cooperative” values that are touted by many aren’t much more than pretension. Very few actually walk the walk because walking the walk takes an enormous amount of effort and money and most don’t have the time, will or ability to really do it.
January 6th, 2012 | 2:48 pm
Chris, it was not Bob Dylan’s song. It was Stealers Wheel that sang it. It was written by Gerry Rafferty and Joe Egan. Ironically, when they were writing it they were thinking of making a Dylan parody. So, there is a Dylan connection, but it was all inspiration and no composition.
January 6th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
Steve. Ignoring all the corporate and labor policy issues of Walmart, please visit Walmart this afternoon and buy an American made shirt size XL. I will buy it from you. I’ll wait for your message.
January 6th, 2012 | 3:36 pm
I stand by my comment that it was Bob Dylan’s catchiest song…
January 6th, 2012 | 3:48 pm
Distributists do have a sense of humor. Whatever your intent, however, the your original post did not come across as “gentle fun.”
January 6th, 2012 | 4:06 pm
“To answer your question: if you choose to buy prison labor made Chinese socks at Walmart when you could buy American made socks at a local store for a dollar more, then yes, I’d suggest this is a vice and possibly a seriously sinful.”
Is this suggestion theoretical or real? Because I don’t know anywhere (at least not LOCALLY) where I could buy the same number of American made socks than any kind of socks at Walmart. If there even is such a thing as “American made socks” other than cottage industry versions that go for $7+ a pair.
January 6th, 2012 | 4:07 pm
Besides, why does Walmart = “prison labor made Chinese socks?” Not everything that is not overpriced and is available at Walmart is Chinese-made, let alone from prison labor.
January 6th, 2012 | 4:25 pm
Henry,
I will if you go into a local store and buy a shirt made in China. Then we will be even.
January 6th, 2012 | 4:35 pm
And as John S. pointed out, they are all for holding to their principles—until they need socks. (I suspect he was being funny, but there is a lot of truth in his statement.)
That was not my point. Rather, my point was that any sane set of principles will permit buying socks from Wal-Mart when it is necessary. That doesn’t bear against the claim that it is a wrong thing to do *in general*.
January 6th, 2012 | 4:38 pm
Oh, and thank you for proving my point about pretense.
January 6th, 2012 | 5:28 pm
Enough about the ethics of sock buying.
But each us does our community and our soul a disservice when we don’t consider what each of our purchases means – to the local store owner and community or to the factory worker whose dignity is dismissed each day while living in a dictatorial “worker’s paradise”.
January 6th, 2012 | 5:38 pm
[...] today, because I don’t know that I have the constitutional wherewithal to have entered the fierce fray Joe Carter opened up at First Things with criticism of certain aspects of the Front Porch Republic ethos. Carter: Since 2008, FPR has [...]
January 6th, 2012 | 6:09 pm
First, I have to say that, given the degree of distance between points of view here, I am impressed by the relative civility. On, say, Reddit, it’s way, way worse. But here’s what puzzles me. A great deal of this discussion, e.g. about WalMart, seems to take as a given that people only act as individuals, as consumers even, such that where we consume defines our politics. Isn’t that already accepting precisely what has created the problem in the first place? And the problem (a big part of it) is that in fact we virtually have no politics: we just have a market place. (Cf. Sheldon Wolin, above, but that’s hardly the only source on this.)
On a completely different theme: the nostalgia for a king might be an English thing. I personally wouldn’t mind it if the US presidency could be disaggregated into its constituent parts of executive administrator/bureaucrat-in-chief and king, such that we had a symbolic king (like England) and a mere mortal president.
More seriously, I urge everyone to read John Medaille’s book on Distributism, Toward a Truly Free Market. It focuses on economics, is extremely fair-minded (gives its due to both Hayek and Keynes), and has an inspiring tone of humility to boot. It is practical, and eminently applicable to 21-century problems. Check it out.
January 7th, 2012 | 10:24 am
NB, Mr. Carter, it’s “Salyer,” not “Sayler.”
