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
BTW, any help you can give on the concepts of individualism versus individuality would be appreciated. I need an introductory course, although I suspect you're capable of the graduate level.
Also, I just watched an episode of Father Barron's Catholicism in which he describes freedom, in the Biblical sense, as freedom for excellence. This requires the discipline of desire (which is an apt description of virtue, don't you think?) to bring the good to life... to produce joy!
This reminded me of KC's description of capitalism as an excellence-driven, not profit-driven, system. Any objective assessment of the results of free enterprise confirm it and affirms my conservative belief that human flourishing, not equality or any other standard, is the measure of a just society.
May '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
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.
Nov '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Great title, and thought provoking article. I think discussion on the differences between libertarianism/conservatism are very timely. For instance you can immediately nail Libertarianism as ultimately utopian, but it's harder to explain in real life terms. I think a study of the old west could be instructive concerning libertarianism (thought about researching and doing an article on this- but I wish somebody would who is better qualified and I could just read/and comment on it : ) This short era may be as close to true libertarianism available in immediate and documented American history.
Dec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Yet another attempt by a social conservative to shove libertarians out of the tent.
By the way, care to give us examples of libertarians who vote for bigger government?
Dec '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Robert, I think you confuse Libertarianism with being a libertine. These are entirely different things.
Adams had an excellent point, but it was not that the government he helped design should be ensuring a moral people. His point was that if the people were not moral, the government he designed would probably stop working.
The only moral content of Libertarianism is refraining from the use of force to impose your will-- economic or otherwise-- on other people. One is free to persuade, cajole, and shun one's way to a moral order one finds suitable. If the bulk of your neighbors disagree with you, then yes: You must repair to your little platoon, and wait out the culture.
Also, only some libertarians look at people as driven primarily by economic concerns. So do some Republicans, and almost all Marxists. As a libertarian-sympathizer, though, I do not count myself amongst those people. My entire lifestyle, in fact, is designed to maximize economically modest ease of living rather than wealth.
Personally, I think economists who think of people in this way are making a foundational error. Not coincidentally, this is why (I think) they are so often wrong.
Edited on January 4, 2012 at 6:44pmJun '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
And speaking of cleavage...one summer I saw Chris Isaak perform at a small concert at the edge of Lake Mission Viejo, CA near my home. He greeted the crowd by saying, "It's great to be here in Orange County. You know, I've never seen so much tanned cleavage in my life...(he paused)...and the women look great, too!"
We now return you to your regularly scheduled political discussion.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Tommy De Seno
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? · Jan 4 at 8:57am
Edited on Jan 04 at 08:57 am
There's a big difference between Romney's technocratic drive to make you pay a third party for something you don't want (or face legal penalties) and vice laws.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Once upon a time, that was true. Now Libertarian and Libertine are very often the same thing.
Dec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
The criticism of libertarianism is absolutely without merit, and I wholehearted reject your strawman. A libertarian does stress the individual but also is very aware of the boundaries between individuals. They do not subordinate others to their own self, that is anti-libertarian.
Dec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
The criticism of libertarianism is absolutely without merit, and I wholehearted reject your strawman. A libertarian does stress the individual but also is very aware of the boundaries between individuals. They do not subordinate others to their own self, that is anti-libertarian.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
There's a joke here somewhere about the risks associated with moral exhortations that utilize breast-tinged language.....
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Eh, let the liberals be humorless. Me, I think Robert really just wanted to get this off his chest, and he gets the booby prize.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
As long as modern Libertarianism has abandoned any precept of a common moral standard for society, then no, the criticism is not without merit.
Mar '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Eh, let the liberals be humorless. Me, I think Robert really just wanted to get this off his chest, and he gets the booby prize.
Well said.
Dec '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Douglas
As long as modern Libertarianism has abandoned any precept of a common moral standard for society, then no, the criticism is not without merit. · Jan 4 at 10:13am
Repeating the strawman doesnt make it less of a strawman.
Oct '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
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.
Illegal immigration exists because politicians have decided to make immigration illegal.
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
Douglas
Tommy De Seno
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? · Jan 4 at 8:57am
Edited on Jan 04 at 08:57 am
There's a big difference between Romney's technocratic drive to make you pay a third party for something you don't want (or face legal penalties) and vice laws. · Jan 4 at 9:53am
They spring from the same well - the "common good."
Apr '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
This may in part have something to it. I've frequently been frustrated by Libertarian positions. For example, back when Oregon was debating the Assisted Suicide, the Libertarians naturally tended to be in favor of the measure. However, when passed and the State put funding to it through its health plan. The Libertarian response was, "We never intended the State to fund it." ...
Apr '11
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
... When we separate political issues to the social/moral and economic lines, Libertarians in my observation side closer to progressives on the first and closer to conservatives on the latter. However, the preference for support almost always appears to be to the former over the latter. I've heard Libertarians rant about the improper economic policy, yet will shy away from any conservative candidate that even has a hint of social/moral conservatism about them.
Aug '10
Re: Thoughts About Cleavage
I tend to believe that fights over "what libertarians believe" are just about as useful as fights over "what conservatives believe". Which libertarians? Which conservatives?
Are we talking about deontological libertarians, who believe ANY initiation of force and/or fraud by the state is immoral and invalid, regardless of the consequences?
Are we talking about consequentialist libertarians, who believe that an increase in individual liberty generally tends to lead to favorable consequences such as prosperity, efficiency, or peace, and for that reason should be supported unless it can be empirically shown that negative consequences from a specific libertarian policy or law will outweigh positive consequences?
Are we talking about folk who think the federal government should force states to enact libertarian policies, or are we talking about folk who may prefer libertarian policies in general but are also content to allow states the freedom to find the right mix of policies according to their own citizens' preferences?
Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Edited on January 4, 2012 at 7:46pm