Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Markets in Everything, Including Life
I had a conversation the other day with the folks at MTV about why I think the GOP got its voters wrong. Much of it will be familiar to you if you listen to The Federalist Radio Hour, but here’s a portion of it that sparked some controversy.
“I think the real problem is that a lot of the religiously minded [wanted and still want] to use the power of government to try to create the society that they wished [existed] within the United States. This is not something that’s new, of course. Now, there’s a good side to that, which is, of course, the civil rights movement, and the kind of effort that you saw America’s Christians play in that role. You saw it, of course, in the antislavery movement, well before that. But you also saw it in [those who were] basically being busybodies about the way people live their lives. The question I would [ask] to social conservatives is: Are you confident that the way you view a life well-lived is a compelling enough model that it will win on its own merits?
“One of the things we have in this modern, individualistic age is a recognition that happiness can look very different for very different people. Happiness is not necessarily about how much money you make, happiness isn’t necessarily about these aspects of your life. I think that one of the errors that social conservatives made — particularly Christian social conservatives — was a belief that they needed to use the power of government to try to shore up the various things that they believe make up a life well-lived. The whole design of our government policies were sort of engineered toward this 1950s/1960s perspective on what living looks like, and I think the social conservatives basically [tried] to make that something that was very much enshrined and entrenched in our policy. As opposed to recognizing that, hey, if that type of lifestyle is something that is ultimately rewarding to people, and something that makes them happy, then they’re going to follow that path more often than not, and that you don’t need to use the engine of government to push them in that direction.”
I had some critical responses via email about this, but this nice fellow at Ricochet with a jet avatar took it a bit further.
I don’t know if Domenech was trying to sell me, but he failed. The first error is mistaking necessity for desire. By his own admission, using the government to engineer the good life wasn’t the Christians’ idea. It was done in the 1950s and 1960s, right in the middle of the great millennialist withdrawal. Christians as a category didn’t re-enter American political debates until that using of the government to enforce a particular way of life began to infringe on their way of life. Exactly when isn’t clear — we could date it to Roe v. Wade in 1973, or the Silent Majority speech in 1969. There are probably arguments for earlier dates, too — but it is clearly post Eisenhower, and the use of government to enforce a way of life began in the New Deal. So what I want to do is go home, be allowed to govern my city and state as I like, and be left alone. But it is abundantly clear that this is not possible. The government, from the feds to the locals, in every policy area from schools to immigration, is going to dictate a way of life to me. The government is far too powerful, and all attempts to weaken it have failed.
I hear this view voiced occasionally, and it always puzzles me, because the history is quite wrong. Christians entered political debates in meaningful ways at many points in our nation’s history, certainly not “post-Eisenhower” – the MTV interview was edited for length, so it left off a bit where I discussed their positive impact as a movement for abolition of slavery in the 19thCentury, and their negative impact as a force or prohibition of alcohol in the early 20th– and to say that they did not have an organized impact until the end of the 1960s is balderdash. And as for his main point: because of the New Deal and the progressive project, conservatives are supposed to just give up on federalism? Just because the government is powerful, we of necessity should abandon the localist project which existed for the majority of the history of our country? This is absurd and unprincipled.
As for the argument that localism and federalism will not work in a post-Roe environment: somehow our localities and states have managed to remain very different in all sorts of characteristics, despite this often overwhelming federal government. It’s true that being liberal is essentially meaningless now given the array of puritanical political correctness movements and tribalist tendencies on the left which seek to stamp out our differences, and yes, there is far less appetite for a live and let live culture. But this does not necessarily demand a counter response that uses government to impose a way of life on the people, in a way that will inevitably lead to swinging back and forth depending on who occupies the White House.
We should never trust government more than people and markets to work out what the life well lived looks like. I think people should be free to worship their god, teach their kids, buy their guns, grow their pot, sell their raw milk, horde their gold, and freely associate with other people to decide how much gambling, hookers, and blow they want in their neighborhood, so we can all decide where to live accordingly.