Thanks for re-initiating the conversation.
January 7th, 2012 | 10:24 am
“Freedom, just around the corner from you,
but with truth so far off, what good will it do?”
Bob Dylan, “Jokerman”
I’m afraid Dylan’s a Porcher . . .
January 7th, 2012 | 1:19 pm
[...] a follow-up post he called it “poking gentle fun,” although none of the people being poked seemed to [...]
January 7th, 2012 | 1:24 pm
Joe Carter,
Citing a dogma doesn’t mean much if your discussing it with people who don’t share that dogma. “Socialism doesn’t work” and “Libertarians are more Liberal than Liberals” are both dogmatic statements.
I spent some time in Denmark and there are many examples of socialism, capitalism and distributism coexisting in Denmark. Denmark has its problems like anywhere, but in my observation it’s a remarkably clean, safe and prosperous country.
Socialism, capitalism and distributism will all fail if left to function on their own and if people don’t use those systems prudently. Mainstream Republicans sound as utopian as anybody else when they start talking about the “free market”, the wealthy as “job creators” and trickle down economics.
What distributists are going to have to do if we want to accomplish our goals is to make some compromises with the chain stores and restaraunts and start seeing if they will work with local farmers and artisans. This is not as far fetches as it sounds, Chipolte Grill gets some of it’s meat from Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farm.
The other thing distributists need to realize is that if small businesses are going to be competative with the big chains they have to be able to offer superior quality. Wal-Mart pushes a lot of local businesses out not just by undercutting them on price, but by offering goods of equal or better quality in a well lit and CLEAN enviroment.
January 7th, 2012 | 1:51 pm
John Medialle, while I’m closer to you on this than I am Mr. Carter, I do think that your fellow Porchers rather quickly distanced themselves from your monarchy articles, to the point that it was unseemly IMO. Rumor has it that your article was the “final straw” that caused Caleb Stegall to step aside, although I don’t know if that is true. I made this observation at the time, and I made it yesterday on Dreher’s blog before I read this one. My point being that it is wrong to imply that FPR is teaming with monarchists in the plural. As far as I know there is a monarchist.
This isn’t a criticism of you. I thought at the time that FPR and those in its orbit were guilty of what you are suggesting (correctly IMO) First Things and Mr. Carter are guilty of, attempting to marginalize any thought that is too illiberal.
The idea that FPR is impermissibly illiberal strikes me and many of my paleo buddies as telling, since one of our criticisms of FPR has often been that it is meticulously PC, especially on the issue of immigration.
January 7th, 2012 | 2:09 pm
[...] replied with a general critique of FPR and [...]
January 7th, 2012 | 3:38 pm
You must be a very important person if your post, which does not make too much sense to outsiders like me, could trigger so many comments. As one of the founders of the Romanian Distributist League (in Romania), who spent thirty years under communism and 22 years in USA, I think I know what socialism and utopia mean. And the value of freedom, too. If the Eastern Europeans have been cured of the socialist-type of Enlightenment Utopia – a universal civilization in which markets were replaced by central planning – many Americans are not cured of the Enlightenment project of a universal civilization based on a single global market. The “proletarians of all countries unite” slogan has been replaced by “consumers of all regions (no more nation-states) make your own choice” That is OUR CHOICE . When I came to US, I was told to “follow the system”. I said OK, I’ll do that, but give me a reason why. I was never supposed to ask that question. Like a benevolent commissar, you label the “porchers” into good and bad, the worst being the monarchist decentralist socialists (distributists) who “would presumably always make the right choices for us”. Well, I cannot remember to be able to make my own choices, either here or in Romania unless I follow the system. A system where I have the rights of a slave ( in Romania I was the slave of a poor, brutal slave owner, in US I am (so far) a pampered slave belonging to a rich slave owner). At least, with Distributism, we can design, at least to a large extent, a system of our own choice. Bad or good, it is ours, if we fail, at least we know it was our fault.Presumably you don’t want a system of our choice but you would prefer us to remain separated individuals united only by the “free” market (I am what I am – a Nike’s ad says)
January 7th, 2012 | 6:43 pm
Dan, Caleb didn’t leave; he took his name off the masthead when he became legal counsel to the governor of Kansas (I think it was), but still contributes occasionally. Are some uncomfortable with a discussion of monarchism? I suspect.
