Why Conservatives are Happier
The question that Mollie poses in her post Why are Conservatives Happier? is fundamental. Responding to it requires, alas, more than two hundred words.
Aristotle suggests that happiness (eudaimonia) derives from activity -- i.e., from a proper use of our faculties. Political conservatives blessed with marriage and children tend to be-hard-working and to take pleasure both in the services they perform through their work and in using their earnings to support their spouses and rear and educate their offspring.
Before we married, my wife and I discussed at length how many children we should have. At the time, I remember asking my friends whether they thought that they had had too many children. Every single one of them looked at me with understandable horror and said, in emphatic terms, no. Then, when I asked whether they wished that they had had more, they all fell silent for a moment and grew wistful, and every single one of them responded that, yes, they wished that they had had one more child. I believe that they would have said the same thing had they had ten more.
It costs roughly $250,000 to rear a child in today's society; college tuition is on top of that. This suggests that the happiest Americans may be those who, at the end of the day, have the least disposable income. That, if true, is really telling. It suggests that it is not what we have that makes us happy. It is what we do with what we have.
I do not mean to say that money does not matter. It does, and Aristotle in his Nicomachean Ethics acknowledges as much. But he treats wealth not as an end in itself. He speaks of it as equipment (paraskeue). To pursue certain worthy ends, one needs such equipment, and those who understand wealth in this fashion pursue it for the purpose of achieving certain worthy ends.
What distinguishes conservatives from liberals today is chiefly our appreciation for the ends to which, upon reflection, we realize that nature and nature's God direct us. My generation of liberals and those who came after that generation tend to be libertines -- that is, they tend to be aimless, more or less mindless consumers. Think of the nihilist message conveyed by Seinfeld and Sex and the City, and you will grasp what we I mean. We Boomers were the first generation in American history to be self-righteous about our vices, and we and our successors over the last forty years have, in pursuing our less salubrious pleasures, summarily snuffed out more than fifty million innocent lives.
Take that number, turn it over in your mind, digest its implications, and consider what it says about this country and its priorities in what has been aptly called the Age of Obama. If we are ever to turn our country around, we will have to find a way to instruct liberals and "moderates" (which is to say, liberals lacking all conviction) in what it is that makes them so miserable and in what it is that produces eudaimonia.
Our problems are not first and foremost technical problems. Better management is no doubt necessary. But it will not set us straight. At best, it will delay the day of reckoning. Rearranging the deck chairs might have improved life on the Titanic, but it would not have saved the ship. At the deepest level, our problems are spiritual and moral. They have to do with the direction in which we are tending.
Government programs, as such, cannot directly address these problems. It is not within our power to make men good; and, if we tried to do so, we would, like helicopter parents, do them untold harm.
We can, however, with relative ease, corrupt our fellow citizens -- for, like all human beings, they can resolutely stand up to anything . . . other than temptation. Straight, blunt talk from the top about the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, chastity, marriage, family, and a respect for the rights of the unborn -- if matched with a principled, systematic repeal of government programs and regulations that subvert these virtues -- could do no end of good.
What George Herbert Walker Bush contemptuously eschewed as "the vision thing" is, in fact, a central requirement of American political life. At the deepest level, what is at stake in the election that will be held in November is not a change of management but our way of life.
For all of their faults, which are legion, Barack Obama and the Democrats understand this. Do the Republicans even have a clue?
- Comment (29)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (7)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments:
Mar '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
What is it they say about the Muslim Brotherhood? One free election, one time? Run on that platform and your political career is as dead as the back side of the moon.
Mark Steyn once wrote (and still does) that:
Michael Auslin has a good post on The Corner this morning, from which:
Save your last bullet for yourself.
Dec '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
The problem as I see it is that a corrupt people will always elect a corrupt government. The challanges we face, listed so eloquently in your post, are ones government has little or no power to solve. The change must come from below, not from above. We who believe the truth must make the case for it one individual at a time. Only then will the nation elect a wholesome government. We may win an election from time to time, but the government will always resemble the people and not the other way around.
Jun '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Do Republicans understand what's at stake? No, Republicans are political animals who spend their time on the accrual and maintenance of power. Only conservatives understand what's at stake, and there are not enough ideological conservatives within the Republican party to make a difference.
Feb '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Paul A. Rahe: ...we and our successors over the last forty years have, in pursuing our less salubrious pleasures, summarily snuffed out more than fifty million innocent lives...
At the deepest level, our problems are spiritual and moral. They have to do with the direction in which we are tending...
Government programs, as such, cannot directly address these problems. It is not within our power to make men good...
We can, however, with relative ease, corrupt our fellow citizens -- for, like all human beings, they can resolutely stand up to anything . . . other than temptation. Straight, blunt talk from the top about the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, chastity, marriage, family, and a respect for the rights of the unborn -- if matched with a principled, systematic repeal of government programs and regulations that subvert these virtues -- could do no end of good.