One more point: In the responses, a fellow named KC Mulville responded: “Domenech found himself on MTV and tried to ingratiate himself with their audience by indulging them in their prejudices about social conservative hypocrisy.” Actually, no – I’ve been voicing this opinion for years, repeatedly – it was part of remarks I gave at Cato, Reason, and the Heritage Foundation over the years. Here’s what I wrote in The Transom from January 16, 2014.
If you’re confident that marriage and childrearing is better not just in aggregate but generally, at the individual level – that it isn’t just necessary for the country, but is good for people – then people should choose them because they want to have them, not because they’re browbeat into having them. Getting government out of the way and letting the market work is a great approach which allows people to vote with their feet – and that’s not just true when it comes to the economy.
Don’t call it a comeback – I’ve been here for years.
Originally posted in The Transom newsletter, April 19. You can subscribe here.
Published in General
Who says that I don’t? I was reacting to the charge that traditional conservatives, for lack of a better term, were wrong to use the power of government to enshrine values. That’s a fundemental misunderstanding of what government is that floats around Libertarians. Laws do and are suppose to reflect values, whether at the federal level or the local.
As to Obergefell going to the SCOTUS, what are you supposed to do when lower courts rule in the absurdity that two people of the same gender can constitute a marriage? Unfortunately we live in absurd times, where disordered sexuality is now considered normal, and so we up end the rational the traditional on silly whims.
No? I quote from above:
If that isn’t moral relativism, I don’t know what is.
Social conservatives are not attempting to impose our values; we are making the case for our values. The only way our values become law is if we succeed in making our case and the majority of people agree with us; that is how democracy is supposed to work. Is Coca Cola imposing it’s values when it advertises it’s product? Of course not, and social conservatives are not imposing our values when we make the case for our position. We have just as much of a right to be involved in the political process as anyone and everyone else does; those who think that social conservatives would be more successful by essentially becoming Amish and letting our lifestyle speak for itself are confused.
Yes, you don’t know what moral relativism is. That we can certainly agree upon.
This is true of you and I. But not true of most. This is why conservatism is not part of the political discussion in this country.
Most people who call themselves conservative are not conservative. They are just the flip side of the Democrat coin.
When you say social conservative, you mean people like you. When Ben says social conservative he means everyone else.
Evidence? How do you know what most social conservatives think? I am generalizing based on real life experience with many social conservatives, and the social conservatives I encounter here on Ricochet: it seems as though most basically share my view of things. How do you know they don’t?
But what if we cheered because those rulings now reflect the legislative acts of our representatives and are in keeping with the constitution, ie not creating explicit rights or protected classes that don’t exist. In other words, those were Federal overreach and judicial activism, overturning them would be a win for federalism.
I agree with the first part and disagree with the latter. It’s not conservatives who have wrecked the cultural norms of society. You are right that we should remember and leave space for all. However, as a though experiment. Imagine so-cons got their way and the law again codified a respect for life, traditional marriage, and discouraged various vices. We can argue how effective those would be, but I’m convinced the culture would benefit.
As it is the biggest problem facing our culture/country, the destruction of marriage and children born out of wedlock, is taken as a non-issue. That is not to criticize those who find themselves in that circumstance. It is to say that it is an issue being ignored, because the progressives have imposed their world view which is oppressively neutral. All marriages, partnerships, singles, poly-amorous, etc are equally good and good for raising children. Reverting to the neutral is where we are. I think there should be efforts to push us back into a culture that affirms the role of marriage and its purpose in rearing healthy children. We can debate the best ways of doing that, but government will have a role in fixing it, even if it is just getting out of the way.
I’ll agree with you here — but the problem is that there are issues on which the government cannot be neutral.
Take taxation filing status. We currently have three basic statuses: single, married, and head of household. That last one is a lower tax rate for being a single parent. Keep it, and the government rewards the breakdown of the nuclear family. Get rid of it, and you’re a heartless hypocritical Christian conservative punishing people for fornication and divorce. There is no way the government can avoid weighing the scales, so taking a “let the market decide” approach can’t work. Either our government (via the tax structure) encourages family formation, or it does not. If there is anywhere conservatives should be using the government to “impose” our beliefs, it should be in places like this.