January 8th, 2012 | 12:13 am
[Cross Posted on FPR and FT]
The problem with Joe Carter’s reading of “freedom” is that he is completely unaware of his presuppositions. It is ahistorical. “The Market” does not occur naturally, as some liberalizing backdrop that merely has to remain uninhibited to bring freedom. Rather, the market is socially and historically constructed. For instance, a medieval farmer did not have access to an all embracing market autonomous of social and sacred concerns. He did not store his grain in hopes of more favorable prices at a later date, sell it to speculators while still in the field, or travel from village to village to fetch the best price. He didn’t even really own it. There were no property rights for individuals because people weren’t individuals; rather, the relevant entity was the community, and economic behavior was subordinate to the imperative to live communally as the church and care for one’s brother.
The conceptualization of the market as a place for all goods, or even a single good, that was autonomous from the social and the sacred aspects of human life, did not emerge until the triumph of the modern state. Prior to centralization of power under the monarchies of Europe, most human life was relegated to the communal level and freedom was understood as comportment with one’s nature taking place under a number of overlapping authorities and obligaitions all hierarchically arranged. Call this conceptualization of political, social, and economic space “complex.” It was under these arrangements that the common good — a common telos — could be sought, one based on shared affections and a shared vision of the good under subsidiarity and solidarity. It was here — in civil society, in churches, in local control over social and economic relations — that freedom manifested. People were rooted in community and place, which is the natural expression of human life.
With the monarchies of Europe, centralization by law and by force was prosecuted by the mobilization of war, which culminated with the absolutism of the sovereign monarch. The “complex space” of community, common good, and freedom was gradually displaced by a “simple space” that leveled community and subjected it to the centralization of governmental authorities. Liberalism eventually displaced this arrangement; however, it not only retained the absolute power of the state, it simultaneously magnified and limited it. The limiting is familiar to you all: the creation of political rights guaranteed by law. These rights, however, followed the construal of the individual and the government as the political and legal agents of any real legitimacy. This move — the creation of individuals unencumbered by community, family, and the social sphere — who look to the state to guarantee their equality, much like Christians look to Christ as an intermediary (this modern social construction REALLY is a secularization and distortion of very Christian ideas), further entrenched the state. What we now call civil society is simply an intermediary between the individual and the state and has no autonomy or authority of its own. People are individuated and cast into the mass of society, alienated and powerless. Further, political life has gone from seeking the common good together to the mediation of self-interested individuals through the organ of political and economic institutions. Liberals–left or right–and socialists adhere to this vision. The former merely prefers that the mediation between individuals occurs through state-created markets, while the latter prefers state-managed bureaucracies. Carter is under the mistaken presumption that these things are opposed, but if they are, it is a dispute in the family. “Porcherism,” localism, communitarianism, decentralized socialism, agrarianism, Anarcho-Monarchism (David Bentley Hart’s felicitous moniker) or whatever you want to call it, is a vision of society in opposition to the absolutism of the state and individualism.
In fact, both of these visions of socialism and modern capitalism, twinned as they from the same branch, are great evils. They assume a public-private division that denies the lordship and authority of Christ in political and social space, effectively separating grace and nature, the natural and supernatural, into totally different realms; they deny human nature by the marginalization of community and family;and they destroy any possibility of seeking the common good and instead treat society as an aggregation of naturally opposed and self-interested individuals, with avarice now the greatest of social virtues rather than charity. The anthropology of monadic individualism is anything but Christian, which approaches every aspect of human life in relational and communitarian terms. And with this basis, modern democratic capitalism and socialism has its own telos, liturgies, and sacred objects. For the truly self-autonomous individual who finds freedom in libertine choice rather than in Christ, the purchasing of commodities takes on a sacred mystique. To tame this individual, the state has its own anti-Eucharist in the institution of torture and other forms of coercion, which are essentially forms of intimidatory power that reinforce the legitimacy of the state, as William Cavanaugh, a prominent political theologian, has argued.