This is one of the best summaries of what the social conservative agenda should look like that I have seen in quite a while. It's not about forcing people, via government power, to accept certain values. It is about promoting those values as worthwhile, and abolishing programs and policies that undermine individuals' and society's moral foundations.
Mar '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Life imitating fiction:
Nov '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
It's incorrect to say "government will always resemble the people and not the other way around."
I refer not only to your logic error (A resembles B, but B does not resemble A), but also to the suggestion that influence between government and governed flows in only or primarily one direction.
Government that upholds private property and free markets will tend to produce self-reliant people. Self-reliant people will tend to produce government that upholds private property and free markets.
While I share your resistance to government-enforced morality dictated by central authorities, the fact is government (its stucture, laws, and leadership) does deeply and constantly affect the morality of the governed.
The mistaken notion that government should not concern itself with morality is the cause of most of our current difficulty, as if morality and freedom are mutually exclusive.
The business of statecraft is to uphold the citizens' virtues and their freedom.
Edited on July 9, 2012 at 6:49pmDec '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Astonishing
It's incorrect to say "government will always resemble the people and not the other way around."
I refer not only to your logic error (A resembles B, but B does not resemble A), but also to the suggestion that influence between government and governed flows in only or primarily one direction.
Government that upholds private property and free markets will tend to produce self-reliant people. Self-reliant people will tend to produce government that upholds private property and free markets.
While I share your resistance to government-enforced morality dictated by central authorities, the fact is government (its stucture, laws, and leadership)doesdeeply and constantly affect the morality of the governed.
The mistaken notion that government shouldnotconcern itself with morality isthecause of most of our current difficulty, as if morality and freedom are mutually exclusive.
Thebusiness of statecraft isto uphold the citizens' virtues andtheir freedom. · 5 minutes ago
Name any instance in which government improved the quality of the people.
I see the business of statecraft as protecting, not upholding, citizens virtues and freedoms. Government is the wall, not the foundation.
Dec '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
By government resembling the people I mean it in the same way a child resembles his parent. One would never say that the parent resembles the child. The character of the government is taken from and shaped by the character of the people, at least in representative governments such as ours. If the government is broken it is because it reflects the brokeness of the people. If the people are made whole (which is not something government is capable of) they will remake the government into their image. Government has its uses; perfecting humanity is simply not one of them.
Nov '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Astonishing
Government that upholds private property and free markets will tend to produce self-reliant people. Self-reliant people will tend to produce government that upholds private property and free markets.
Well put, Astonishing. Or, for example, since when does affirming by law that marriage can only have one meaning (because it is an institution rooted in nature: it is between a man and a woman) entail a government bureaucracy? It's a non-sequiter that libertarians make time again.
In other words--if I can be so bold--there's something else critically important that Paul Rahe left off that I think most conservatives intuitively understand, and what Aristotle explicated: law always means education. The law is always educative. Politics just is the argument about what's moral.
And I'd say the moral-spiritual problems are far closer to the surface than Rahe intimates.
In any event, welcome back Prof. Rahe.
Edited on July 9, 2012 at 7:41pmRe: Why Conservatives are Happier
In my email this morning, Paul, I found a note from a friend who has been a member of Ricochet since our first week: "Paul Rahe's post 30 mins ago is my favorite Ricochet post of all time. You should be so proud of what Ricochet has created!"
I'll accept that compliment--for introducing more good people to Paul Rahe, I'll accept it.
Nov '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
The King Prawn
Astonishing
It's incorrect to say "government will always resemble the people and not the other way around."
I refer . . . to the suggestion that influence between government and governed flows in only or primarily one direction.
Government that upholds private property and free markets will tend to produce self-reliant people. Self-reliant people will tend to produce government that upholds private property and free markets.
. . . . government (its stucture, laws, and leadership) does deeply and constantly affect the morality of the governed.
The mistaken notion that government should not concern itself with morality is the cause of most of our current difficulty, as if morality and freedom are mutually exclusive.
The business of statecraft is to uphold the citizens' virtues and their freedom.
Name any instance in which government improved the quality of the people.
I see the business of statecraft asprotecting, not upholding, citizens virtues and freedoms. . . .
The Constitution of the United States . . . a More Perfect Union. Or do you claim We the People were better, or even just as good, without it?
Regarding your fine distinction between "upholding" and "protecting." If A affects B, A makes B either better or worse. Government affects morality.
Nov '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Astonishing
The King Prawn
Astonishing
It's incorrect to say "government will always resemble the people and not the other way around."
I refer . . . to the suggestion that influence between government and governed flows in only or primarily one direction.
Government that upholds private property and free markets will tend to produce self-reliant people. Self-reliant people will tend to produce government that upholds private property and free markets.
. . . . government (its stucture, laws, and leadership) does deeply and constantly affect the morality of the governed.
The mistaken notion that government should not concern itself with morality isthecause of most of our current difficulty, as if morality and freedom are mutually exclusive.
Thebusiness of statecraftisto uphold the citizens' virtues andtheir freedom.
Name any instance in which government improved the quality of the people.
I see the business of statecraft asprotecting, not upholding, citizens virtues and freedoms. . . .