Um… I don’t think the founders trusted human beings. They built a government intended to check the worse impulses of individuals in power. The issue I take with placing every problem as one that the market can solve is that the models are built off the idea that humans are rational actors. We rarely are, this one including. Meaning models fail.
Many issues can be solved with markets, but I don’t think you put morals on the market. I’ve seen the free market in the third world, anything is for sale. Murder, children, etc. Markets don’t solve that, morals do.
Sorry if I totally misread your argument! I just think that markets have their place, but morals also have a place in government and culture.
Most of the Founding Fathers would recognize it as America, or, more accurately, Virginia, Connecticut, New York, South Carolina …
Granted Domenech is a vivid writer. I suspect that the replacement of “how much gambling, hookers, and blow they want” with “social policy” would have raised fewer objections.
Believing that most political decisions should be debated and made (and then adhered to) at the local level, based on the self-evident truths about human nature and human events, is the very opposite of moral relativism.
I don’t know any social conservatives who would support any of these measures. “Strict censorship protocols on the internet” seems especially far fetched; could you name the social conservatives who want to censor the internet? Do you have any evidence that a substantial number of social conservatives support the measures you describe?
I grew up in the pro-life movement, and have spent a great deal of time around social conservatives and reading social conservative things; in 40 years, I have never once heard a social conservative say that they would like the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion. It is understood that to overturn Roe v Wade would send the issue back to the states. I really object to the way you are protraying social conservatives; if you have evidence that your portrayal is accurate, would love to see it.
Moral relativism:
While there are variations to ethics and morals that can be equally acceptable, your argument falls under the fallacy that all ethics and morals are equally acceptable. Surely this country lived under the notion that some states believed slavery to be ethical. There are bottom lines to what is acceptable, even if it’s outside ones community. Hookers and prostitutes are most definitely not morally acceptable to anyone that remotely considers themselves to be conservative. Now if you’re a Libertarian, sure. You’re a moral relativist.
This simply scratches the surface of a fascinating topic, but I have one thought: ants and grasshoppers.
What seems to connect libertarians and progressives is the idea that the public and the private individual can be kept apart. In a theoretical libertarian state, you can do what you like and nobody will clean up after you. In real life it doesn’t work like that, and I think the government is well-advised to promote socially cohesive behaviours and ignore, or at least not promote, socially damaging behaviours.
Counted the votes.
I agree, but conservatives have been rejected. Conservatives for a time were accepted because we said we had solutions. But many rose up and said they are sick and tired of our non-solution solutions. They wanted someone to use the beast that had been created.
As I said a million times during the campaign, that is a legitimate political position but it is not a conservative position.
Really Judithann? You know no social conservatives who would like to see the courts restrict abortion rights? None? What if SCOTUS reversed Blackmun’s shoddy reasoning (but not the constitutional standing) of Roe and declared that the 14th Amendment protected all fetuses beyond the 8th week.
Do you really think social conservatives would see this as a blow against federalism and not a meaningful first step towards creating a culture of life?
What about federal mandates re abortion? I’m a conservatarian and I support the Hatch and the Hatch-Eagleton Amendments, federal legislation outlawing all abortions beyond the first trimester and even jurisdiction stripping of federal courts over abortion questions.
And are you really contending there are no social conservatives who think controls over internet pornography, at a minimum meaningful age verification, are worthwhile? What about the return of state oversight of obscenity. No social conservatives left who think that is worthwhile idea. If every social conservative in the country has accepted the Warren court incorporation of pornhub.com into the First Amendment and the progressive incorporation of the First Amendment into the Fourteenth for porn star speech, what are we arguing about here?
Manny, you are too busy stuffing strawmen. I base my politics on the Declaration and generally Thomistic insights into human nature. I then upset and scramble the symmetry I work to create by attempting some practical political progress at the Town Council through state legislative level.
That makes me a moral relativist?
Many libertarians I know and respect base their whole worldview on natural rights convictions. Others take more consequentialist views. Both are basing their politics, almost entirely for some, on their moral convictions.
But this makes them moral relativists, because they may disagree with you and prefer that political decisions not be mandated from Washington DC.
@quakevoter:if the positions you describe are really so popular among social conservatives, then surely some of the more prominent social conservatives have publicly supported them. Could you name the social conservatives who have publicly supported the ideas you describe? Or are you suggesting that social conservatives have some kind of secret agenda? Because I really, seriouly am not aware of any social conservatives who match your description.
Cure me of my ignorance: name some names.
I don’t know what this means. Are you saying that social conservative support for Trump is proof that social conservatives are a bunch of fanatics who care nothing about the Constitution and will do anything to impose their views? Or do you mean something else? Genuine question.
It does not require moral relativism to believe that the government should not make hookers illegal. It is not even required to believe that hookers are “acceptable” in order to think the government should not make them illegal.
Here’s one argument one could make for making hookers legal that is based on objective ethics, which I think many libertarians would agree with:
1. Everything the government does is based upon the threat of violence.
2. Using the threat of violence, except in self defense or defense of others, is wrong.
3. “Make hookers illegal” is not defense of self or others.
4. Therefore, it is wrong for the government to “make hookers illegal”
Premise 2 here is stated as an objective moral fact, which is impossible to assert under relativism.
Also, it’s not relativism if someone disagrees with you about whether something has a moral status and what that moral status is. The fact that you assert that hookers are immoral and Mr. Domenech may choose to disagree with you does not mean that Mr. Domenech is a relativist. It could just as easily mean that you and Mr. Domenech have different views, and that one or both of you are incorrect about the actual moral status of whatever it is you’re talking about.
Well, let’s start with the Heartbeat Protection Act of 2017, which was introduced by Steve King two months ago and already has 34 c0-sponsors and no notable conservative opponents.
Add in the Congressional attempt to ban all abortions after 20 weeks in 2015, which failed due to a Senate filibuster. Every GOP senator except Kirk and Collins voted yeah.
In short, there doesn’t seem to be a single conservative in the Senate adopting the simple return-Roe-to-the-states position.
Poll your friends, if SCOTUS imposed a 12 week revision of Blackmun’s decision and returned first trimester decisions to the states would they be encouraged?
I would be.
None of this means the left hasn’t been more zealous and effective at adopting their agenda through activist court action over the past 50 years.
But, Judithann, were all your social conservative friends outraged when the state of Florida’s power to judge its own elections was overruled by a Due Process Clause arse pull for Bush in Bush v. Gore. A small percentage of my socon friends were mildly miffed … with smiles on their faces!
@quakevoter: I think we are talking past each other. I stated that I never heard a social conservative say that they wanted the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion: the Federal Legislature is a different story. And I never suggested that pro-lifers only wanted to turn abortion back to the states: that would just be a step on the road to ending abortion. Am still curious to learn about the social conservatives who want to censor the internet.
I have nothing more to add. I stand by my statements. No one considers themself a moral relativist. That doesn’t mean they aren’t.
Actually, many people do consider themselves to be moral relativists. “X is morally right for those people in Y” would be a relativistic argument that would be worth taking issue with. Many people believe things in that particular way, and it’s problematic because it’s a logically invalid way of looking at ethics. Lots of people on the left think in that way because they’re trying to be open-minded. Being able to identify relativism and explain its wrongness coherently and persuasively is very important.
The problem here is that nobody in this thread made that argument, or any argument that rests upon relativism, and or identified themselves as being a relativist. And several people chose to argue with you, which is actually further proof that nobody here is a relativist, because relativists are by definition incapable of having ethical disagreeements.
But feel free to ignore all that; I’m mainly writing for the benefit of other readers at this point.