Mr. Carter would do well to read not only the likes of William Cavanaugh and Alasdair MacIntyre, but those who publish regularly in First Things who depart from the “theocon” consensus. David Bentley Hart has written about the “Optics of the Market” in one of his books, has repeatedly proclaimed his suspicion to both socialism and modern capitalism, and, as noted, adheres to what he playfully calls “Anarcho-Monarchism.” Likewise, Peter Leithart writes about the market and the state in the same manner, even going so far as to call such heresies on his blog.
January 8th, 2012 | 11:56 am
JA, your post is very well-argued but can you point to this place and time when political life was centered on the “common good” and in what way this has been undone by liberal capitalism?
For instance, I suspect Americans reading your comments would be surprised to imagine that projects like the abolition of slavery, the transcontinental railroad, the eradication of polio and other public health victories or the Civil Rights Act did not promote the common good or what achievements of earlier governments might compare to these.
Do you have any specific examples in mind?
January 8th, 2012 | 3:31 pm
It is the Porcher view that is ahistorical. Most declension-from-a-golden-age stories turn out to be folly, and this is no exception. The notion that way back in the past–American or European–there were no markets and folks were nice to each other is simply a fantasy.
JA writes @ 12:13: “…a medieval farmer did not have access to an all embracing market autonomous of social and sacred concerns. He did not store his grain in hopes of more favorable prices at a later date…”
O yes he did. See McCloskey and Nash, “Corn at Interest: The Extent and Cost of Grain Storage in Medieval England,” American Economic Review (March1984):174-87
McCloskey quotes the great medievalist David Herlihy: “research has all but wiped from the ledgers the supposed gulf, once considered fundamental, between a medieval manorial economy and the capitalism of the modern period.”
The FPR ideal seems attractive, and I sympathize with a good bit of it. Joe Carter claims that Porcher ideals would require coercion to be put into practice. The Porch response is either that the coercion would be justified (from the left Eric Hobsbawm agrees) or that coercion is ubiquitous, we just want coercion to advance our cause to be given a chance. Scary projects have started out of similar rationalizations. Carter’s reference to fascism (at FPR) was surely justified.
January 8th, 2012 | 5:48 pm
Mark,
Your question has a two part answer. First, Americans inherited a premodern ethic at its birth and this sustained attitudes and behaviors that led people toward the common good. However, this has been eroded by the liberal ethic, which is the basis for American political, social, legal, and economic organization. Our current fragmented state is the telos of this liberal ethic: America is increasingly a society where the market and the political process is used to further self-interest at the expense of others.
This is obviously not detailed enough, which is why I would recommend two writers. The first is a political theorist and philosopher, Wilson Carey McWilliams, who wrote extensively about this premodern tradition in American thought and the liberal erosion of it. The second is a theologian, William Cavanaugh, who has written extensively about the rise of the modern state and a theological view of politics and economics. His essay, “Killing For The Telephone Company: Why the Nationstate
is Not the Keeper of the Common Good,” is available online for free and addresses your query.
veteranredsfan,
Frankly, I find your comment quite puzzling. You accuse me of ahistoricism by citing one controversial article that has received a lot of criticism by others in the field for, amongst other things, ahistoricism.
The article in question cites grain storage use to demonstrate that medievals made use of such as part of some sort of capitalistic ethic.
But this is impossible.
Now, certainly, there was market behavior, but there was no conceptualized market for all goods autonomous of social and sacred concerns or even markets for specific goods. These had to be imagined and then supported by law with property rights before they could emerge.