The Constitution of the United States . . . aMore Perfect Union. Or do you claim We the People were better, or even just as good, without it?
Regarding your fine distinction between "upholding" and "protecting." If A affects B, A makes B either better or worse. Government affects morality.
:-)
Mar '12
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
There's an irnoy here that's worth pondering. My Lefty friends often complain about how corrupt America is. The question we need to raise is what (aside from human weakness, which cannot be eradicated) causes that corruption. It seems to me that the culture of dependency is related to the rise of bread and circuses.
The Left has its focus on responsibility, too. Think of Mrs. Obama's comment that Barack "will put you to work."
That's a far cry from saying that it's your job to go to work, but I suspect that it comes from a similar moral concern. Sloth is bad for the soul. But so is being dependent on others for one's bread.
Mar '12
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
P.S. Isn't the EU-Demon a threat to happiness?
Dec '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Astonishing
The Constitution of the United States . . . aMore Perfect Union. Or do you claim We the People were better, or even just as good, without it?
Regarding your fine distinction between "upholding" and "protecting." If A affects B, A makes B either better or worse. Government affects morality. · 3 minutes ago
I have my doubts about the perfection achieved by our consitution. Also, it was the union being made more perfect (not the people), and the union was between the states.
Yes, government affects morality, and government is batting 1000 at worsening it.
Nov '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Your view is poetically attractive, but inconsistent with reality, because it casts things the way poets tend to, in extremes ("perfecting humanity").
Surely you don't claim that a bad law can have no bad effect whatsoever on the morality of good people and that good people could never form a government that passes any bad law.
The obvious experienced reality is that law does affect morality. Since nothing stays static, if A affects B, A will make B either better or worse. Since law will make people either better or worse, good government must aim at laws that make people better.
For a self-ruling people this means The People aiming at making themselves better (not perfect, but better). Such effort can be done in a manner consistent with individual freedom. Indeed, for a self-ruling people, freedom is that effort because freedom means "ruling oneself well."
Dec '10
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
Astonishing
Since lawwillmake people either better or worse, good government mustaimat laws that make people better.
Here's the crux of the disagreement. In my view, no law should be aimed at making people either better or worse.
I agree with your last paragraph, but I think there is some definitional disagreement. I agree fully with the people aiming at making themselves better (the perfect thing is more of a theological question), but I don't equate the people with the government. Perhaps my libertarian leanings are showing again.
Nov '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
The King Prawn
Astonishing
The Constitution of the United States . . . a More Perfect Union. . . .
. . . it was the union being made more perfect (not the people), and the union was between the states.
Yes, government affects morality, and government is batting 1000 at worsening it.
Worthy of long and serious contemplation on both points is your observation that, although the More Perfect Union was (1) formed by "The People," it was (2) "established" "between the States" and was "of" the States. What an interesting mix even in the very act of founding! Aristotle said "mixed" regimes are best, and the founders were excellent mixers.
Your observation, fine as it is, cannot negate the essential point that influence between government and people runs both ways. Bad mistakes arise from thinking otherwise at either extreme. Liberals take one extreme, thinking government easily can shape people without regard to the character of the particular people or human nature itself. Libertarians take the other extreme, thinking government cannot (or should not) attempt to influence the people's morals.
Good politics is knowing how, and how far, a particular government of a particular people should address the question.
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
I chose to be a bit more sotto voce than Robert Lux in Comment #9 above. But it strikes me that his basic point is right: " law always means education. The law is always educative. Politics just is the argument about what's moral."
What this means, King Prawn, is that -- whether libertarians like it or not -- every law conveys a teaching about evil and good, worse and better. Before the rise of the administrative state, one of the things that the law taught by its lack of provision was that self-reliance is an essential virtue. The welfare state teaches the contrary: that our fellow citizens owe us a livelihood, that sponging off others is not shameful. That is what I was intimating. Robert made it explicit.
What this means is that we are being willfully blind if we do not ask ourselves on every occasion when legislation is under consideration -- what its passage will teach our fellow citizens, how will it shape character.
As I write these words, the Republicans in the House of Representatives are about to approve a federal grant to counteract bullying in our schools. They do not have a clue.
Nov '11
Re: Why Conservatives are Happier
The King Prawn
Here's the crux of the disagreement. In my view, no law should be aimed at making people either better or worse.
. . . Perhaps my libertarian leanings are showing again.
Perhaps, so.
That was what I was thinking when I wrote my last post even before reading yours.
In the end, we probably do agree that original federalism was a lovely compromise, excluding the central government from most moral questions, leaving such matters to be addressed at that level of government where "self-rule" is more fully realized, so that any imposition of morals is actually an imposition one has agreed to place upon oneself through one's choice to be a member of a particular local self-governing community.
Preserve private property, free markets, equality under the law, and federalism, and I wouldn't worry beyond that what morality a particular community imposes, as long as they don't expect others to pay for the consequences and people are allowed to vote with their feet and take their property with them. Let a thousand flowers bloom!