Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Speaking at a Greater Freedom Rally at a Baptist church in South Carolina, Senator Jim DeMint made a few comments that surely resonated with his socially conservative Baptist audience, but raise a few eyebrows among our libertarian brethren.
DeMint said if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn't be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who's sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn't be in the classroom.
Ricochet member Trace Urdan, who e-mailed me the article attached a note that said, "Doesn't sound like limited government to me..." Fair enough. But Trace's comment hints at a larger question: Is social conservatism reconcilable with the notion of limited government?
As Dinesh D'Souza explains in his Letters To a Young Conservative (which I highly recommend for our high school aged readers), social conservatism and fiscal conservatism in concert form a cohesive and consistent political philosophy.
The central libertarian principle is freedom, and to defend freedom, some libertarians find themselves arguing that whatever people choose is always right. But one could arrive at this view only from the premise that human nature is so good that it is virtually flawless. In reality, human nature is flawed, and freedom is frequently used badly. Conservatives understand this. Conservatives defend freedom not because they believe in the right to do as you please, but because freedom is the precondition for virtue. It is only when people choose freely that they can choose the good. Without freedom there is no virtue: A coerced virtue is no virtue at all.
...Conservatives, like libertarians, resist looking to the government to redistribute income. But on some occasions, conservatives are willing to use the power of government to foster virtue...[G]overnment policy does influence behavior, and conservatives are not averse to using the instruments of government, such as the presidential bully pulpit or the incentive structure of the tax code, to promote decent institutions (such as intact families) and decent behavior (such as teenage sexual abstinence).
Thus Jim DeMint, with his lifetime ACU score of 98.55, can certainly advocate for morality in the classroom without compromising his status as a champion for limited government when it comes to health care, the economy, the automotive industry, the banking industry, insurance, trans fats, or your wallet.
- Comment (68)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
"... conservatives are willing to use the power of government to foster virtue..."
Sorry, but that's just stupid. Virtue is defined as "moral excellence".
Government can sanction certain types of behavior, but it cannot "foster" moral excellence.
Just because government can control the amount of trans-fats in your food doesn't mean it can purge you of the sin of gluttony.
Edited on Oct 5, 2010 at 11:08amMay '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
In any of these discussions I am likely to come down on the libertarian side, but I'd like to point out an important distinction in Demint's favor.
He is talking about government deciding what government should do. This is a legitimate question for government. If he is advocating for local school boards to use such considerations in their hiring, then, though I disagree with him, I agree that it is a reasonable point to consider.
If, however, he is advocating the intrusion of the Federal Government into these hiring decisions then, as Trace points out, he's stepped off the "small government platform".
Jul '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
"The central libertarian principle is freedom, and to defend freedom, some libertarians find themselves arguing that whatever people choose is always right"
Where on Earth did he get that? I've never heard a libertarian make that argument. Murder is always right? Theft is always right? Spousal abuse is always right?
Man, I used to like Dinesh, but the intellectual dishonesty and sloppy thinking here is just disgusting.
Jun '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
There are "community standards," and I don't see anything wrong with applying local standards to teachers. You don't have a constitutional right to teach children, and in some communities, being an unwed mother (for example) would be a significant assault on community standards. Yes, those communities still exist. As long as it's implemented locally, district by district, and is based on behavior that's not constitutionally protected (like religious practice is protected) I don't see a problem with it. If rural Kentucky doesn't want you, go someplace else. Maybe it's their loss.
Sep '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
I can imagine good teachers who do not conform to that standard of either sexual preference and I can imagine there are bad teachers who do so I think it silly to build such constraints when genuine accountability regarding classroom performance is what is lacking, to say nothing of the intrusion by either employer or government into their private lives that the statement implies. It is not necessary to believe that we all make good choices in order to favor markets, freedom and emergent order over top down, dictated order. Most libertarians in my experience do not think markets are perfect allocators of resources just that they are better than politicians, bureaucrats or any single individual.
May '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Admittedly reading a lot into some pretty narrow comments. I suppose the local choices for local communities is the work-around. I just got a "there oughtta be a law" vibe...
Aug '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Dinesh is making a mistake that is common among many conservative scholars, including my dear friend David Bobb. He is, rightly, acknowledging that conservatives seek to "conserve" or "preserve" honorable traditions and norms. In European societies, this can mean support for monarchy etc., but in America the central tradition is that of classical liberalism and thus conservatives seek to conserve/preserve liberty and freedom.
But Judeo-Christian values, and their underlying mores, are also a strong part of the American tradition.
These two can come into conflict from time to time, or even contradict one another.
What does classical liberalism have, with its focus on individual rights, have to say about gay marriage versus what the Judeo-Christian tradition has to say are very different. There are tensions within conservative philosophy. That there are tensions needs to be acknowledged and examined.
One need not be a libertarian to side with what might be a classical liberal position, nor are all libertarian positions libertine. There are some individual libertarians who are more libertine in their philosophies than others, just as there are conservatives who advocate the mores more than liberalism.
[more below]
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
But what do we make of government applying one standard of virtue to their behavior and another to ours, like sports betting? Legal for them, illegal for me.
Edited on Oct 5, 2010 at 11:43amAug '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
[continued]
Conservatism is weakest when it seeks to use State authority to enforce virtuous behavior. Certainly, government can foster programs that educated toward virtue. Certainly, government can tax certain activities -- it can even make activities illegal.
When the State attempts to enforce virtue, it becomes as unjust as if it were to attempt to enforce any activity. This is because the State can only enforce things through the ultimate use of force. Every State action can become a mere application of brute force if the circumstances are taken far enough.
This is why conservatives who argue for the banning of books, or pornography, or masturbation, or adultery... undermine the overarching message of classical liberal conservatism. One can create incentives to avoid such behavior, or even educate people in the hopes to create virtuous citizens and still believe in freedom.
It is harder to make the claim when one supports the use of force against base behaviors that don't violate the social contract.
Government's proper role is to enforce the social contract and contracts in general. A murderer, or thief, violates the social contract by harming others. There are many immoral activities that do not.
May '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Kenneth: "The central libertarian principle is freedom, and to defend freedom, some libertarians find themselves arguing that whatever people choose is always right"
Where on Earth did he get that? I've never heard a libertarian make that argument. Murder is always right? Theft is always right? Spousal abuse is always right?...
So, a libertarian would argue that certain moral issues should be legislated?
May '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Diane Ellis, Ed.:
An important point.
On the other hand, one free choice can negate the possibility of others. For example, one can choose to frivolously spend oneself into debt, but then many other choices become unavailable. A deep debt can dominate the direction of a person's life; can enslave the person. The strongest example is whether or not a person has a right to commit suicide, because suicide is the choice that ends all choices.
The question then becomes: When, if ever, is it right or acceptable to temporarily violate a person's freedom in order to secure that person's freedom down the line?
Same here. Even if one accepts that the non-professional lives of teachers set important examples for students, that doesn't mean government has any business interfering.
No, social conservatism is not inherently at odds with limited government. But that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of conservatives of all types who instinctively look to government for solutions. That's how American life has been for generations.
May '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Nathaniel, could you explain further what you mean by "the social contract"?
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Consider that this particular libertarian versus social-conservative divide vanishes if we decouple public school financing from service delivery--a move everyone on our side of the aisle should applaud.
Take your child and the associated tax dollars to the local school that best reflects your priorities. It's an imperfect world, so you will still need to make tradeoffs, but I think the end result will be happier than our present one-size-fits-all public school standard.
Jul '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Briar Ann
Kenneth: "The central libertarian principle is freedom, and to defend freedom, some libertarians find themselves arguing that whatever people choose is always right"
Where on Earth did he get that? I've never heard a libertarian make that argument. Murder is always right? Theft is always right? Spousal abuse is always right?...
So, a libertarian would argue that certain moral issues should be legislated? · Oct 5 at 11:43am
The libertarian argument is this:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution is silent regarding the so-called "social issues". So libertarians are quite content to let the people of the several States make those decisions for themselves.
Jul '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Tommy De Seno: But what do we make of government applying one standard of virtue to their behavior and another to ours, like sports betting? Legal for them, illegal for me. · Oct 5 at 11:39am
Edited on Oct 05 at 11:43 am
Well they're different governments, right? A state isn't a province, merely some administrative division, it's a sovereign political entity.
Edited on Oct 5, 2010 at 12:04pmRe: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Is not the forced wearing of a burka an authoritative imposition of a perceived virtue?
In what way is the power to do that different from the power to tell a homosexual she can't be a teacher?
Aug '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Briar,
I would rather not go into great length -- 200 words at a time no less -- into what constitutes the social contract, but...
A good place to examine what I mean is in Locke, Rousseau, and the Oresteia. Violations of the social contract are typically activities which would cause the implicit norms of society to break down into a "state of war" within the society unless the State intervenes.
May '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
I think this is what D'Souza was referring to in regard to libertarians. In my own experience, many of them often sound like libertines, rejecting entirely any social responsibility to their fellow human beings. But that's not necessarily a reflection of libertarianism, just as DeMint's suggestion isn't a reflection of social conservatives as a whole.
Most social conservatives I know respect the right of others to make poor and even harmful decisions. Government's proper role is not to parent citizens.
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Palaeologus
Tommy De Seno: But what do we make of government applying one standard of virtue to their behavior and another to ours, like sports betting? Legal for them, illegal for me. · Oct 5 at 11:39am
Edited on Oct 05 at 11:43 am
Well they're different governments, right? A state isn't a province, merely some administrative division, it's an independent political entity. · Oct 5 at 12:00pm
What difference does it make if the boot of oppression stepping on my throat is paid for by a federal tax levy or a state tax levy? I don't want to give any governement power over me that I don't absolutely have to - from the Feds down to the local planning board.
Jul '10
Re: Is Social Conservatism At Odds With the Concept of Limited Government?
Diane, now that I'm over being ticked off at Dinesh D'Souza, here's my answer to your headline question:
Yes, so long as social conservatives seek to impose their views upon the entire nation.
No, so long as social conservatives are willing to work within the scope of the 10th Amendment.