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:
Apr '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
But, I fear I'm not helping here this thread initially was meant to explore the divide between social conservatives wishing to use government to guide public morality and the libertarian desire to stay away from that or actively oppose the nature of the direction. I thought primarily it was not about medicare or social security, but about things like abortion and gay rights. Things that require very little economic effort to achieve or oppose. Thus it is not a question of economic trade offs.
Yet some how we came to this particular topic of old people and the money we spend on them as a society and if that is just or not.
I will still assert I am far more comfortable with government trying to provide concrete benefits to old people than trying to shape the composition and nature of personal relationships.
Dec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy De Seno: By the way - thanks so much to all of you for another terrific thread here on Ricochet.
Most of our disgagreements are between Libertarians (white hats) and Social Conservatives (black hats). :-)
Thank goodness for it. I would never want Ricochet to be a place where we all spend time slapping each other on the backs and telling each other how smart we are.
"Til we meet again! · Jan 4 at 2:29pm
Thank you for being a good sport, it always makes a vigorous discussion stay positive and worthwhile. =)
Edited on January 4, 2012 at 11:51pmDec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Valiuth: But, I fear I'm not helping here this thread initially was meant to explore the divide between social conservatives wishing to use government to guide public morality and the libertarian desire to stay away from that or actively oppose the nature of the direction. I thought primarily it was not about medicare or social security, but about things like abortion and gay rights. Things that require very little economic effort to achieve or oppose. Thus it is not a question of economic trade offs.
Yet some how we came to this particular topic of old people and the money we spend on them as a society and if that is just or not.
I will still assert I am far more comfortable with government trying to provide concrete benefits to old people than trying to shape the composition and nature of personal relationships. · Jan 4 at 2:49pm
Economics was originally an extension of moralism, so seeing people as economic animals is the same as political/moral animals. You first have to own yourself for the rest of your rights to have value, otherwise you are just a beast with a permissive lord.
Aug '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy De Seno: By the way - thanks so much to all of you for another terrific thread here on Ricochet.
Most of our disgagreements are between Libertarians (white hats) and Social Conservatives (black hats). :-)
Thank goodness for it. I would never want Ricochet to be a place where we all spend time slapping each other on the backs and telling each other how smart we are.
"Til we meet again!
Halt, citizen! Who gave you permission to leave the thread???
Someone call out the Ricochet police, we got an anti-social member of society here!
But seriously, your casinos are safe with us. So long as you keep paying the sin tax...
Apr '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
BlueAnt
Tommy De Seno: By the way - thanks so much to all of you for another terrific thread here on Ricochet.
Most of our disgagreements are between Libertarians (white hats) and Social Conservatives (black hats). :-)
Thank goodness for it. I would never want Ricochet to be a place where we all spend time slapping each other on the backs and telling each other how smart we are.
"Til we meet again!
Halt, citizen! Who gave you permission to leave the thread???
Someone call out the Ricochet police, we got an anti-social member of society here!
But seriously, your casinos are safe with us. So long as you keep paying the sin tax... · Jan 4 at 3:51pm
You can rest assured on that count. Even in libertarian utopias, Casinos are unique in that they have the sin tax baked right in! Zero evasion unless Tommy is, like, stealing chips or something. In New Jersey. Something tells me that you have to be a very ivory tower libertarian indeed before that seems like a good idea.
Dec '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Robert, sorry I've been in the sleeping, eating, working, and praying mode for about the last 18 hours so I just got to read this.
Absolutely stellar Robert. It's a beautiful article. Your theme is so very true, it cries out for attention. Thanks for this Robert, it was a long day you just made it worth while.
Regards,
James Gawron
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy, the long arm of the law you are going to be feeling will belong to the Law of Averages.
I can never enjoy casino gambling. I need to compute the house vig before I start, and once I know it, I can't stop thinking I'm being fleeced.
Nov '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Well, I was going to provide this nifty photo along with my post. Prudence, however, told me it would likely run afoul of the Code of Conduct -- and maybe not just because of the cleavage alone! The very mixture of these two elements may be too much to bear.
[Photoshop of HRC and a buxom woman edited for Code of Conduct.]
Edited on January 5, 2012 at 3:23pmNov '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
The Cloaked Gaijin
Those two issues divide the elites from the non-elites in both parties like few other issues.
Where the division is most acute can be seen in the case of Prop 8 in California -- something like 70% of black voters were firmly opposed to Prop 8. Blacks in general are fairly conservative on a lot of social issues, but they are essentially otherwise wards of the state.
Angelo Codevilla articulates the point very well in his "The Ruling Class" essay: rank-and-file Democrats pretty much have their own party, and are represented pretty well. Ordinary conservatives and independent conservatives ("the country class") are far less well represented by the GOP.
The Cloaked Gaijin
I wouldn't put Gingrich in this category [i.e., libertarian], and even gutless liberal Schwarzenegger supported McCain.
Libertarian bent, combined with elitism = progressive Charles Kesler made this point penetratingly several years ago, viz., Gingrich is something of an "inverted Marxist." In fine, Gingrich vastly overestimates the determinativeness of economics on politics.
Edited on January 5, 2012 at 10:29amJan '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Valiuth:
Yet some how we came to this particular topic of old people and the money we spend on them as a society and if that is just or not.
I will still assert I am far more comfortable with government trying to provide concrete benefits to old people than trying to shape the composition and nature of personal relationships. · Jan 4 at 2:49pm
It was interesting how we got to this topic. Now to bring it full circle with a question: is it possible that family values (thus morals) started to fade because of Social Security? I ask because before Social Security was introduced, families took care of their elderly. Does the presence of a government run social safety net cause aggregate society to not step-up and meet what used to be obligations to their parents and grandparents?
