God and Man in the Conservative Movement
Aug 25, 2010
Joe Carter
If a classic, as Mark Twain claimed, is something that everybody wants to have read and nobody wants to read, then William F. Buckley, Jr.’s God and Man at Yale is the epitome of a conservative classic. Few who have read it (and they are indeed few) would dispute its importance to the founding of modern conservatism. As the historian George Nash said, God and Man was “probably the most controversial book in the history of conservatism since 1945 and it’s importance for this movement is manifold.” 
Still, it’s a book about the failings of Yale in the mid-twentieth century. If you suspect it’s an anachronistic cultural artifact you won’t be wrong. Buckley spends a considerable portion of the book calling out Yale professors and administrators for being irreligious and socialistic. The perverse appeal of watching the impish young Yalie naming names is muted by the fact that few of the names are people you’d recognize.
This was what made the book controversial. But what made it truly outrageous at the time—and makes it even more scandalous now—is the primary thesis. God and Man is a polemic with a simple, inflammatory proposal: Because Yale actively undermines the students’ faith in Christianity and the free market, the alumni should withhold financial support from the university. The corollary was obvious: Yale should do something about these professors.
Consider, for a moment, the audacity of the suggestion. The idea that an Ivy League school should restrict academic freedom when teachers use it to erode confidence in economic freedom and Christianity is even more peculiar now than it was in 1951. Today, even assistant professors at podunk Bible colleges think they should have the right to undermine the faith of their students. At a school like Yale, you would be shocked if the professors didn’t denigrate conservative religious and economic beliefs.
Buckley understood that Truth not only does not always trump falsehood, but it can never win unless it is promulgated. He believed Christianity has already been established as an “ultimate, irrefutable truth.” For a believer to treat it as an open question—in any situation or context—would not only be intellectually dishonest but would be a surrender to the forces that worked for our destruction.
In God and Man, he unapologetically declares, “I believe that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”
Who would have the courage to make such a claim today? Can you imagine the reaction if a prominent conservative were to say that at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference? After the crowd recovered from fainting at such a bigoted religious view, they’d boo him from the stage. How dare he besmirch the good conservative atheists? They have as much claim to the title “conservative” as anyone else.
How remarkable that the thesis of a book that helped launch the conservative movement could, less than half a century later, be completely repudiated by people who claim to be the author’s intellectual heirs. But that is not quite true. It would be more accurate to say that they repudiated only part of it. They’ve foolishly discarded Buckley’s emphasis on Christianity but retained, as they should, his love of free enterprise.
For instance, everyone in the conservative movement knows that you can be an atheist who actively works to undermine traditional Judeo-Christian morality and conservative social issues and still receive a book deal with a conservative publisher, a fellowship at a conservative think-tank, or a place on the masthead of a major conservative publication. What you cannot do—without being stripped of the label “conservative”—is question free market orthodoxy. You can be squishy on the issue of cutting a child out of the womb, but waver on the prudence of cutting the capital gains tax and you’ll be treated as a traitor.
Of course you can still be a Christian—even an evangelical one—within the movement, for the conservative elite is not openly hostile to the faith. In fact, many of the leaders in the movement are, like the administrators of Yale in the 1940s, good churchgoing folk. They are all in favor of religion, provided it is practiced in private and not forced on others. Christianity can be a harmless pastime, similar to woodworking, quilting, or homosexuality.
When it comes to the expression of religious convictions in public and as a defining mark of conservatism, these movement leaders are moderately pro-choice. Christianity should remain safe, legal, and—like Judaism—rare.
The mission of the institutional movement, after all, is to build a big-tent coalition—and nothing is as divisive as a belief system that makes moral claims about how voters should behave and presses for public policy and laws limiting their choices. Serious pro-lifers, even if they are not members of “the Religious Right,” turn off the moderate independents in Connecticut. (Of course, in Connecticut, they also turn off the Republicans.) If we want to take back Congress and save the country from Obama, the establishment leaders contend, we can’t be telling people what to do with embryos in their uteri.
Lest you think I exaggerate the lack of interest in religiously-oriented, non-economic issues, and the open hostility to making them part of the core definition of “conservatism,” I encourage you to make a trip to our nation’s capital and see for yourself.
Stop by a trendy D.C. bar and strike up a conversation about social issues with a group of young Congressional staffers, think-tank interns, and associate editors of opinion journals. If you can tell the difference between the liberals and conservatives based on their view of same-sex marriage I’ll buy the next round; if you can find more than one committed social conservative in the group I’ll buy you the saloon.
These are exceptions, of course. A handful of conservative institutions located in Washington (such as the Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council) are dedicated to the promotion of both Judeo-Christian morality and economic freedom. But they are notable because they are older institutions that haven’t yet succumbed to the prevailing trend.
Increasingly, the elites of the institutional conservative movement do not reflect—much less emphasize—the traditional religious values of their supporters. The obvious question we should be asking ourselves is the same one that Buckley presented to the Yale alumnus: Since they do not support our values, why do we continue to financially support them?
We can appreciate their contributions and praise them as co-belligerents in the promotion of economic freedom. But why would we continue to give them money to speak for us when they are actively working to marginalize Christianity and silence its influence in the public square?
Joe Carter is web editor of First Things.
Comments:
8.25.2010 | 1:37am
Joe Carter says:
@Chris ***Two words: Lesser Evil.***
I can see how the lesser evil argument would apply if we're talking about political candidates. But when it comes to conservative institutions, publications, etc., we have don't have to make those sort of choices. In fact, I think the reason we have so many political candidates that do not reflect our values is because the conservative establishment promotes them and then says, "Well, who else are you going to vote for?"
I can see how the lesser evil argument would apply if we're talking about political candidates. But when it comes to conservative institutions, publications, etc., we have don't have to make those sort of choices. In fact, I think the reason we have so many political candidates that do not reflect our values is because the conservative establishment promotes them and then says, "Well, who else are you going to vote for?"
8.25.2010 | 3:37am
Irenaeus says:
As MacIntyre observed, there are conservative liberals, moderate liberals, and liberal liberals. And in recent days we've seen leading media and popular "conservatives" come out of the closet (as it were) on social issues -- Glenn Beck coming out and saying gay "marriage" doesn't matter, Elizabeth Hasselbeck saying she's in favor of it while also selling the unborn down the river, and it's been known for a while that Rush Limbaugh is rather gay-friendly (his ranting on Prop 8 concerning more process than result). Mitch Daniels recently floated the idea of tabling (in the American sense) social issues until we solve the economic issues facing the country. If you read "conservative" blogs like Instapundit and Ace of Spades it's largely the same thing. Apparently, with the exception of a few troglodytes, we are all libertarians now.
And yet...the lesser evil thing seems to matter. There's something to be said for moving the football 3 yards at a crack and playing between the 40s. I doubt very much that a GOP administration would have pushed for a pro-abortion constitution in Kenya, or that Sotomayor or Kagan would have been nominated to SCOTUS (of course, Vaughn Walker and Anthony Kennedy were GOP appointees...)
And yet...the lesser evil thing seems to matter. There's something to be said for moving the football 3 yards at a crack and playing between the 40s. I doubt very much that a GOP administration would have pushed for a pro-abortion constitution in Kenya, or that Sotomayor or Kagan would have been nominated to SCOTUS (of course, Vaughn Walker and Anthony Kennedy were GOP appointees...)
8.25.2010 | 5:56am
David Goldman says:
Joe,
Two thoughts on your provocative piece.
By the time I became a card-carrying conservative, when Reagan was elected, the dominant influence in conservative thinking was Irving Kristol. Buckley was universally respected, but very few of his friends were in the Reagan administration. And although Kristol and his kindergarten were social conservatives, they tended not to be particularly religious, as much as they liked religion for its social benefits. Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges?
Secondly: In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves. The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion, namely radical Islam, although it is hard to imagine that Islam could threaten the West the way Communism once did. But the battle-cry "Christianity vs. atheism" has a different meaning today.
Two thoughts on your provocative piece.
By the time I became a card-carrying conservative, when Reagan was elected, the dominant influence in conservative thinking was Irving Kristol. Buckley was universally respected, but very few of his friends were in the Reagan administration. And although Kristol and his kindergarten were social conservatives, they tended not to be particularly religious, as much as they liked religion for its social benefits. Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges?
Secondly: In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves. The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion, namely radical Islam, although it is hard to imagine that Islam could threaten the West the way Communism once did. But the battle-cry "Christianity vs. atheism" has a different meaning today.
8.25.2010 | 6:45am
Maria says:
Thank you for bringing alive several biblical lessons - the warning on how love of money is root of all evil ...why our Lord found the Pharisess hard to deal with as blind guides ..how He also expresses disgust of lukewarmness , as those worthy of being spat out - may be because , they could seem ' just right ' to many young minds and thus dangerous !
Hope many a parent whose children are headed for colleges would read this ..and start preparing the young early on ..that they could still be good warriors ..
and may be ..may be we are in those times when our Lord said - 'when I return , will there be any faith on the face of the earth ..' ; still , many parishes with Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration ...heaven itself wirh us and even Washigton D.C , in the arm folds of The Woman concieved without sin ..a land that still has , 100s, 1000s, that plead mercy , from a Lord who said - one such person can make a diffrence !
Hope many a parent whose children are headed for colleges would read this ..and start preparing the young early on ..that they could still be good warriors ..
and may be ..may be we are in those times when our Lord said - 'when I return , will there be any faith on the face of the earth ..' ; still , many parishes with Perpetual Eucharistic Adoration ...heaven itself wirh us and even Washigton D.C , in the arm folds of The Woman concieved without sin ..a land that still has , 100s, 1000s, that plead mercy , from a Lord who said - one such person can make a diffrence !
8.25.2010 | 8:29am
Ars Artium says:
If the basic moral concepts that shaped Western Civilization are to prevail in the United States, we must present carefully reasoned arguments for them. These arguments must be understandable by all persons of good will, believers and nonbelievers alike.
8.25.2010 | 9:05am
Stuart Koehl says:
The problem is definitional: in the American context, what constitutes "conservatism"? In Europe and most other places, this is not an issue: conservatives are the reactionary party, with a pessimistic view of both mankind and social prospects; it is the party of aristocracy that backs social institutions, including the Church (often established), because they act as a restraint against the lower classes. Outside of the United States, conservatives tend to be authoritarian, protectionist, and suspicious of the free market. In Europe, conservatives are "Tories", the "country party".
In the United States, mainstream conservatism would be described elsewhere as "classical liberalism"--a belief in individual liberty, in free markets and free trade, in small (but not minimal) government and in free speech and free exercise of religion. American conservatism generally has a positive view of the country and of its future. In short, mainstream American conservatism is Whiggish.
On either side of the conservative mainstream, we find outliers. Farther to the right, we find "Paleoconservatives", who can best be defined as European-style Tories. Farther to the left, we find the Neo-conservatives, who tend to be liberal on social issues while favoring free market economics and an activist foreign policy. And then there are the libertarians, who cover a multitude of sins that tend to make them wary of any government intervention in the private sphere--hence liberal on many social issues, but also dedicated to laissez faire economics and an isolationist foreign policy.
There is considerable blurring of the lines and cross pollination. For instance, it is generally conceded that an "atheist conservative" is something of an oxymoron: conservatives support organic social institutions and do not undermine them. Yet we have avowed conservative non-believers like Heather MacDonald and John Derbyshire. Derbyshire in particular is anomalous: in all other respects a true blue Tory, he's also a proud atheist. Yet in decades past, a true Tory would know enough to keep his non-belief to himself, "for the sake of the lower orders who need supernatural constraints on their animal instincts".
The mainstream of Whiggish conservatives are generally believers, but of an idiosyncratic type. A country founded by dissenters that has always been pretty easy-going about religion (Mormons and Roman Catholics excepted), they seem to have accepted Dwight Eisenhower's apocryphal directive: "I want Americans to have religion, and I don't care what it is". For most of them, religion is a private matter, but they don't like seeing their religiously-based values traduced, and react badly when their core beliefs are challenged by the secular left. Libertarians may or may not have religious beliefs, but true to their philosophy, think it nobody's business but their own, and do not like the injection of religion into the public square. Neo-conservatives on the whole are religious, and include many believing Catholics, Evangelicals and Jews. They do see a place for religion in the public square, often in support of their more liberal social agenda.
I think Buckley would recognize and applaud the syncretistic mix that is American conservatism, seeing the strengths of each strand acting to constrain the excesses of the others. Conservativism in the U.S. generally gets into trouble when one element of it starts to demand ideological purity, thereby alienating the others. As in all aspects of American politics, conservative success requires consensus building around common issues, and compromise on other issues which, though they may be central to one or more subgroups within the movement, are either irrelevant or antithetical to others.
Since conservativism in general abhors radical change, this dedication to incrementalism ought to be accepted by all.
In the United States, mainstream conservatism would be described elsewhere as "classical liberalism"--a belief in individual liberty, in free markets and free trade, in small (but not minimal) government and in free speech and free exercise of religion. American conservatism generally has a positive view of the country and of its future. In short, mainstream American conservatism is Whiggish.
On either side of the conservative mainstream, we find outliers. Farther to the right, we find "Paleoconservatives", who can best be defined as European-style Tories. Farther to the left, we find the Neo-conservatives, who tend to be liberal on social issues while favoring free market economics and an activist foreign policy. And then there are the libertarians, who cover a multitude of sins that tend to make them wary of any government intervention in the private sphere--hence liberal on many social issues, but also dedicated to laissez faire economics and an isolationist foreign policy.
There is considerable blurring of the lines and cross pollination. For instance, it is generally conceded that an "atheist conservative" is something of an oxymoron: conservatives support organic social institutions and do not undermine them. Yet we have avowed conservative non-believers like Heather MacDonald and John Derbyshire. Derbyshire in particular is anomalous: in all other respects a true blue Tory, he's also a proud atheist. Yet in decades past, a true Tory would know enough to keep his non-belief to himself, "for the sake of the lower orders who need supernatural constraints on their animal instincts".
The mainstream of Whiggish conservatives are generally believers, but of an idiosyncratic type. A country founded by dissenters that has always been pretty easy-going about religion (Mormons and Roman Catholics excepted), they seem to have accepted Dwight Eisenhower's apocryphal directive: "I want Americans to have religion, and I don't care what it is". For most of them, religion is a private matter, but they don't like seeing their religiously-based values traduced, and react badly when their core beliefs are challenged by the secular left. Libertarians may or may not have religious beliefs, but true to their philosophy, think it nobody's business but their own, and do not like the injection of religion into the public square. Neo-conservatives on the whole are religious, and include many believing Catholics, Evangelicals and Jews. They do see a place for religion in the public square, often in support of their more liberal social agenda.
I think Buckley would recognize and applaud the syncretistic mix that is American conservatism, seeing the strengths of each strand acting to constrain the excesses of the others. Conservativism in the U.S. generally gets into trouble when one element of it starts to demand ideological purity, thereby alienating the others. As in all aspects of American politics, conservative success requires consensus building around common issues, and compromise on other issues which, though they may be central to one or more subgroups within the movement, are either irrelevant or antithetical to others.
Since conservativism in general abhors radical change, this dedication to incrementalism ought to be accepted by all.
8.25.2010 | 9:08am
The true living God in the radiance of Jesus does not operate like human beings. God is not involved with human perspectives. God isn't human!! God demands repentance to all men on earth! It is His rightful to demand! Before men realize that he/she needs repentance, God has nothing to do with that! It is individual decision! Every individual decision either good or bad, it has its consequences according to God's point view! God righteously judges individuals according to their deeds! You cannot cheat God!! On this planet, we are cursed because we choose to be so!! How do you then choose?
Ezekiel 28 has the answer for us all. Also read Ezekiel 18: 30-32:
Ezekiel 28 has the answer for us all. Also read Ezekiel 18: 30-32:
8.25.2010 | 9:16am
T.B.Root says:
As George Will noted a generation ago, modern US Conservatism is flawed in its conception, because the market is often more corrosive to conservative (Christian) values than the state. Today this is all too obvious.
Libertarians believe that the common good and market results are one and the same thing, forever inseparable--and they are prepared to ride that horse to the bitter end: cultural/moral suicide. Our paths have diverged. Christians are bound to the truth, and this is not it.
Libertarians believe that the common good and market results are one and the same thing, forever inseparable--and they are prepared to ride that horse to the bitter end: cultural/moral suicide. Our paths have diverged. Christians are bound to the truth, and this is not it.
8.25.2010 | 9:46am
Brian English says:
Kathryn Jean Lopez, Andy McCarthy, Ed Whelan, Matthew Franck and Ramesh Ponnuro at National Review are solid social conservatives.
8.25.2010 | 10:26am
Sean says:
"We can appreciate their contributions and praise them as co-belligerents in the promotion of economic freedom. But why would we continue to give them money to speak for us when they are actively working to marginalize Christianity and silence its influence in the public square?"
Side question: Is economic freedom that isn't religiously bound even desireable?
Side question: Is economic freedom that isn't religiously bound even desireable?
8.25.2010 | 10:32am
Sean says:
'I think the reason we have so many political candidates that do not reflect our values is because the conservative establishment promotes them and then says, "Well, who else are you going to vote for?"'
Now I know how black people who don't like the Democrats feel.
Has anybody ever bothered doing a study of captive constituencies? Attitudees of Christians who know the Republicans don't give a damn about us, and ethnic minorities who know the Democrats use abortion to weed out their populations, et al? What exactly does it take to get us out of supporting these people? What do we have to change to make them reflect us more than they do the numerically infinitesimal atheist conservative contingent? How do they know how far they push us to the margins?
Now I know how black people who don't like the Democrats feel.
Has anybody ever bothered doing a study of captive constituencies? Attitudees of Christians who know the Republicans don't give a damn about us, and ethnic minorities who know the Democrats use abortion to weed out their populations, et al? What exactly does it take to get us out of supporting these people? What do we have to change to make them reflect us more than they do the numerically infinitesimal atheist conservative contingent? How do they know how far they push us to the margins?
8.25.2010 | 10:33am
Joe Carter says:
@Irenaeus ***Apparently, with the exception of a few troglodytes, we are all libertarians now.***
Sadly, I think that’s right. Or at least what the conservative establishment believes.
@David Goldman ***And although Kristol and his kindergarten were social conservatives, they tended not to be particularly religious, as much as they liked religion for its social benefits.***
I think that was one of the key shifts in the conservative movement, from the True to the Useful. That shift allows for different stories to be told. For example, the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments may be useful, but it is primarily True. If we want to live in reality we must decide how it fits into our own story.
But Kristol and the neocons preferred the Useful since pragmatic explanations are an easier sell. Their stories were the stories of social science. You didn’t have to believe they were True to see their benefits, only agree that they were useful. The problem is that the stories of social science can be contingent upon certain contexts (e.g., Judeo-Christian morality). Once that context is stripped away those stories are no longer even useful.
***Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges? ***
I believe Buckley was primarily building an intellectual movement and only secondarily a political movement. I think it was the reverse with the neocons. Because the political is sexier than the intellectual, the neocons were able to acquire more groupies.
***In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves.***
I agree. But the reason Europe is largely a danger to themselves is because while they largely denounced Communism, they kept the atheism. The same is happening in America.
***The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion,***
This is certainly the biggest threat from outside (or inside, now, if you live in Europe). But the reason that it is such a challenge is because secular atheism is ill-equipped to respond to Islam.
@Ars Artium ***If the basic moral concepts that shaped Western Civilization are to prevail in the United States, we must present carefully reasoned arguments for them. ***
I half agree, but this concedes too much to rationalism. It assumes that there are always knock-down reason-based arguments for the moral concepts that are foundational to Western Civilization. But I’m not sure this is the case. The arguments against incest, for example, are mostly culturally and dispositional rather than rational. If we said that we had to come up with reasonable arguments that would convince everyone before we could legitimately prohibit such behavior we’d be in trouble.
@Stuart Koehl ***Since conservativism in general abhors radical change, this dedication to incrementalism ought to be accepted by all.***
The reason I can’t accept it is because what most “conservatives” are not dedicated to is “Incremental Progressivism.” If we concede that there are no universal truths or institutions that should not be changed, then we are essentially progressives who want to move at a slower pace.
@Brian English ***Kathryn Jean Lopez, Andy McCarthy, Ed Whelan, Matthew Franck and Ramesh Ponnuro at National Review are solid social conservatives.***
Yes, they are. But the fact that we have to list them is evidence of what I’m talking about. What are the rest of the conservative elite, “social liberals?” All conservatives should be “solid social conservatives.” If we are not preserving the social sphere then what is the purpose of having a free market? Liberty is only worthwhile when we are free to be virtuous. If we are merely free to follow our inner hippies then we are headed for what James Poulos calls the “Pink Police State.” Even those who are most focused on economics should recognize that since the libertine culture requires a nanny state, they would do well to support social conservatism in order to preserve free enterprise.
Sadly, I think that’s right. Or at least what the conservative establishment believes.
@David Goldman ***And although Kristol and his kindergarten were social conservatives, they tended not to be particularly religious, as much as they liked religion for its social benefits.***
I think that was one of the key shifts in the conservative movement, from the True to the Useful. That shift allows for different stories to be told. For example, the story of Moses and the Ten Commandments may be useful, but it is primarily True. If we want to live in reality we must decide how it fits into our own story.
But Kristol and the neocons preferred the Useful since pragmatic explanations are an easier sell. Their stories were the stories of social science. You didn’t have to believe they were True to see their benefits, only agree that they were useful. The problem is that the stories of social science can be contingent upon certain contexts (e.g., Judeo-Christian morality). Once that context is stripped away those stories are no longer even useful.
***Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges? ***
I believe Buckley was primarily building an intellectual movement and only secondarily a political movement. I think it was the reverse with the neocons. Because the political is sexier than the intellectual, the neocons were able to acquire more groupies.
***In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves.***
I agree. But the reason Europe is largely a danger to themselves is because while they largely denounced Communism, they kept the atheism. The same is happening in America.
***The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion,***
This is certainly the biggest threat from outside (or inside, now, if you live in Europe). But the reason that it is such a challenge is because secular atheism is ill-equipped to respond to Islam.
@Ars Artium ***If the basic moral concepts that shaped Western Civilization are to prevail in the United States, we must present carefully reasoned arguments for them. ***
I half agree, but this concedes too much to rationalism. It assumes that there are always knock-down reason-based arguments for the moral concepts that are foundational to Western Civilization. But I’m not sure this is the case. The arguments against incest, for example, are mostly culturally and dispositional rather than rational. If we said that we had to come up with reasonable arguments that would convince everyone before we could legitimately prohibit such behavior we’d be in trouble.
@Stuart Koehl ***Since conservativism in general abhors radical change, this dedication to incrementalism ought to be accepted by all.***
The reason I can’t accept it is because what most “conservatives” are not dedicated to is “Incremental Progressivism.” If we concede that there are no universal truths or institutions that should not be changed, then we are essentially progressives who want to move at a slower pace.
@Brian English ***Kathryn Jean Lopez, Andy McCarthy, Ed Whelan, Matthew Franck and Ramesh Ponnuro at National Review are solid social conservatives.***
Yes, they are. But the fact that we have to list them is evidence of what I’m talking about. What are the rest of the conservative elite, “social liberals?” All conservatives should be “solid social conservatives.” If we are not preserving the social sphere then what is the purpose of having a free market? Liberty is only worthwhile when we are free to be virtuous. If we are merely free to follow our inner hippies then we are headed for what James Poulos calls the “Pink Police State.” Even those who are most focused on economics should recognize that since the libertine culture requires a nanny state, they would do well to support social conservatism in order to preserve free enterprise.
8.25.2010 | 10:53am
Mick Lee says:
Mr Koehl: When you say "Conservativism in the U.S. generally gets into trouble when one element of it starts to demand ideological purity, thereby alienating the others", this is often said in regards to the social issues crowd--usually an unnamed reference to the unwelcome issue of abortion. So-called "economic conservatives" are just that: basically devotees to the free market. They generally see any other issue as a distraction from the "real" issue of economics. They promised that if only all other conservatives keep quite then all sorts of people would be breaking down the door to enter the "conservative party”. Alternately, they often propose that once we get the economy right we can tackle the social issues. Aside from the fact the "economic conservatives" rarely deliver in terms of money or votes, the problem with such conservatives is that the economy is NEVER right. The free market is always being distorted by someone somewhere and that must be dealt with before anything else. There is always some financial crisis brewing just over the horizon coming our way.
The trouble is that “no social issues” is the automatic preset for economic conservative. They have no intention of taking up any social issue—much less abortion. Thus, ironically, in complaining that social conservatives are hijacking the entire cause of Conservativism, economic conservatives themselves are putting their objectives first and are trying to control the entire agenda of the right.
The solid fact is that those against abortion have learned that if they do not speak up for their cause no one else will. No one is going to grant you a hearing just because you are there standing around. Abortion isn’t just an issue—it is a transcendent issue. It is not a question of getting someone else to do what you want; it is an issue of justice toward the very weakest and voiceless among us.
In addition, abortion, as noted in these pages, has not turned out to be a discrete issue. The moral justifications for abortion bleed over into other “life” issues. The cascade of euthanasia, eugenics, infeticide, and an “obligation” to die so as not to be a burden, have all gained new and broad acceptance. Those who see life as a negotiable principle do not stop in discovering the brave new implications of their values and do not stop in pressing them forward.
If a conservative is not protecting the sacredness of life, just what is he conserving?
The trouble is that “no social issues” is the automatic preset for economic conservative. They have no intention of taking up any social issue—much less abortion. Thus, ironically, in complaining that social conservatives are hijacking the entire cause of Conservativism, economic conservatives themselves are putting their objectives first and are trying to control the entire agenda of the right.
The solid fact is that those against abortion have learned that if they do not speak up for their cause no one else will. No one is going to grant you a hearing just because you are there standing around. Abortion isn’t just an issue—it is a transcendent issue. It is not a question of getting someone else to do what you want; it is an issue of justice toward the very weakest and voiceless among us.
In addition, abortion, as noted in these pages, has not turned out to be a discrete issue. The moral justifications for abortion bleed over into other “life” issues. The cascade of euthanasia, eugenics, infeticide, and an “obligation” to die so as not to be a burden, have all gained new and broad acceptance. Those who see life as a negotiable principle do not stop in discovering the brave new implications of their values and do not stop in pressing them forward.
If a conservative is not protecting the sacredness of life, just what is he conserving?
8.25.2010 | 11:08am
Michael says:
As a European myself, a Scot, who knows France well, can I say that Stuart Koehl is quite right in his description of European conservatism. However, European conservatives are far from being a monolithic bloc, but, rather a curious mixture of tendencies, nativist, populist, localist, vaguely clericalist and socially conservative (Christian Democrat), often dirigiste in economics, sometimes protectionist, particularly on strategic, rather than strictly economic grounds, but with some “Classical liberals.” They tend to form coalitions as “the Party of Order.”
Remember, America had the Revolution, but not the Counter-Revolution, so it has no tradition of Throne and Altar conservatives, a tradition that still influence the European Right.
Remember, America had the Revolution, but not the Counter-Revolution, so it has no tradition of Throne and Altar conservatives, a tradition that still influence the European Right.
8.25.2010 | 11:34am
ahem says:
"In the United States, mainstream conservatism would be described elsewhere as "classical liberalism"--a belief in individual liberty, in free markets and free trade, in small (but not minimal) government and in free speech and free exercise of religion. American conservatism generally has a positive view of the country and of its future."
That's it in a nutshell. From the perspective of Christians--and I am one--Christ reigns supreme; from the perspective of the American political landscape, classical liberalism reigns supreme; it is the basis upon which the country was founded. All of its excellencies derive therefrom. I don't mean that it is the most important thing in life--to a Christian, Christ is--but that it is the defining American political quality, upon which our ability to lead peaceful lives and worship Christ depends.
If we can preserve our political foundations, we can assure our own religious freedom in the future.
An important thing to remember: Problems change over time, and the solutions to them change as well. WHat was required politically 20 years ago is no longer required.
Right now, abortion is not the most pressing issue of our day: the most pressing issues of our day are 1) saving our economy and 2) resisting the progress of radical Islam and Shariah in the United States, which threatens to exterminate us all. If we can do those two things, we'll be around to fight for the right to life another day. If we can't, we'll be slaves to the state or to Islam, and the matter of abortion will hardly matter.
That's it in a nutshell. From the perspective of Christians--and I am one--Christ reigns supreme; from the perspective of the American political landscape, classical liberalism reigns supreme; it is the basis upon which the country was founded. All of its excellencies derive therefrom. I don't mean that it is the most important thing in life--to a Christian, Christ is--but that it is the defining American political quality, upon which our ability to lead peaceful lives and worship Christ depends.
If we can preserve our political foundations, we can assure our own religious freedom in the future.
An important thing to remember: Problems change over time, and the solutions to them change as well. WHat was required politically 20 years ago is no longer required.
Right now, abortion is not the most pressing issue of our day: the most pressing issues of our day are 1) saving our economy and 2) resisting the progress of radical Islam and Shariah in the United States, which threatens to exterminate us all. If we can do those two things, we'll be around to fight for the right to life another day. If we can't, we'll be slaves to the state or to Islam, and the matter of abortion will hardly matter.
8.25.2010 | 11:35am
Ars Artium says:
Regarding faith and reason: I do believe that a reasonable case can and must be made for every moral concept. That was (if I am not mistaken) the initial project of enlightenment thinking - that faith be explained in a manner respectful of our God-given ability to reason. May God grant that we never abandon that endeavor.
As to the question of incest, even if one is dealing with a person who is - for whatever reason - devoid of ability to reason morally, one can at least explain the horrific consequences that can follow from "in-breeding" (difficult as it is to use that phrase in connection with anything human) being careful to do this in a way that is respectful of human intelligence. I have been quoting Fr. James Schall at length on this blog. May I be permitted one more passage from his brilliant, "The Regensburg Lecture"?
"I am aware that opposition to the very statement of truth, even to its possibility, frquently arises from misunderstanding or ignorance. These are sources, however, that can usually be worked out by the normal intellectual endeavors of clarification and understanding."
As to the question of incest, even if one is dealing with a person who is - for whatever reason - devoid of ability to reason morally, one can at least explain the horrific consequences that can follow from "in-breeding" (difficult as it is to use that phrase in connection with anything human) being careful to do this in a way that is respectful of human intelligence. I have been quoting Fr. James Schall at length on this blog. May I be permitted one more passage from his brilliant, "The Regensburg Lecture"?
"I am aware that opposition to the very statement of truth, even to its possibility, frquently arises from misunderstanding or ignorance. These are sources, however, that can usually be worked out by the normal intellectual endeavors of clarification and understanding."
8.25.2010 | 11:39am
jason taylor says:
"Joe,
Two thoughts on your provocative piece.
By the time I became a card-carrying conservative, when Reagan was elected, the dominant influence in conservative thinking was Irving Kristol. Buckley was universally respected, but very few of his friends were in the Reagan administration. And although Kristol and his kindergarten were social conservatives, they tended not to be particularly religious, as much as they liked religion for its social benefits. Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges?
Secondly: In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves. The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion, namely radical Islam, although it is hard to imagine that Islam could threaten the West the way Communism once did. But the battle-cry "Christianity vs. atheism" has a different meaning today. "
But the worst challenge to the West is internal morale and that can be traced to progressivism including some forms of Atheism. Radical Islam would not be a fear if the West were reasonably confident in itself. A sick lion that is eaten by hyena's because it could not fight back may have been eaten by the lions but it was really killed by the disease.
Two thoughts on your provocative piece.
By the time I became a card-carrying conservative, when Reagan was elected, the dominant influence in conservative thinking was Irving Kristol. Buckley was universally respected, but very few of his friends were in the Reagan administration. And although Kristol and his kindergarten were social conservatives, they tended not to be particularly religious, as much as they liked religion for its social benefits. Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges?
Secondly: In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves. The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion, namely radical Islam, although it is hard to imagine that Islam could threaten the West the way Communism once did. But the battle-cry "Christianity vs. atheism" has a different meaning today. "
But the worst challenge to the West is internal morale and that can be traced to progressivism including some forms of Atheism. Radical Islam would not be a fear if the West were reasonably confident in itself. A sick lion that is eaten by hyena's because it could not fight back may have been eaten by the lions but it was really killed by the disease.
8.25.2010 | 11:45am
omega sequence says:
(speaking from a Canadian social/theo conservative's perspective)
This may be a trivial point of semantics, but for as much as I am against progressivism I quite dislike the term “conservative.”
It implies a type of antiquarian eccentricity and resistance to change or dynamicism. But what are we being ‘conservative’ about?
Truths--profound truths. Living truths.
Allowing ourselves to be labelled (or self-labelling ourselves as) conservatives forces us into a conservative vs. progressive paradigm. This robs us of the power to be creative in applying and adapting these truths in new situations. I also think it has ceded various issues over to the (atheistic) progressive camp when theistic conservatives should be working with them.
We should focus on our commitment to important truths rather than on our commitment to a historical setting. I would much rather have us known as (for lack of a better term) classicists.
This may be a trivial point of semantics, but for as much as I am against progressivism I quite dislike the term “conservative.”
It implies a type of antiquarian eccentricity and resistance to change or dynamicism. But what are we being ‘conservative’ about?
Truths--profound truths. Living truths.
Allowing ourselves to be labelled (or self-labelling ourselves as) conservatives forces us into a conservative vs. progressive paradigm. This robs us of the power to be creative in applying and adapting these truths in new situations. I also think it has ceded various issues over to the (atheistic) progressive camp when theistic conservatives should be working with them.
We should focus on our commitment to important truths rather than on our commitment to a historical setting. I would much rather have us known as (for lack of a better term) classicists.
8.25.2010 | 11:45am
Mrs. Jackson says:
Joe, excellent. It immediately recalls to mind Dartmouth Prof. and NR editor for 30+ years, Jeffrey Hart's declaration that in 2008 Obama is the real conservative. After supporting Obama and cheering for McCain's (and America's) loss, a few days after the election Hart wrote (at The Daily Beast):
"In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished."
While I do like Hart using the small g with god here (WFB's influence still holds a tad), it's probably much more accurate to say and, more importantly Charlie Cook would agree, that just 19 months later the party united around small g god Obama, gun restrictions and same sex marriage is finished.
Per:
"Secondly: In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves. The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion, namely radical Islam, although it is hard to imagine that Islam could threaten the West the way Communism once did. But the battle-cry "Christianity vs. atheism" has a different meaning today."
Well, considering the current occupant of the White House's mother was an atheist and father was a (ex?) Muslim and that same occupant has made a swift transformational change to this country and the rule of law saying communism is dead may just be akin to Jeffrey Hart saying In 2008 Obama is the true conservative. But I will agree that the battle cry does have a different meaning -- and that is most unfortunate.
The great intellectual framework that Buckley set up for conservatives was deconstructed by many but not all of Buckley's intellectual heirs. And then there's the deconstruction of Buckley's legal heir, Christopher...achi-machi.
"In its embrace of the religious right under George W. Bush, the Republican Party became the stupid party. And committing suicide along with it has been the conservative movement. The party united around god, guns and gays is finished."
While I do like Hart using the small g with god here (WFB's influence still holds a tad), it's probably much more accurate to say and, more importantly Charlie Cook would agree, that just 19 months later the party united around small g god Obama, gun restrictions and same sex marriage is finished.
Per:
"Secondly: In 1950 the great danger to the West was atheistic Communism, and that much was understood when Buckley denounced atheism. Communism is dead, and the atheists of Europe are largely a danger to themselves. The most evident challenge to the West comes from something that represents itself as a religion, namely radical Islam, although it is hard to imagine that Islam could threaten the West the way Communism once did. But the battle-cry "Christianity vs. atheism" has a different meaning today."
Well, considering the current occupant of the White House's mother was an atheist and father was a (ex?) Muslim and that same occupant has made a swift transformational change to this country and the rule of law saying communism is dead may just be akin to Jeffrey Hart saying In 2008 Obama is the true conservative. But I will agree that the battle cry does have a different meaning -- and that is most unfortunate.
The great intellectual framework that Buckley set up for conservatives was deconstructed by many but not all of Buckley's intellectual heirs. And then there's the deconstruction of Buckley's legal heir, Christopher...achi-machi.
8.25.2010 | 11:52am
Sophie de Bellemaniere says:
Thank you Joe for reminding us of the basic principles of conservatism.
They seem to be so much forgotten that it first sounds logical that Peter Beinart is deploring what he calls "the GOP phony religious diversity".
While in fact he is only pointing out their little reminiscences.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-15/the-gops-phony-religious-diversity-peter-beinart-on-nikki-haley/
They seem to be so much forgotten that it first sounds logical that Peter Beinart is deploring what he calls "the GOP phony religious diversity".
While in fact he is only pointing out their little reminiscences.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-15/the-gops-phony-religious-diversity-peter-beinart-on-nikki-haley/
8.25.2010 | 11:54am
Andrea Shapiro says:
I was delighted to read this piece. About four years ago, I read "God and Man at Yale" and shared its radical message with everyone who would listen, most of whom were incredulous. But I hold to this view: what Buckley wrote in his youth was brave then and, today, posits a possible solution toward dissolving the schisms in the Church, and especially the Episcopal Church. Begin with re-establishing K-12 schools that openly and unequivocally proclaim the Gospel, teach scripture, require prayer, and make clear that the Word is not a fairy tale or a political platform but a matter of life and death. It's time to revisit the mission of Yale in education: cultivate thought leaders who understand that life is faith in action, and treasure and time are of God and are in debt to Him.
8.25.2010 | 12:03pm
Martial Artist says:
If you are going to deride libertarians, as opposed to Libertarians, it might serve you well to become familiar with some of the writing of the person considered by many of the former as the "intellectual father of libertarianism," F. A. Hayek. Perhaps one of the best places to start would be with his essay "Why I Am Not a Conservative" which can be found online at http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46. Interestingly, he chose not to call himself a libertarian, but rather an Old Whig, meaning that appellation in the sense in which it was used by Burke. As a newly received Catholic who has over the course of six decades migrated from being a conservative to being an Old Whig, a la Hayek, the type of libertarianism I hear most of you addressing is more radical than that which Hayek would have supported, particularly along the lines of social conservatism.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer
8.25.2010 | 12:06pm
Jim N. says:
"In the United States, mainstream conservatism would be described elsewhere as 'classical liberalism'--a belief in individual liberty, in free markets and free trade, in small (but not minimal) government and in free speech and free exercise of religion." Excellent analysis by Stuart Koehl. Today there are groups with a wide range of beliefs calling themselves conservatives. Many of these groups have beliefs fundamentally at odds with traditional American conservatism. True conservatives believe in the free exercise of religion. The government should not obstruct the practice of religion, but all religions, including atheism and agnosticism should be respected. Also traditional conservatives are generally against intervention, military or otherwise, in foreign governments and conflicts. Someone who thinks that this nation ought to favor Christianity over other religions is not a traditional conservative. Someone who thinks we should intervene in foreign conflicts in favor of one group, based on its religion, is not a traditional conservative. Those beliefs may or may not be defensible on their own merits but they are inconsistent with traditional American conservatism.
8.25.2010 | 12:07pm
Cooper says:
This is an insightful column that is thoughtful conservatives should take seriously if we want to keep conservatism from losing its moral foundations.
8.25.2010 | 12:14pm
Mike P. says:
Joe, I go to college in Washington, D.C., and I am from Connecticut, and so I feel some of your pain. In fact, the Hartford Courant recently did a piece about how CT Republicans have to be “pro-choice” in order to have a shot at winning. I would reply, of course, that Republicans have not exactly succeeded in my state in any way in spite of generally being pro-choice, but the party is so used to losing, it would not really matter.
First of all, what is “crucial” to being a conservative –support for market economics, traditional social mores, or foreign policy interventionism– is regarded as different by each person. Some people think that if you ditch any one of these, you aren’t “really” a conservative. Others say that you can ditch one, but you had better not ditch the one that they care most about, because then you will not be a “conservative.” I personally think that any set of policies should be questioned among conservatives, and would not deny someone’s conservative credentials for almost any reason. I think a good conservative can support same-sex marriage (although I do not), can support many New Deal sorts of programs (I support some, and not others), and can oppose the Iraq war. I care about all of these issues, but lots of people regard “their” issues are the most important, and are always going to advocate for them first. This is why there are interest groups, and PACs, and so forth. It is politics. Furthermore, we have to distinguish between the conservative movement and the GOP: obviously the GOP needs conservatives, but it needs others too. These “moderates” within the party may dissent from one –or two– of the conservative movement’s “legs of the stool.” However, they are not “conservative” Republicans, but moderate Republicans. In general, however, I agree that there is no reason (philosophical or purely political) to privilege “economic issues” over “social issues” or “foreign policy issues.” I’d like to think that a competent government can actually make strides on all of these issues, but I think that no matter what, everyone will feel that “their issues” did not get enough play.
That said, I do not think your criticisms are entirely fair. The evidence you cite –anecdotes about staffers– may be true, although being in D.C. myself, I feel that they may be overstated. Even if they are true, however, it does not mean that the “conservative movement” broadly or the GOP in particular is neglecting social issues. It simply means that some staffers have more liberal positions than, presumably, the Congressmen that they work for. If those staffers ever run for office, they will need to adjust their views, unless they are running for some D+ district. However, I do not think you can find a Republican representative or Senator who opposes DOMA, or supports FOCA (incidentally, you could find a good number of Democrats –even after the fall cycle– who support DOMA, and oppose FOCA).
Most conservative publications emphasize social issues a good deal. They get lots of attention in National Review, and most NR writers –with some exceptions– are social conservatives. Even Heather MacDonald, who is an atheist, has criticized some of the market economics of the right (and was not drummed out for doing so), and wrote a very strong cautionary piece about same-sex marriage earlier this year. Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Stuttaford, and Deroy Murdock at NR think same-sex marriage is okay, but do not support a national mandate for it from a court, thereby taking a very reasonable federalist position. More than this, lots of NR writers disagree about economic policy (and foreign policy too) and very few let religion go undefended when criticized by one of the secular folks at NR. In fact, at NR, there is currently a big discussion going on about Ayn Rand, who is not much beloved over there. Presumably, if all that mattered to them was “free-market orthodoxy” then they would have warm feelings for Rand. That clearly distinguishes conservatives from libertarians. The Weekly Standard, while generally emphasizing foreign policy above all, also gives social issues at least as much attention as economic issues, as does the American Conservative (which takes an isolationist approach to foreign policy). More than that, consider the libertarians: if the only thing that really unites conservatives is support for market economics, then why do libertarians such as Brink Lindsey constantly attack both conservatives and the GOP and criticize their fellow libertarians for “going along” with them?
As for conservative “media figures,” I think you overestimate the importance of Glenn Beck. However, the other “major hosts”: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager have discussed social issues on their programs (the last two especially). I do not think that we should we citing Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s views as somehow representative of the conservative movement as a whole.
I think that the current emphasis on market economics among conservatives is primarily the result of having to respond to Obama’s agenda, which has exerted lots of time trying to pass a bunch of “big government” programs. If Obama was aggressively pushing FOCA or a repeal of DOMA, you’d see conservatives devote more time to social policy debate. However, we got a pretty big dose of abortion talk during the health-care debate despite the discussion being primary about economics. If we had a terrorist attack, or if Obama was proposing we pull all of our troops out of foreign countries and make massive defense cuts, we’d be seeing much more time devoted to foreign policy discussion. But in general, out-of-power people have to respond to the people who have power, and that is what conservatives have done.
There are only two parties in American politics, and within each one are different factions. Joe, I think the main lesson of your concerns is that conservatives of all stripes have to advocate for their views within the conservative movement, and within the GOP. But do not confuse the views of some conservatives or Republicans with the consensus view of conservatives and Republicans on social issues.
The general problem of political leaders –even conservative ones– being out of touch with their constituents is not unique for us conservatives, and I think you’d find many progressives who feel the same way as you do. Moreover, many of the social left believe that Obama has not sufficiently emphasized “their issues.” So I think this phenomenon is pretty widespread.
First of all, what is “crucial” to being a conservative –support for market economics, traditional social mores, or foreign policy interventionism– is regarded as different by each person. Some people think that if you ditch any one of these, you aren’t “really” a conservative. Others say that you can ditch one, but you had better not ditch the one that they care most about, because then you will not be a “conservative.” I personally think that any set of policies should be questioned among conservatives, and would not deny someone’s conservative credentials for almost any reason. I think a good conservative can support same-sex marriage (although I do not), can support many New Deal sorts of programs (I support some, and not others), and can oppose the Iraq war. I care about all of these issues, but lots of people regard “their” issues are the most important, and are always going to advocate for them first. This is why there are interest groups, and PACs, and so forth. It is politics. Furthermore, we have to distinguish between the conservative movement and the GOP: obviously the GOP needs conservatives, but it needs others too. These “moderates” within the party may dissent from one –or two– of the conservative movement’s “legs of the stool.” However, they are not “conservative” Republicans, but moderate Republicans. In general, however, I agree that there is no reason (philosophical or purely political) to privilege “economic issues” over “social issues” or “foreign policy issues.” I’d like to think that a competent government can actually make strides on all of these issues, but I think that no matter what, everyone will feel that “their issues” did not get enough play.
That said, I do not think your criticisms are entirely fair. The evidence you cite –anecdotes about staffers– may be true, although being in D.C. myself, I feel that they may be overstated. Even if they are true, however, it does not mean that the “conservative movement” broadly or the GOP in particular is neglecting social issues. It simply means that some staffers have more liberal positions than, presumably, the Congressmen that they work for. If those staffers ever run for office, they will need to adjust their views, unless they are running for some D+ district. However, I do not think you can find a Republican representative or Senator who opposes DOMA, or supports FOCA (incidentally, you could find a good number of Democrats –even after the fall cycle– who support DOMA, and oppose FOCA).
Most conservative publications emphasize social issues a good deal. They get lots of attention in National Review, and most NR writers –with some exceptions– are social conservatives. Even Heather MacDonald, who is an atheist, has criticized some of the market economics of the right (and was not drummed out for doing so), and wrote a very strong cautionary piece about same-sex marriage earlier this year. Jonah Goldberg, Andrew Stuttaford, and Deroy Murdock at NR think same-sex marriage is okay, but do not support a national mandate for it from a court, thereby taking a very reasonable federalist position. More than this, lots of NR writers disagree about economic policy (and foreign policy too) and very few let religion go undefended when criticized by one of the secular folks at NR. In fact, at NR, there is currently a big discussion going on about Ayn Rand, who is not much beloved over there. Presumably, if all that mattered to them was “free-market orthodoxy” then they would have warm feelings for Rand. That clearly distinguishes conservatives from libertarians. The Weekly Standard, while generally emphasizing foreign policy above all, also gives social issues at least as much attention as economic issues, as does the American Conservative (which takes an isolationist approach to foreign policy). More than that, consider the libertarians: if the only thing that really unites conservatives is support for market economics, then why do libertarians such as Brink Lindsey constantly attack both conservatives and the GOP and criticize their fellow libertarians for “going along” with them?
As for conservative “media figures,” I think you overestimate the importance of Glenn Beck. However, the other “major hosts”: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Bill Bennett, Hugh Hewitt, and Dennis Prager have discussed social issues on their programs (the last two especially). I do not think that we should we citing Elizabeth Hasselbeck’s views as somehow representative of the conservative movement as a whole.
I think that the current emphasis on market economics among conservatives is primarily the result of having to respond to Obama’s agenda, which has exerted lots of time trying to pass a bunch of “big government” programs. If Obama was aggressively pushing FOCA or a repeal of DOMA, you’d see conservatives devote more time to social policy debate. However, we got a pretty big dose of abortion talk during the health-care debate despite the discussion being primary about economics. If we had a terrorist attack, or if Obama was proposing we pull all of our troops out of foreign countries and make massive defense cuts, we’d be seeing much more time devoted to foreign policy discussion. But in general, out-of-power people have to respond to the people who have power, and that is what conservatives have done.
There are only two parties in American politics, and within each one are different factions. Joe, I think the main lesson of your concerns is that conservatives of all stripes have to advocate for their views within the conservative movement, and within the GOP. But do not confuse the views of some conservatives or Republicans with the consensus view of conservatives and Republicans on social issues.
The general problem of political leaders –even conservative ones– being out of touch with their constituents is not unique for us conservatives, and I think you’d find many progressives who feel the same way as you do. Moreover, many of the social left believe that Obama has not sufficiently emphasized “their issues.” So I think this phenomenon is pretty widespread.
8.25.2010 | 12:16pm
Joe Carter says:
@Jim N ***Someone who thinks that this nation ought to favor Christianity over other religions is not a traditional conservative.***
So let's look at a brief list of people who should not be "traditional conservatives" under this definition:
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Russell Kirk
Peter Viereck
Wilmoore Kendall
Richard Weaver
T.S. Eliot
Donald Davidson
Brent Bozell
Eric Voeglin
in other words, we should deny the label "traditional conservative" to all those who were historically considered traditional conservatives. Is that what you are claiming?
So let's look at a brief list of people who should not be "traditional conservatives" under this definition:
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Russell Kirk
Peter Viereck
Wilmoore Kendall
Richard Weaver
T.S. Eliot
Donald Davidson
Brent Bozell
Eric Voeglin
in other words, we should deny the label "traditional conservative" to all those who were historically considered traditional conservatives. Is that what you are claiming?
8.25.2010 | 12:21pm
Richard says:
Joe Carter writes in response:
***Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges? ***
I believe Buckley was primarily building an intellectual movement and only secondarily a political movement. I think it was the reverse with the neocons. Because the political is sexier than the intellectual, the neocons were able to acquire more groupies.
This is all I need to comment here. My moral and religious thoughts and sentiments are my own and not to be manipulated politically. My political composition was forged in the Viet Nam years when virtually all the "hawks" were and have become the conservatives of today. And when Bush invaded Iraq it confirmed my view that while there is much merit in the economic thought of conservatives like Buckley and Robert Taft and George H. W. Bush, the entire end of that spectrum fails miserably in the overall world picture of how this superpower ought to deal with the rest of the world.
***Buckley was never a movement builder; who are his proteges? ***
I believe Buckley was primarily building an intellectual movement and only secondarily a political movement. I think it was the reverse with the neocons. Because the political is sexier than the intellectual, the neocons were able to acquire more groupies.
This is all I need to comment here. My moral and religious thoughts and sentiments are my own and not to be manipulated politically. My political composition was forged in the Viet Nam years when virtually all the "hawks" were and have become the conservatives of today. And when Bush invaded Iraq it confirmed my view that while there is much merit in the economic thought of conservatives like Buckley and Robert Taft and George H. W. Bush, the entire end of that spectrum fails miserably in the overall world picture of how this superpower ought to deal with the rest of the world.
8.25.2010 | 12:31pm
Charlie Collier says:
Surely the fact that so many "conservatives" want to take capitalism and leave the Christianity behind is all the evidence we need that Buckley's effort to fuse the two is a failed project. From the perspective of Christian faith, capitalism may indeed need Christianity. From the perspective of capitalism, Christianity is a target market, at best.
Christians have many differences with Muslims, but I'd think one thing we have in common is the ability to see the Godlessness in capitalism. The "moral values" campaigns of so many Fortune 500 companies are transparently flimsy—here today to shore up good opinion in the marketplace, gone tomorrow when the bottom line demands it. The titans of industry in our capitalist marketplace have no more need of "that hypothesis" in their boardrooms than did Laplace in his astronomy.
No force has contributed more dramatically to the cult of progress and social transformation than the spirit of capitalism—the "creative destruction" celebrated by Spengler/Goldman. How such transformation/destruction can be considered "conservative" in any meaningful sense has never been clear to me.
Christians have many differences with Muslims, but I'd think one thing we have in common is the ability to see the Godlessness in capitalism. The "moral values" campaigns of so many Fortune 500 companies are transparently flimsy—here today to shore up good opinion in the marketplace, gone tomorrow when the bottom line demands it. The titans of industry in our capitalist marketplace have no more need of "that hypothesis" in their boardrooms than did Laplace in his astronomy.
No force has contributed more dramatically to the cult of progress and social transformation than the spirit of capitalism—the "creative destruction" celebrated by Spengler/Goldman. How such transformation/destruction can be considered "conservative" in any meaningful sense has never been clear to me.
8.25.2010 | 12:35pm
Jon Rowe says:
As a fellow Canadian to omega sequence, I am having a difficult time understanding one particular issue. My question to Mr. Carter, and anyone reading the comments who can answer me, is why I feel like this article is saying a conservative Christian needs to believe in capitalism. After continually seeing how free-market capitalism is destroying much of our natural world, and how is has seriously eroded, if not seriously crippled the American economy itself; I have a difficult time believe that capitalism is a good thing.
Most likely I misread the article, for that is a likely the case. But, maybe that is my Canadianism coming through. Can anyone please help me to understand Mr. Carter's, and other American conservatives, position on this?
Most likely I misread the article, for that is a likely the case. But, maybe that is my Canadianism coming through. Can anyone please help me to understand Mr. Carter's, and other American conservatives, position on this?
8.25.2010 | 12:44pm
Jim N. says:
"@Jim N ***Someone who thinks that this nation ought to favor Christianity over other religions is not a traditional conservative.***
So let's look at a brief list of people who should not be "traditional conservatives" under this definition:
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Russell Kirk
Peter Viereck
Wilmoore Kendall
Richard Weaver
T.S. Eliot
Donald Davidson
Brent Bozell
Eric Voeglin"
I don't recall that those individuals were against religious tolerance, or favored preferential treatment for Christians over non-Christians. Opposition to freedom of religion is inconsistent with traditional American conservativism.
So let's look at a brief list of people who should not be "traditional conservatives" under this definition:
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Russell Kirk
Peter Viereck
Wilmoore Kendall
Richard Weaver
T.S. Eliot
Donald Davidson
Brent Bozell
Eric Voeglin"
I don't recall that those individuals were against religious tolerance, or favored preferential treatment for Christians over non-Christians. Opposition to freedom of religion is inconsistent with traditional American conservativism.
8.25.2010 | 12:48pm
Porcell says:
Bill Buckley is the ideal conservative with his belief in orthodox Christianity and a free economy; yet he understood that the movement needed libertarians in a big conservative tent in order to achieve political goals at the national level. He influenced not a few libertarians to become religious. He was far more effective at building the conservative tent than Irving Kristol et al on the neo-conservative side.
As to Mitch Daniels, he has done an excellent job revitalizing the Indiana economy. Of all the conservative candidates, he bids most fair to deal with the parlous state of the national economy. I'd like him to more concerned with social issues, though in truth there is not much that any president can accomplish with social issues .
As to Mitch Daniels, he has done an excellent job revitalizing the Indiana economy. Of all the conservative candidates, he bids most fair to deal with the parlous state of the national economy. I'd like him to more concerned with social issues, though in truth there is not much that any president can accomplish with social issues .
8.25.2010 | 1:18pm
Joe Carter says:
@Jon Rowe *** why I feel like this article is saying a conservative Christian needs to believe in capitalism.***
That's a good question and one that would take a series of articles to answer effectively. But here's a very short version:
Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. It's only major competitor in the modern world socialism, where the state, rather than private individuals or corporations, is the primary owner. Most countries, including the U.S., as a mixed economy, which means they take elements from each.
There are two primary reasons why I think a Chrisitan should prefer capitalism over socialism. First, Christians believer that all wealth and resources are gifts from God and that we are only stewards of them. In a capitalist system we are free to act as responsible steward's of God's wealth. However, n a socialist economy, wealth and resources belong to the government. Most liberal democracies on earth have governments that are functionally atheistic. They have no mandate to use the resources in a way that is consanant with what God would want us to do.
Second, socialism is inefficient and, over the long run, makes everyone poorer. No offense intended, but the only reason a country like Canada can afford to be socialistic is because it's a freerider on the capitalism of the U.S. For example, the Candian government can decide that pharmaceuticals imported from the U.S. must be sold at a discount. They are able to do this because the drug companies can pass the cost on the American consumer. What the Canadian government can't do is create medical advances in the way that the capitalist system allows.
@Jim N. ***I don't recall that those individuals were against religious tolerance, or favored preferential treatment for Christians over non-Christians. Opposition to freedom of religion is inconsistent with traditional American conservativism.***
I think you may be conflating two different concepts. You can favor freedom of religion and still think that Christianity (or at least the Judeo-Christian tradition) should receive preferential treatment. All of the conservatives I listed did both. Unless a person believes the nonsensical claim that "all religions teach the same," then we should favor the ones that are most consistent with our political system and goals. Unless you are saying that the U.S. must be functionally atheistic (which is a preference for atheism over other religions) then I'm not sure how you can say that we shouldn’t favor one or two over the others.
That's a good question and one that would take a series of articles to answer effectively. But here's a very short version:
Capitalism is an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations. It's only major competitor in the modern world socialism, where the state, rather than private individuals or corporations, is the primary owner. Most countries, including the U.S., as a mixed economy, which means they take elements from each.
There are two primary reasons why I think a Chrisitan should prefer capitalism over socialism. First, Christians believer that all wealth and resources are gifts from God and that we are only stewards of them. In a capitalist system we are free to act as responsible steward's of God's wealth. However, n a socialist economy, wealth and resources belong to the government. Most liberal democracies on earth have governments that are functionally atheistic. They have no mandate to use the resources in a way that is consanant with what God would want us to do.
Second, socialism is inefficient and, over the long run, makes everyone poorer. No offense intended, but the only reason a country like Canada can afford to be socialistic is because it's a freerider on the capitalism of the U.S. For example, the Candian government can decide that pharmaceuticals imported from the U.S. must be sold at a discount. They are able to do this because the drug companies can pass the cost on the American consumer. What the Canadian government can't do is create medical advances in the way that the capitalist system allows.
@Jim N. ***I don't recall that those individuals were against religious tolerance, or favored preferential treatment for Christians over non-Christians. Opposition to freedom of religion is inconsistent with traditional American conservativism.***
I think you may be conflating two different concepts. You can favor freedom of religion and still think that Christianity (or at least the Judeo-Christian tradition) should receive preferential treatment. All of the conservatives I listed did both. Unless a person believes the nonsensical claim that "all religions teach the same," then we should favor the ones that are most consistent with our political system and goals. Unless you are saying that the U.S. must be functionally atheistic (which is a preference for atheism over other religions) then I'm not sure how you can say that we shouldn’t favor one or two over the others.
8.25.2010 | 3:18pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The trouble is that “no social issues” is the automatic preset for economic conservative. "
I notice nobody bothered to deal with the definitional issues I raised, but chooses instead to use my post as a springboard for their own version of conservatism.
Just to make a point on the quote above: Adam Smith was not a Tory, but a Whig. American conservatism is Whiggish, not matter what else be said. If you read your Adam Smith, you will see he considered a moral society to be the sine qua non for free enterprise, for without individual virtue, there can be no trust between the parties in any economic transaction. Smith believed that morality was best instilled in the people through religion--by which he meant Christianity.
One should also remember that conservatism is not an ideology, but a disposition. The problem with most social conservatives is precisely their ideological disposition; i.e., the tendency to place abstract propositions over empirical wisdom--what I call "building sandcastles in the air". They do set rules of ideological purity, and cast out those who dissent, not only with the objective, but with the means.
To take the most obvious example, there are members of the anti-abortion community who refuse to break bread with anyone who is not in favor of the immediate outlawing of abortion under all circumstances. Incrementalism is rejected as making common cause with Satan. That the chances of outlawing abortion in the current environment are close to nil is, to them, irrelevant. That they should work gradually to break the stranglehold of the Federal courts over the issue doesn't seem to register with them--but then, most people to whom I have spoken seem to think as soon as we overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion will be gone. of course, all that really happens then is the issue returns to the states--fifty battlegrounds, instead of one. That abortion may not really be a political issue never enters their heads, let alone that not all moral issues can be legislated away (a failing they share with liberals).
A true conservative would agree with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that the battle between good and evil is fought within the individual heart.
A true conservative of the American Whiggish variety would also recognize that economic liberty is the foundation for all others, for if I am free to accumulate and dispense the work of my hands without interference from the state, the state has no hold over me in other areas, including how I worship God. We can see that today: government control over major sectors of the economy, most notably health care, allow it to interfere with the moral choices of individuals. Hence, Catholic adoption agencies are forced to dole out children to gay couples; Christian pharmacists are forced to dispensed contraceptives and abortifactants; and soon, Christian hospitals will probably be required to perform abortions. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. In an economically free society, the government would have no such hold over the individual's conscience.
Social conservatives who would like to use the mailed fist of government to enforce virtue are not conservatives at all, but are merely mimicking the rhetoric of Robespierre and the Jacobins, who employed terror in the name of virtue.
I notice nobody bothered to deal with the definitional issues I raised, but chooses instead to use my post as a springboard for their own version of conservatism.
Just to make a point on the quote above: Adam Smith was not a Tory, but a Whig. American conservatism is Whiggish, not matter what else be said. If you read your Adam Smith, you will see he considered a moral society to be the sine qua non for free enterprise, for without individual virtue, there can be no trust between the parties in any economic transaction. Smith believed that morality was best instilled in the people through religion--by which he meant Christianity.
One should also remember that conservatism is not an ideology, but a disposition. The problem with most social conservatives is precisely their ideological disposition; i.e., the tendency to place abstract propositions over empirical wisdom--what I call "building sandcastles in the air". They do set rules of ideological purity, and cast out those who dissent, not only with the objective, but with the means.
To take the most obvious example, there are members of the anti-abortion community who refuse to break bread with anyone who is not in favor of the immediate outlawing of abortion under all circumstances. Incrementalism is rejected as making common cause with Satan. That the chances of outlawing abortion in the current environment are close to nil is, to them, irrelevant. That they should work gradually to break the stranglehold of the Federal courts over the issue doesn't seem to register with them--but then, most people to whom I have spoken seem to think as soon as we overturn Roe v. Wade, abortion will be gone. of course, all that really happens then is the issue returns to the states--fifty battlegrounds, instead of one. That abortion may not really be a political issue never enters their heads, let alone that not all moral issues can be legislated away (a failing they share with liberals).
A true conservative would agree with Alexander Solzhenitsyn, that the battle between good and evil is fought within the individual heart.
A true conservative of the American Whiggish variety would also recognize that economic liberty is the foundation for all others, for if I am free to accumulate and dispense the work of my hands without interference from the state, the state has no hold over me in other areas, including how I worship God. We can see that today: government control over major sectors of the economy, most notably health care, allow it to interfere with the moral choices of individuals. Hence, Catholic adoption agencies are forced to dole out children to gay couples; Christian pharmacists are forced to dispensed contraceptives and abortifactants; and soon, Christian hospitals will probably be required to perform abortions. He who pays the piper gets to call the tune. In an economically free society, the government would have no such hold over the individual's conscience.
Social conservatives who would like to use the mailed fist of government to enforce virtue are not conservatives at all, but are merely mimicking the rhetoric of Robespierre and the Jacobins, who employed terror in the name of virtue.
8.25.2010 | 4:00pm
R Hampton says:
I'm as conservative as Thomas Jefferson;
Notes on the State of Virginia - Query 17. Religion
The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them.
The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all acts of parliament which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly.
At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ De haeretico comburendo By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands.
This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. (*) The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
Notes on the State of Virginia - Query 17. Religion
The present state of our laws on the subject of religion is this. The convention of May 1776, in their declaration of rights, declared it to be a truth, and a natural right, that the exercise of religion should be free; but when they proceeded to form on that declaration the ordinance of government, instead of taking up every principle declared in the bill of rights, and guarding it by legislative sanction, they passed over that which asserted our religious rights, leaving them as they found them.
The same convention, however, when they met as a member of the general assembly in October 1776, repealed all acts of parliament which had rendered criminal the maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, the forbearing to repair to church, and the exercising any mode of worship; and suspended the laws giving salaries to the clergy, which suspension was made perpetual in October 1779. Statutory oppressions in religion being thus wiped away, we remain at present under those only imposed by the common law, or by our own acts of assembly.
At the common law, heresy was a capital offence, punishable by burning. Its definition was left to the ecclesiastical judges, before whom the conviction was, till the statute of the 1 El. c. 1. circumscribed it, by declaring, that nothing should be deemed heresy, but what had been so determined by authority of the canonical scriptures, or by one of the four first general councils, or by some other council having for the grounds of their declaration the express and plain words of the scriptures. Heresy, thus circumscribed, being an offence at the common law, our act of assembly of October 1777, c. 17. gives cognizance of it to the general court, by declaring, that the jurisdiction of that court shall be general in all matters at the common law. The execution is by the writ De haeretico comburendo By our own act of assembly of 1705, c. 30, if a person brought up in the Christian religion denies the being of a God, or the Trinity, or asserts there are more Gods than one, or denies the Christian religion to be true, or the scriptures to be of divine authority, he is punishable on the first offence by incapacity to hold any office or employment ecclesiastical, civil, or military; on the second by disability to sue, to take any gift or legacy, to be guardian, executor, or administrator, and by three years imprisonment, without bail. A father's right to the custody of his own children being founded in law on his right of guardianship, this being taken away, they may of course be severed from him, and put, by the authority of a court, into more orthodox hands.
This is a summary view of that religious slavery, under which a people have been willing to remain, who have lavished their lives and fortunes for the establishment of their civil freedom. (*) The error seems not sufficiently eradicated, that the operations of the mind, as well as the acts of the body, are subject to the coercion of the laws. But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
8.25.2010 | 4:16pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Surely the fact that so many "conservatives" want to take capitalism and leave the Christianity behind is all the evidence we need that Buckley's effort to fuse the two is a failed project."
Exceedingly silly, since it presupposes that all conservatives are, or ought to be Christians. Is there no room for Jews in your taxonomy of conservatism? What about observant Buddhists, or Muslims, or Taoists or Hindus? Is it your presupposition that Christians alone have a lock on virtue? In which case, what are we to make of the the "righteous gentiles" recognized even by the Church Fathers as being virtuous, even though they had neither heard the Word nor believed in Christ?
Exceedingly silly, since it presupposes that all conservatives are, or ought to be Christians. Is there no room for Jews in your taxonomy of conservatism? What about observant Buddhists, or Muslims, or Taoists or Hindus? Is it your presupposition that Christians alone have a lock on virtue? In which case, what are we to make of the the "righteous gentiles" recognized even by the Church Fathers as being virtuous, even though they had neither heard the Word nor believed in Christ?
8.25.2010 | 5:21pm
Jon Rowe says:
@ Mr. Carter,
Wow! Thank you for the personal response. But I must comment on your resources explanation. I do not disagree with the theological point that all of our resources belong to God and we are merely stewards of them; and I understand that under capitalism there is the potential to be better stewards of them. But if we look over the past 60 years, post-WWII with America as the only Western superpower, I highly disagree that capitalism has been using the world resources with good stewardship. I spent the last year living in Germany, and I found that they, as a country, are much better stewards of their resources despite being more socialist.
In regards to your second point, I have not nearly enough understanding or knowledge of economics to agree or disagree. The one question I have though is, theologically speaking, is it a terrible thing for people to be less rich? Does it serve a country's society to have a large disparity between the rich and poor?
Thank you again for your comments. I really enjoy learning from the source.
Jon.
Wow! Thank you for the personal response. But I must comment on your resources explanation. I do not disagree with the theological point that all of our resources belong to God and we are merely stewards of them; and I understand that under capitalism there is the potential to be better stewards of them. But if we look over the past 60 years, post-WWII with America as the only Western superpower, I highly disagree that capitalism has been using the world resources with good stewardship. I spent the last year living in Germany, and I found that they, as a country, are much better stewards of their resources despite being more socialist.
In regards to your second point, I have not nearly enough understanding or knowledge of economics to agree or disagree. The one question I have though is, theologically speaking, is it a terrible thing for people to be less rich? Does it serve a country's society to have a large disparity between the rich and poor?
Thank you again for your comments. I really enjoy learning from the source.
Jon.
8.25.2010 | 6:00pm
Joe Carter says:
@Jon Rowe ***But if we look over the past 60 years, post-WWII with America as the only Western superpower, I highly disagree that capitalism has been using the world resources with good stewardship.***
Actually, American has been the sole superpower only since about 1990 when the Berlin Wall fell. Before then the Soviet Union was also a leading superpower. In fact, because they were the most socialist economy on earth, they provide a good comparison.
So the question we should ask is which country was the best steward of its resources, the U.S. or the Soviet Union. I think even most hardcore communist would have to agree that the U.S. did a better job in that respect.
Of course this is not to say that the U.S. used its resources in the best way possible.
***I spent the last year living in Germany, and I found that they, as a country, are much better stewards of their resources despite being more socialist.***
Before we can evaluate this claim let's clarify whether you are saying that the German people are better stewards than Americans or whether the German government is better able to steward resources than citizens in the U.S.
I think it's quite possible that the German people could be better stewards than American people. But I would be skeptical of the claim that the German government does a better job. When it comes down to it, human beings are the one that decide the allocation of resources. In a capitalist system, the decision is pushed as close to the individual level as possible since, presumably, that is where the information necessary to make the best decision lies. In a socialist system, the decision is made by a technocratic elite that has to decide, on behalf of the people, where their money should be spent.
If the German people believe government officials know better how to allocate their resources than they themselves do, then it raises the question of why they don't give *all* of their resources to the government and let them determine what should go where.
Personally, I think I am in a better position than someone in Washington to know if my money would be better spent on eggs or on gas for my car.
***The one question I have though is, theologically speaking, is it a terrible thing for people to be less rich?***
Great question. The answer is: It depends. When we say "less rich" we are referring to subjective scale. Would it hurt for Americans to be less rich? Maybe. We are certainly less rich than we were just a few years ago and it has had a negative impact on the poor. Would it hurt for Somalians to be less rich? Definitely. The already have so little that having less would affect their ability to survive.
So before we can determine the theological implications we have to examine what level of wealth we are talking about. Having been dirt poor as a child, I can tell you that there isn't anything "godly" about it. It's hard to study the Bible or focus on prayer when your stomach is grumbling from lack of food. ; )
But I think we make a mistake when we consider wealth as equivalent to money. One of my favorite writers, Doug Wilson, made a point the other day that we should consider technology a form of wealth. So would we be better off being "less rich" if we didn’t have this technology (the Internet) to communicate with and discuss issues. I think so.
***Does it serve a country's society to have a large disparity between the rich and poor?***
Again, it depends. Did they become rich by exploiting the poor? Then they are failing to do justice according the Bible. But if they did not commit an injustice against the poor the question becomes more complicated? Should we take from them by force in order to give to the poor? The Bible would condemn such action as theft. Should we use moral suasion to ensure that everyone in the country has their basic needs met? Absolutely! That is why I prefer capitalism. I'd rather have the option of building a church funded hospital that cares for the indigent than have a government say that no one can get as certain form of treatment because there is not enough money to treat everyone.
Actually, American has been the sole superpower only since about 1990 when the Berlin Wall fell. Before then the Soviet Union was also a leading superpower. In fact, because they were the most socialist economy on earth, they provide a good comparison.
So the question we should ask is which country was the best steward of its resources, the U.S. or the Soviet Union. I think even most hardcore communist would have to agree that the U.S. did a better job in that respect.
Of course this is not to say that the U.S. used its resources in the best way possible.
***I spent the last year living in Germany, and I found that they, as a country, are much better stewards of their resources despite being more socialist.***
Before we can evaluate this claim let's clarify whether you are saying that the German people are better stewards than Americans or whether the German government is better able to steward resources than citizens in the U.S.
I think it's quite possible that the German people could be better stewards than American people. But I would be skeptical of the claim that the German government does a better job. When it comes down to it, human beings are the one that decide the allocation of resources. In a capitalist system, the decision is pushed as close to the individual level as possible since, presumably, that is where the information necessary to make the best decision lies. In a socialist system, the decision is made by a technocratic elite that has to decide, on behalf of the people, where their money should be spent.
If the German people believe government officials know better how to allocate their resources than they themselves do, then it raises the question of why they don't give *all* of their resources to the government and let them determine what should go where.
Personally, I think I am in a better position than someone in Washington to know if my money would be better spent on eggs or on gas for my car.
***The one question I have though is, theologically speaking, is it a terrible thing for people to be less rich?***
Great question. The answer is: It depends. When we say "less rich" we are referring to subjective scale. Would it hurt for Americans to be less rich? Maybe. We are certainly less rich than we were just a few years ago and it has had a negative impact on the poor. Would it hurt for Somalians to be less rich? Definitely. The already have so little that having less would affect their ability to survive.
So before we can determine the theological implications we have to examine what level of wealth we are talking about. Having been dirt poor as a child, I can tell you that there isn't anything "godly" about it. It's hard to study the Bible or focus on prayer when your stomach is grumbling from lack of food. ; )
But I think we make a mistake when we consider wealth as equivalent to money. One of my favorite writers, Doug Wilson, made a point the other day that we should consider technology a form of wealth. So would we be better off being "less rich" if we didn’t have this technology (the Internet) to communicate with and discuss issues. I think so.
***Does it serve a country's society to have a large disparity between the rich and poor?***
Again, it depends. Did they become rich by exploiting the poor? Then they are failing to do justice according the Bible. But if they did not commit an injustice against the poor the question becomes more complicated? Should we take from them by force in order to give to the poor? The Bible would condemn such action as theft. Should we use moral suasion to ensure that everyone in the country has their basic needs met? Absolutely! That is why I prefer capitalism. I'd rather have the option of building a church funded hospital that cares for the indigent than have a government say that no one can get as certain form of treatment because there is not enough money to treat everyone.
8.25.2010 | 6:26pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Before we can evaluate this claim let's clarify whether you are saying that the German people are better stewards than Americans or whether the German government is better able to steward resources than citizens in the U.S. "
Didn't go east of the Elbe, did you? Moreover, unless you have visited the former Soviet Union or its satellite states, you have no idea of how well capitalist states perform as stewards of the environment. And finally, by any objective measure, the environment in the United States is not only better today than it has been since the seventeenth century, it's probably better than that of almost any other country, particularly from the perspective of delivering prosperity in the most efficient manner possible to the greatest number of people.
Didn't go east of the Elbe, did you? Moreover, unless you have visited the former Soviet Union or its satellite states, you have no idea of how well capitalist states perform as stewards of the environment. And finally, by any objective measure, the environment in the United States is not only better today than it has been since the seventeenth century, it's probably better than that of almost any other country, particularly from the perspective of delivering prosperity in the most efficient manner possible to the greatest number of people.
8.25.2010 | 7:39pm
JB in CA says:
Joe Carter: "Should we take from them [the rich] by force in order to give to the poor? The Bible would condemn such action as theft."
I guess I'm unaware of that chapter and verse.
Are are we to infer from this quote that you are against a progressive income tax?
I guess I'm unaware of that chapter and verse.
Are are we to infer from this quote that you are against a progressive income tax?
8.25.2010 | 8:41pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Are are we to infer from this quote that you are against a progressive income tax?"
Well, I certainly am. Particularly when it becomes so progressive that the top ten percent of earners pay 90% of taxes, while the lower 50%, which is the beneficiary of numerous government transfer programs, pays nothing at all.
As Cicero noted, democracies die when the people discover they can vote themselves money.
Well, I certainly am. Particularly when it becomes so progressive that the top ten percent of earners pay 90% of taxes, while the lower 50%, which is the beneficiary of numerous government transfer programs, pays nothing at all.
As Cicero noted, democracies die when the people discover they can vote themselves money.
8.25.2010 | 9:25pm
Nickp says:
Joe:
There are two primary reasons why I think a Chrisitan should prefer capitalism over socialism. First, Christians believer that all wealth and resources are gifts from God and that we are only stewards of them. In a capitalist system we are free to act as responsible steward's of God's wealth.
And, of course, a capitalist system also leaves us free to act as irresponsible destroyers of God's wealth. Couldn't your argument be extended to the social sphere? A society that leaves people free to act in ways contrary to God's law is also one that leaves you free to be virtuous. In effect, you are using libertarian arguments to defend capitalism, but the very same arguments oppose social conservatism.
However, in a socialist economy, wealth and resources belong to the government. Most liberal democracies on earth have governments that are functionally atheistic. They have no mandate to use the resources in a way that is consanant with what God would want us to do.
But presumably, a state that was religiously oriented and socially conservative would have a mandate to use resources in a way that is consonant with God's will, so in that case, socialism might be preferable. Why then would it be preferable to maintain a capitalist system which corrodes and undermines social conservatism?
There are two primary reasons why I think a Chrisitan should prefer capitalism over socialism. First, Christians believer that all wealth and resources are gifts from God and that we are only stewards of them. In a capitalist system we are free to act as responsible steward's of God's wealth.
And, of course, a capitalist system also leaves us free to act as irresponsible destroyers of God's wealth. Couldn't your argument be extended to the social sphere? A society that leaves people free to act in ways contrary to God's law is also one that leaves you free to be virtuous. In effect, you are using libertarian arguments to defend capitalism, but the very same arguments oppose social conservatism.
However, in a socialist economy, wealth and resources belong to the government. Most liberal democracies on earth have governments that are functionally atheistic. They have no mandate to use the resources in a way that is consanant with what God would want us to do.
But presumably, a state that was religiously oriented and socially conservative would have a mandate to use resources in a way that is consonant with God's will, so in that case, socialism might be preferable. Why then would it be preferable to maintain a capitalist system which corrodes and undermines social conservatism?
8.26.2010 | 12:48am
ahem says:
There is no such thing as 'capitalism'. Capitalism is what people do when they are left to their own devices. A better word is 'freedom.' If you like freedom, you like 'capitalism'.
8.26.2010 | 8:09am
Michael says:
Joe Carter: "Should we take from them [the rich] by force in order to give to the poor? The Bible would condemn such action as theft."
That is not so, for as Mirabeau says, “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens.” Possession is a fact; ownership is a right and, like all rights, owes its existence to the legislator and to the general will.
As Justice Holmes observed “the state has the right to drag the citizen from his home and occupation, put him into uniform and march him into battle, with bayonets at his back.” It need not be squeamish, then, about requisitioning his labour or his resources, to be employed for the common good.
Whether the state is wise to do so, is an economic question, not a moral one.
That is not so, for as Mirabeau says, “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens.” Possession is a fact; ownership is a right and, like all rights, owes its existence to the legislator and to the general will.
As Justice Holmes observed “the state has the right to drag the citizen from his home and occupation, put him into uniform and march him into battle, with bayonets at his back.” It need not be squeamish, then, about requisitioning his labour or his resources, to be employed for the common good.
Whether the state is wise to do so, is an economic question, not a moral one.
8.26.2010 | 9:12am
Nickp says:
Sorry, I attempted to use blockquote tags to distinguish the quoted text from my own comments above. Either I mucked up the tags or firstthings.com doesn't support them, but I'd be grateful if the moderator could stick in some quotation marks.
10.7.2010 | 5:38pm
Ester Aluarado says:
"I am aware that opposition to the very statement of truth, even to its possibility, frquently arises from misunderstanding or ignorance. These are sources, however, that can usually be worked out by the normal intellectual endeavors of clarification and understanding." "Surely the fact that so many "conservatives" want to take capitalism and leave the Christianity behind is all the evidence we need that Buckley's effort to fuse the two is a failed project."
Put a $200 haircut who is willing to play ball with the "social values" demographic to ensure the vote next to a maniacal Pelosi devotee, and then reconsider that question, and the answer becomes obvious. Tea Party or (Insert Name of Another Small Party Here) votes are an absolute waste in the face of what Democrats have come to stand for today. Sure, you can argue about a natural rise of a third party over a few election cycles, but considering the "Is It Going To Explode Today" economy being the absolute priority in this country now, combined with the fact that sweeping and awful changes can be force-fed to us (for example, see H.R. 4872) by a single crew of morons, and each vote seems to be too precious to invest in an eventual third party that would actually respect authentic Catholicism or even generic Christianity.
I don't mean to sound overly cynical, and I have faith that if God wants to put our country back on the right track he certainly is able to. This was a very interesting read, so thank you, Joe!