The error that you are making (as well as McCloskey and Nash) is to suggest that market behavior limited and under such strong social constraints is evidence of the type of market that can only be sustained under an ethic of self-interested individualism and a legal-institutional structure of nation-state capitalism.
January 8th, 2012 | 6:59 pm
I notice that my posts are no longer appearing. I am sorry if I ruffled too many feathers.
Nevertheless, it is obvious that there has been a social and religious decline since the medieval. I think it is reasonable to posit that economic change is a part of that decline. An economy that rewards abortion like our present day economy is very different from that of a peasant economy, where children posses economic value.
January 9th, 2012 | 4:39 am
The manorial economy, so felicitously described by JA, was never general in Europe during the Middle Ages, or at any other time. It was established only in those places, Britain, Germany and France North of the Loire, where the Roman law was ousted by the inroads of the barbarian invaders, who succeeded in imposing their own customs.
In France South of the Loire and in Italy, where the written law and municipal government survived, it was quite unknown. It never established itself in Iberia, whether under Moorish or Christian rule
Following the Revolution, the last vestiges of the manorial economy were eradicated everywhere that armies of Napoléon gave a thoroughly Roman code of laws to the continent and restored the concept of an equal citizenship to civilisation.
What JA describes was an interlude, in parts of Europe, telling known as the Dark Ages
January 9th, 2012 | 11:13 am
“What JA describes was an interlude, in parts of Europe, telling known as the Dark Ages”
I will acknowledge that JA probably overemphasized the importance of the manorial economy. That does not mean you should go off into the opposite direction and start throwing around the “Dark Ages” canard.
January 9th, 2012 | 3:39 pm
I find it quite amusing that out of everything I wrote — and it covered quite a bit of topics — the one issue that critics care to exhaust is an example that illustrates how the modern market system was constructed. Of course, even if this example were to prove problematic, it does little to deflate my substantive points, which have yet to go addressed in the least.
In fact, I’ll make the general accusation that they haven’t been addressed because those criticizing me don’t have an answer to them. Instead, they are focusing upon an example of negligible importance as if it deflates my argument. No dice.
Michael PS’s recent post is rather illustrative of this. Look at my argument above. There I use an example of premodern economic organization to illustrate a contrast with the modern capitalist market. It is one of many possible examples that I could have deployed. Michael then criticizes the use of such and writes, “What JA describes was an interlude, in parts of Europe, telling known as the Dark Ages,” as if I advocated a return to any such model. Well, what Michael PS describes is a straw man, tellingly known as a fallacy. (And one that is ahistorical. The manorial system was not unique to the Dark Ages, but maintained during the Middle Ages as well. As he admits, it wasn’t eradicated until the French Revolution. And while he is right to suggest that all of Europe wasn’t under such — a point I did not make and in no way hinders my use of it as an example — it was present in England. And since in England is where modern capitalism has many of its roots, I saw it as a fitting example of contrast.)
Of course, I am not advocating a return to feudalism of any sort. I, along with many others on FPR, do not really have a single vision for society — such inflexibility is part of the purview of modern ideologues with its utopian demands for global democratic capitalism or other forms of statism. Rather, we generally acknowledge that there are many forms of polity and economic organization that are viable given the diversity of human culture. My largest concern is that such modes of organization and the institutions undergirding them adhere to virtue and natural law, something impossible under modern society, a point which, again, still stands because my critics prefer to focus upon irrelevant examples rather than the argument itself.
January 9th, 2012 | 5:08 pm
[This response to a criticism on First Things is cross posted there and on FPR]
Allow me to drive this point home. I have no problem with the owning of property, trade, and commerce. The problem is the modern market, an unnatural arrangement established by the state, which is autonomous of social and sacred concerns. (Verily, it has become a repository for the sacred itself, much like the state.) The modern market makes community impossible, reorienting such to an intermediary role between the self-interested self-ruling individual and the state. The effect is impiety toward nature and God, the destruction and fragmentation of family and community, the untethering of “emancipated individuals” from civic responsibility, and the reorientation of the sacred from the church to the state. Communities lack means of self-government — of ruling and being ruled in turn — when economic life is dependent upon neo-feudal corporate lords.
This is the great irony of the “conservative” liberal position: in reconciling to the Enlightenment and its legacy — its hostility to tradition, its individualism, its deification of the state and market, its domestication of Christians and neutering of the church — it has allied itself with the very forces of its undoing. You don’t like “gay” marriage? Then why support a social and economic system that turns marriage into a contract, increasingly disconnected from child rearing, between two autonomous individuals. The reason “gay” marriage is even possible is because marriage has been “liberalized” over the last few centuries. You don’t like avarice in the marketplace? Then why support a social model that fundamentally construes “individuals” as naturally in opposition to one another and the state and its created markets as the only means of arbitration?
The way a society defines and organizes itself certainly affects the way people think about themselves and the way they live. To protest rampant consumerism, the idolization of the individual, and the decline of tradition, while supporting the “free” market, is to ally with the very engine driving what you protest. The response that FPR proposes is a return to rootedness, church, community, and the like over artificial state-created markets AND state-managed technocratic bureaucracy. This is another irony: for all the bluster of “conservative” liberals over statism, they are themselves still statist — they love markets that require the modern state to “emancipate” people from traditional social obligations, turning them into “individuals,” and the monopolization of law and trade policy by a distant and centralized government. The further irony, as William Cavanaugh argues, is that this makes the state a repository of the sacred as it fulfills this “emancipatory” role, essentially turning it into an idol, a mediator that replaces Christ in political, social, and economic life. And this shouldn’t be a surprise. The modern state emerged in opposition to the Christian church, privatizing it and rebranding it as “religion,” which allowed for the monopolization of public life by the state. This is in contrast to the witness of the early church in Paul’s writing and the Book of Acts, where the church is construed as a new ekklesia, an essentially political body. For them, as for other premoderns, there was no strict difference between the political and the social or the political and the civic; rather, the church was to the new center of social AND political life with Christ at its head. While not challenging Rome directly, the Apostles INTENTIONALLY subverted it by eroding its legitimacy, which is why the Romans were so hostile to the church. To the extent that “conservative” liberals support the monopolization of public life by the state, they subvert Christ. The only way to counteract this is to reemphasize community, the obligations it imposes upon the “individual,” and its control over economic matters as well.
Here are some sources for further reading that I draw upon. This is very broad, encompassing issues such as secularization, the modern state, modern capitalism, democracy in America, biblical studies, political theology, and the nature of political power. It is hardly exhaustive, but a good list with which to begin:
The Myth of Religious Violence: Secular Ideology and the Roots of Modern Conflict by William T Cavanaugh
Migrations of the Holy: God, State, and the Political Meaning of the Church by William T Cavanaugh
Being Consumed: Economics and Christian Desire by William T Cavanaugh
Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ by William T Cavanaugh
Theopolitical Imagination: Christian Practices of Space and Time by William T Cavanaugh
The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology by Oliver O’Donovan
War and the American Difference: Theological Reflections on Violence and National Identity by Stanley Hauerwas
World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age by C. Kavin Rowe
Paul and Politics: Ekklesia, Israel, Imperium, Interpretation by Richard A. Horsely
Theocracy in Paul’s Praxis and Theology by Dieter Georgi
Sacred Violence: Torture, Terror, and Sovereignty by Paul W Kahn
On Power by Bertrand de Jouvenel
Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam by Talal Asad
The Democratic Soul: A Wilson Carey McWilliams Reader by Wilson Carey McWilliams
Redeeming Democracy in America by Wilson Carey McWilliams
January 9th, 2012 | 10:13 pm
Apologies for the trifecta of posts — but I should make it clear that when I speak of the Lordship of Christ in politics, I am NOT arguing that Christians should take hold of the machinery of the state in order to wield it over the public; rather, I am arguing for arresting and curtailing the power of the state and markets so that Christian communities can engage in self-rule. I am opposed to embracing the use of violence to persuade non-Christians. If only liberals held the same attitude toward non-liberals, especially toward Muslims; instead, they make use of war to proselytize them in places like Iraq.
January 10th, 2012 | 6:55 am
JA
The legal historian Sir Herbert Maine made a very telling remark, when he said that the movement of the progressive societies has hitherto been a movement from Status to Contract. I believe the history of Europe and the West, from Roman times to the present day exemplifies this.
You appear to be presenting a picture of the ethos of “pre-modern” society, characterized by the manorial economy, which was then superseded by a new thing, the individualistic commercial spirit and the economy it produces
My contention is that that is false: there was no “new” spirit, but the growth and development of a perennial tendency of Western civilization.
The fragmentation of power in the period between the sack of Rome by Alaric and the coronation of Charlemagne (the “Dark Ages”) brought large-scale commerce to a standstill and forced people into small collectives, both for production and for defence. Nowhere was this truer than in England, as you rightly observe.
This interlude, as I have called it, left Italy almost unaffected and by the 11th century, the law school of Bologna was reviving the study of the Roman law, not in any antiquarian spirit, but because its liberal, individualistic spirit suited the needs of Italy’s mercantile republics, Genoa, Florence and Venice. The same is true of Southern France, where the cities of Aix-en-Provence, Toulouse and the great port of Marseille were, effectively, petty republics.
Even in England, by the very beginning of the 14th century, the rise of the wool trade, exporting to the weaving centres of Flanders, saw the beginnings of the Foreign Exchange market in London, where foreign bills of exchange were being discounted in ‘Change Alley.
In the countryside, the manorial system was undermined by clearing tillage for pasture for the international wool trade, the great religious houses being in the forefront of this and by available markets for surplus production n the growing towns, leading both landlords and tenants to agree to the commutation of personal services for money rents, a process almost complete by 1350.
In other words, Europe displays a continuous development, both social and economic, from Imperial Rome to the present day, stultified, for a time and in some places, by the manorial system.
January 10th, 2012 | 6:16 pm
Michael PS,
1) You can repeat that naively whiggish narrative of history as much as you like, but history is not inherently progressive, nor does it develop along a single tendency or path, as your post strongly implies. I find myself quite comfortable claiming that to suggest that the monadic individual, the uniform nation-state, the autonomous market, etc., were destined to develop with its seeds of such in Rome, is highly risible, as well as the idea that the Middle Ages represent a delayed pause in such development. No serious historian believes this (and I say this as someone with a BA in History and currently undertaking a Doctorate in Philosophy with interests in the Philosophy of History and the History of Philosophy). This is the stuff of 19th century liberal historians that was dispelled long ago. Its only advocates today are “popular” writers about history who still believe in those hoary progressive narratives like Steven Pinker. This is fideism.
2) You completely ignored the main substance of my rebuttal to divert attention away from the philosophical, theological, biblical, etc., arguments that I made and the narrative that I spun in order to focus on a narrative of peripheral importance. This is the second time you have done so.
As I wrote earlier, you do not have a response. Instead, you have chosen to cavil an example that I used to make an illustration. My guess is that you do not have a response — what you have are PREJUDICES toward liberal ideas and beliefs, but you remain unaware of how those beliefs emerged through various accidents of history, haphazardly and without direction. They do not measure up to the witness of the Gospels or the Church, nor are they compatible with virtue and the natural law.
January 11th, 2012 | 12:42 am
“This is the stuff of 19th century liberal historians that was dispelled long ago.”
I would to agree.
“those beliefs emerged through various accidents of history, haphazardly and without direction”
I might actually quibble a bit over this, inasmuch as the material advancement of society was an integral force in expanding the prominence of these beliefs. But other than that I can simply mutter agreement.
January 11th, 2012 | 8:59 pm
[...] recent ongoing spat between Joe Carter of First Things and The Front Porch Republic reveals a good deal about a certain kind of Free [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact