Thoughts About Cleavage
[Preface: I started writing something in the discussion on James Poulos's summoning post, "Who's Failing America: the Elites or America?," viz., my thoughts on what constitutes the great cleavages between liberals and conservatives. It got a bit, well, augmented, so I'm posting this to Member Feed.
The steamy subtitle: "Why the moral-political is determinative of the economic."]
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --John Adams
Self-reliance is the principle of our regime, according to Paul Rahe. Self-reliance implies that the great cleavage or breaking point between liberals vs. conservatives will center on personal responsibility. Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
Same-sex marriage and illegal immigration, etc., are signal cases of personal responsibility.
Consider:
- The essence of conservatism: a conservative is more likely than a liberal to hold a person accountable for that person's immediate circumstances or feelings of deprivation (material or otherwise). This is what makes a conservative a conservative.
- Possible implication of that essence: deciding for or against taking up the fight for "controversial" social issues (on which elitists, whether liberal or "conservative," call for a truce; failing that, call for agitators to be shamed into silence) is determinative of whether or not the welfare state can be turned back.
Conservatives tend to see human beings primarily as moral-political beings. This contrasts with, say, libertarians who tend to see people primarily as economic beings. Conservatives therefore tend to understand self-interest in a more comprehensive way than do libertarians. (Conservatives are libertarian on those issues on which libertarians are most intelligent. Libertarians are half right).
Insofar as our public dialogue centers on issues of efficiency and economy to the exclusion of the "controversial" moral issues, the republic loses. The first step in making sense of this is to consider that the defining characteristic of modern economies is the problem of dependency: the sense that people aren’t in control of their own destiny. Greater flexibility in the economy, 401K’s, etc., all of these things outwardly fit a more "libertarian view of the world."
But the result is simply a greater level of anxiety. We therefore fail to see any real political realignment. We're locked in a kind of stasis, neither conservatives nor liberals breaking out decisively in one direction or another. So when it comes to the broad economic policies -- which are what most political debates are about -- conservatives and libertarians simply cannot win against liberals. Or such is my nauseating fear.
The more obvious reason for this is inherent to democracy itself with its endemic vice against which the ancients warned: the people are self-interested and they will simply vote for welfare. Indeed, the only reason why popular, democratic government became at all plausible in the modern world is because of capitalism -- that's to say, because of the notion of the development of material increase, through the unleashing of acquisitiveness.
Our elites today are the opposite of elites of the ancient polity. There the elites tended toward virtue. The demos (common people) somehow tended toward "nihilism." (That the demos tends toward "nihilism" is an important subtext of Thucydides...). Our elites, on the other hand, tend strongly toward nihilism. They are apolitical. Say what one will about Nazi Carl Schmitt, it would be difficult to deny one of his key insights: politics in late modernity takes the very peculiar form of the apolitical against the political. Ordinary, conservative-leaning Americans more or less embody republican virtue and thus are possessed of a certain kind of aristocratic quality of which our elites are bereft; I say "aristocratic" because they are more political, or at least want to be more political. They are more political because they are more particularistic: they are clued-in to "Americanness" whose hallmark is self-reliance. Wisdom more often than not is inversely related to sophistication: "[W]isdom is shown sufficiently in competence to run one's life and thus in the maintenance of freedom" (Harvey Mansfield, review of Kenneth Minogue's Servile Mind).
Nihilism means, most broadly, the belief that right and wrong are humanly created. More specifically it means open-ended individuality. Here perhaps it's fitting to dilate further on the peculiar overlap between abject libertarianism and liberalism, alluded to earlier. (I must hasten to stress that it's abject libertarianism which is my whipping boy. Most ordinary people who self-describe as "libertarian" or "libertarian-leaning" simply think of themselves as "strongly pro-limited government," or "I'm firmly pro 2nd Amendment," and such. That's fine. That's basically how I think of myself too. The absolute first thing I want to know about a person is where they stand on guns. This is a better quick n' dirty read on a person than God or any other issue. "Pro-gun" = more likely to be realistic about good and evil, as self-preservation is our most primary right).
Politicians and elites of a libertarian bent often tend to vote for bigger government. (Anyone thinking me nuts for venturing this claim, please see: Newt Gingrich, Arnold Schwarzenegger; see also, especially, the brief discussion here). This actually reflects the general libertarian view of autonomy, which denies the existence of any standard of good higher than the individual will ("autonomy," after all, means self-legislation). If there is no law higher than that asserted by my will, then why not make common cause with others like me to get what we want through government? It makes little difference whether this leads to a less productive economy overall, at least if I am clever enough to get what I want. Such open-ended individualism is really at the root of left-wing demagoguery (identity politics) and tyranny.
What is needed today is a coherent understanding of personal responsibility across the issues. This is basic conservatism, as distinct from libertarianism: education in personal morality and dedication to free markets.
- Comment (156)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Darn, I thought you were talking about buxom women.
Nov '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
I thought for sure the title was another one of those Salma Hayek-Friedrich Hayek tricks.
Those two issues divide the elites from the non-elites in both parties like few other issues. There are also issues like tobacco taxes, foreign aid, affirmative action, gasoline taxes, political correctness, public displays of religion, support for American businesses over foreign ones, etc.
I think I've heard about this Legend of the Social-Fiscal Conservative. I wouldn't call these people libertarians though. I wouldn't put Gingrich in this category, and even gutless liberal Schwarzenegger supported McCain. I believe these are what many Northeastern Liberal Republicans claim to be before being flipped to the Democrat Party like Arlen Specter or Jim Jeffords or as Obama supporters -- Republicans like Colin Powell, William Weld, Lincoln Chafee, Ken Duberstein, Paul O'Neill, Wayne Gilchrest, etc.
Jul '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Politeness is sine qua non of a society and mirrors the decline of personal responsibility. I am for gay civil unions for legal reasons but not marriage and not involuntary education about such issues in school. I am against baby killing and vote that way, I think this issue is defining as well. I am against illegals and in favor of a guest worker card to aid farmers unable to Pick crops otherwise. I am against anchor babies and any form of services for illegals. The logical cleftstick of your argument is that you can easily identify the mammalian protuberance upon where one lies. So do I sit upon either and if so which?
Sep '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
In a different world, the title alone would guarantee main feed.
Sep '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Robert,
Well said. Open ended individualism leads in two dangerous directions: knowing, wink-wink, cynicism about political life and our political history OR unhinged, misdirected enthusiasm--perhaps utopianism.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
"Thoughts About Cleavage"
I'm all for it.
Aug '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Thy will be done, apparently.
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Robert Lux:
Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
If you are making a call for increased morals legislation, then out with it my good man. No need to hide it betwixt a thousand other words.
Jan '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Robert Lux:
Politicians and elites of a libertarian bent often tend to vote for bigger government...This actually reflects the general libertarian view of autonomy, which denies the existence of any standard of good higher than the individual will ("autonomy," after all, means self-legislation). If there is no law higher than that asserted by my will, then why not make common cause with others like me to get what we want through government? It makes little difference whether this leads to a less productive economy overall, at least if I am clever enough to get what I want. Such open-ended individualism is really at the root of left-wing demagoguery (identity politics) and tyranny.
Well, it's settled then. No longer will I refer to myself as libertarian-leaning. I will now call myself a minarchist instead. It's not that I have a particularly strong set of moral values [or maybe I'm just selling myself short here] but I have such little faith in the state actually doing good for society even though doing good is its intention. I trust 'the market' and individuals' voluntary choices to shape society to do society's good.
Jan '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy De Seno
Robert Lux:
Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
If you are making a call for increased morals legislation, then out with it my good man. No need to hide it betwixt a thousand other words. · Jan 4 at 8:28am
Wow, just call him out why don'tcha! Personally, I'd be careful of the 'morals legislation': an application of it that leads to an obligation to 'look out for your fellow man' can certainly lead to moral hazards.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
LowcountryJoe
Tommy De Seno
Robert Lux:
Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
If you are making a call for increased morals legislation, then out with it my good man. No need to hide it betwixt a thousand other words. · Jan 4 at 8:28am
Wow, just call him out why don'tcha! Personally, I'd be careful of the 'morals legislation': an application of it that leads to an obligation to 'look out for your fellow man' can certainly lead to moral hazards. · Jan 4 at 8:39am
Moral legislation is essential to a free society, because freedom descends into destructive decadence without a basic moral structure. The problem that we too often fail at is one of degrees. Make your moral laws too lax, and social rot ensues. Make them too tight, and resentment ensues (as well as people beginning to just plain rebel against said over-tight laws). It's a fine line, but one that must be walked.
Jun '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy De Seno
Robert Lux:
Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
If you are making a call for increased morals legislation, then out with it my good man. No need to hide it betwixt a thousand other words. · Jan 4 at 8:28am
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy . . .
Our ethical and moral systems are informed by our religion. Legislation does not establish our standards of behavior, it reflects them through agreed and accepted standards of right and wrong. All the laws in the world cannot force a people to be righteous. Adams got it exactly right. Only a righteous people can live under a system of limited government. More laws are needed as the citizenry becomes less personally responsible, which is, sadly, where we stand today.
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
~Paules
Tommy De Seno
Robert Lux:
Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
If you are making a call for increased morals legislation, then out with it my good man. No need to hide it betwixt a thousand other words. · Jan 4 at 8:28am
Tommy, Tommy, Tommy . . .
Our ethical and moral systems are informed by our religion. Legislation does not establish our standards of behavior, it reflects them through agreed and accepted standards of right and wrong. All the laws in the world cannot force a people to be righteous. Adams got it exactly right. Only a righteous people can live under a system of limited government. More laws are needed as the citizenry becomes less personally responsible, which is, sadly, where we stand today. · Jan 4 at 8:47am
Just keep your holy hands off my Casinos. We'll probably avoid the revolution if you do.
Dec '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
I didn't know this about you, Robert, and wouldn't have guessed it. It's a very interesting test and I think you're right on scoring the answer.
Let me see if I understand your thesis. I'm in favor of a constitutional amendment to retain the universal historical definition of marriage as between people of opposite sex, preferably limited to two people, in the Western/American tradition. I believe traditional marriage isn't just the moral model, it's the ideal which the state should promote in the interest of the common good (another term corrupted by the Left). This puts me squarely in the conservative camp.
Libertarians oppose such "activism" based on adherence to the principle of non-government interference in the ideal of absolute individualism, which bears some resemblance to the Left's will to power. Both believe in unconstrained individualism. Maybe?
Aug '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Leave this area to the states. Keep the Supreme Court out of it. Problem (largely) solved.
Jun '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
BTW, Robert, this is a very fine post. I'm looking forward to a long comment thread.
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Misthiocracy
Leave this area to the states. Keep the Supreme Court out of it. Problem (largely) solved. · Jan 4 at 8:53am
Yes, because Fascism executed by State government feels so much better than Fascism executed by the Federal government.
Isn't this essentially Romney's argument for the individual mandate to buy an insurance policy you don't want or need?
Edited on January 4, 2012 at 5:57pmJun '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
The left believes in unrestrained license which is a form of false liberty. Their politicians cynically appeal to the worst vices of human nature (greed, lust, envy, etc.) as a means to gather votes. Such people care not a jot how much damage they cause, provided they are left to rule the wreckage. The resulting anarchy demands the heavy boot of tyranny to restore order which the left is only too willing to provide.
Apr '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy De Seno
Robert Lux:
Personal responsibility means: Human freedom is not absolute, but must be ordered to proper ends.
If you are making a call for increased morals legislation, then out with it my good man. No need to hide it betwixt a thousand other words. · Jan 4 at 8:28
Good Point Tommy!
I ask those that want to legislate moral rectitude. How do you pass a law defining morality if the society is highly divided on the issue. If the society is not divided on the issue do you even need to pass the law? I think abortion and gay rights are great examples. 100 years ago I think 90+% of people would have been horrified by the concept of both. You could pass sodomy laws, no one would even think of gay marriage, and if you got an abortion you were probably thought of as a monster. That is not the case today on any of those issues.
You can't win the arguments over morality through politics. Legislation of that kind is the last ditch effort to salvage a set of values that is changing and it won't work.
May '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Robert Lux:
Conservatives tend to see human beings primarily as moral-political beings. This contrasts with, say, libertarians who tend to see people primarily as economic beings.
What does this mean?