Nov '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
Depends what we mean by morals legislation. The Founders rightly did not create anything like a Department of Virtue, and I'd be as horrified and as opposed to any such thing as much as the most rock-ribbed libertarian. Nonetheless, certain of our institutions have an indefeasible public dimension (Exhibit A being the family and marriage) and require certain supports. To that end, I simply put before you the arguments John Grant previously put to you, and most especially I to Claire, in the last go-around re. SSM.
Nov '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
I was going to post, then I got to the last picture...too much information. Libertarianism seems pretty clear and workable through their philosophies of economies and private property- the problem is with the 'do no harm' (too late to look up the proper wording, but I believe only concerns physical harm to others- not even yourself, as you retain this right of private property too). There are good arguments that vices do indeed often cause harm to others (prostitution, drinking/drugs and gambling) and this is exactly why they have been illegal to different extents and why they are 'vices' (plus good reasons for limiting the ways it is acceptable to kill yourself). I am not saying I want the above to all be illegal, but along with the fight for the 'right' seems to be this forgetfulness. These issues are in no way new (and not just from Mrs. Grundy) and I see nothing in Libertarian literature that addresses them. In fact they do not apply their own argument for free markets when it comes to social mores- you know, millions of people making their own decisions over time...
Nov '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Example of the evolution of legislating morality, even though there are no clearcut solutions: Prohibition. What is overlooked is what came before. Drinking was a truly horrible problem in the 1800's, especially in the West (meaning US West-homesteaders, miners). Also, women were basically chattel. Long story short: women were in very dire straights when their husbands became alcoholics and they led the fight for prohibition. Also, towns without established law enforcement became more and more dangerous. It took a long time before this fight became law. Well, women got more rights (starting in the West- interesting), and 'law' came to the towns. Of course people kept drinking, and the law repealed but there was a new social understanding about drinking. It did take until recent history to hold drunk drivers responsible for killing people even though personal responsibility has been lessened by calling it a sickness- you can't fire a drunk employee. Now it seems to be going the other way again with police barricades and too strict blood alcohol limits. BTW the gov't has enough vices itself without getting involved in promoting tax dollars from vice- make them non-taxable and see what happens.
Nov '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Michael Labeit
Robert Lux:
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 I think is false by definition. Anyone with a "libertarian bent" is ipso facto unwilling to vote for bigger government; if they do vote for bigger government, then ipso facto they have no libertarian bent. · Jan 4 at 9:11am
Read the article, Michael.
Nov '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Political theorist John Marini has written brilliantly on The Western film genre, particularly focusing on John Ford and Sam Peckinpah. You can sample most of what is his best essay here at Google books. Or this essay, not quite as good: "There Once Were Giants." See also this podcast interview with Marini.
Nov '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Todd: Same-sex marriage and illegal immigration, etc., are signal cases of personal responsibility.
I can't figure out how illegal immigration has anything to do with personal responsibility.
It has to do with personal responsibility because of what I said regarding human freedom being not absolute and instead needing to be ordered to proper ends. This ordering primarily takes place in the private realm, within the family. But the family isn't entirely private because marriage/family also serve the public good. Marriage is not primarily a benefit conferred on persons by the public; much more so is it an institution that serves the public. Both the written and unwritten laws of society have traditionally helped to protect the family because the country, like any polity, has an interest in creating good citizens. Freedom loving people are made, not born. Liberty is simply the flip-side of virtue.
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Percival: Tommy, the long arm of the law you are going to be feeling will belong to the Law of Averages.
I can never enjoy casino gambling. I need to compute the house vig before I start, and once I know it, I can't stop thinking I'm being fleeced. · Jan 4 at 4:58pm
So true. Even though there are 36 combinations when I throw the dice and one way to make a 12, I still smile and and jump up and down when on my one dollar bet they pay me 30 instead of 36.
Lke an idiot.
Dec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
LowcountryJoe
Valiuth:
Yet some how we came to this particular topic of old people and the money we spend on them as a society and if that is just or not.
I will still assert I am far more comfortable with government trying to provide concrete benefits to old people than trying to shape the composition and nature of personal relationships. · Jan 4 at 2:49pm
It was interesting how we got to this topic. Now to bring it full circle with a question: is it possible that family values (thus morals) started to fade because of Social Security? I ask because before Social Security was introduced, families took care of their elderly. Does the presence of a government run social safety net cause aggregate society to not step-up and meet what used to be obligations to their parents and grandparents? · Jan 4 at 10:01pm
I probably wont be able to find a link but yes there is an inverse relationship between the strength of the family and the size of the government social safety net. The bigger the net, the weaker the family and community in general. What you propose is in fact true.
Nov '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
A reminder esp. concerning romanticism which I think is also the utopian part of the 3rd arm of Libertarianism-makes me remember that there are many environ. libertarians using their 3rd arm with the same arguments that can be used of the 'vices'. How much liberty, how much law. A little noticed change is even Evan. Christians (I could be considered) are remembering that an over-abundance of individual liberty is preferable as govt will always go bad, plus it will hardly be achieved but changes should be logical.The abortion issue has been instructive as not outlawed and the incidences have decreased significantly which is the main point-hearts/minds changed.Also why many are not excited by Santorum-less talk about 'saving the family' and more about real tax/freedom reform and your record of getting things undone.
Nov '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage