A Frothy Mixture of Collectivism and Conservatism

In 1960, a Republican senator named Barry Goldwater published a little book called The Conscience of a Conservative . The first printing of 10,000 copies led to a second of the same size, then a third of 50,000, until ultimately it sold more than 3 million copies. Goldwater's presidential candidacy crashed in 1964, but his ideas did not: For decades, Goldwater's hostility to Big Government ruled the American Right. Until, approximately, now.

Rick Santorum, a second-term Republican senator from Pennsylvania, has written a new book called It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good . The book is worth taking seriously for several reasons, not least of which is that it is a serious book. The writing and thinking are consistently competent, often better than that. The lapses into right-wing talk-radioese ("liberals practically despise the common man") are rare. Santorum wrestles intelligently, often impressively, with the biggest of big ideas: freedom, virtue, civil society, the Founders' intentions. Although he is a Catholic who is often characterized as a religious conservative, he has written a book whose ambitions are secular. As its subtitle promises, it is about conservatism, not Christianity.

Above all, it is worth noticing because, like Goldwater's Conscience, it lays down a marker. As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. It's now official: Philosophically, the conservative movement has split. Post-Santorum, tax-cutting and court-bashing can hold the Republican coalition together for only so much longer.

As a policy book, It Takes a Family is temperate. It serves up a healthy reminder that society needs not just good government but strong civil and social institutions, and that the traditional family serves all kinds of essential social functions. Government policies, therefore, should respect and support family and civil society instead of undermining or supplanting them. Parents should make quality time at home a high priority. Popular culture should comport itself with some sense of responsibility and taste.

Few outside the hard cultural Leftâ€”certainly not Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) who makes several cameos as Santorum's bete noirâ€”would disagree with much of that. Not in 2005, anyway. Moreover, Santorum's policy proposals sit comfortably within the conservative mainstream. But It Takes a Family is more than a policy book. Its theory of "conservatism and the common good" seeks to rechannel the mainstream.

In Santorum's view, freedom is not the same as liberty. Or, to put it differently, there are two kinds of freedom. One is "no-fault freedom," individual autonomy uncoupled from any larger purpose: "freedom to choose, irrespective of the choice." This, he says, is "the liberal definition of freedom," and it is the one that has taken over in the culture and been imposed on the country by the courts.

Quite different is "the conservative view of freedom," "the liberty our Founders understood." This is "freedom coupled with the responsibility to something bigger or higher than the self." True liberty is freedom in the service of virtueâ€”not "the freedom to be as selfish as I want to be," or "the freedom to be left alone," but "the freedom to attend to one's dutiesâ€”duties to God, to family, and to neighbors."

This kind of freedom depends upon and serves virtue, and virtue's indispensable incubator and transmitter is the family. Thus "selflessness in the family is the basis for the political liberty we cherish as Americans." If government is to defend liberty and promote the common welfare, then it must promote and defend the integrity of the traditional family. In doing so, it will foster virtue and rebuild the country's declining social and moral capital, thus fostering liberty and strengthening family. The liberal cycle of declineâ€”families weaken, disorder spreads, government steps in, families weaken still furtherâ€”will be reversed.

"Freedom is not self-sufficient," writes Santorum. He claims the Founders' support, and quotes John Adams ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people") and George Washington to that effect. But as University of Maryland political scientist William A. Galston notes, Washington and (especially) Adams stood at one end of a spectrum of debate, and it was a debate that they ultimately lost.

Other Foundersâ€”notably James Madison, the father of the Constitutionâ€”were more concerned with power than with virtue. They certainly distinguished between liberty and license, and they agreed that republican government requires republican virtues. But they believed that government's foremost calling was not to inculcate virtue but to prevent tyranny. Madison thus argued for a checked, limited government that would lack the power to impose any one faction's view of virtue on all others.

Freedom, for Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and others, was an end, not just a means. A government that allows individuals to pursue happiness in their own fashions, they believed, is most likely to produce a strong society and a virtuous citizenry; but the greatest benefit of freedom is freedom itself. Civic virtue ultimately serves individual freedom, rather than the other way around.

It was in this tradition that Goldwater wrote, "Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development." Note that word "and": Individual and social welfare go togetherâ€”they're not in conflict. All the government needs to do, Goldwater said, is get out of the way. "The conservative's first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?" Reagan spoke in the same tradition when he declared that government was the problem, not the solution to our problems.

Goldwater and Reagan, and Madison and Jefferson, were saying that if you restrain government, you will strengthen society and foster virtue. Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.

Where Goldwater denounced collectivism as the enemy of the individual, Santorum denounces individualism as the enemy of family. On page 426, Santorum says this: "In the conservative vision, people are first connected to and part of families: The family, not the individual, is the fundamental unit of society." Those words are not merely uncomfortable with the individual-rights tradition of modern conservatism. They are incompatible with it.

Santorum seems to sense as much. In an interview with National Public Radio last month, he acknowledged his quarrel with "what I refer to as more of a libertarianish Right" and "this whole idea of personal autonomy." In his book he comments, seemingly with a shrug, "Some will reject what I have to say as a kind of 'Big Government' conservatism."

They sure will. A list of the government interventions that Santorum endorses includes national service, promotion of prison ministries, "individual development accounts," publicly financed trust funds for children, community-investment incentives, strengthened obscenity enforcement, covenant marriage, assorted tax breaks, economic literacy programs in "every school in America" (his italics), and more. Lots more.

Though he is a populist critic of Big Government, Santorum shows no interest in defining principled limits on political power. His first priority is to make government pro-family, not to make it small. He has no use for a constitutional (or, as far as one can tell, moral) right to privacy, which he regards as a "constitutional wrecking ball" that has become inimical to the very principle of the common good. Ditto for the notions of government neutrality and free expression. He does not support a ban on contraception, but he thinks the government has every right to impose one.

The quarrel between virtue and freedom is an ancient and profound one. Santorum's suspicion of liberal individualism has a long pedigree and is not without support in American history. Adams, after all, favored sumptuary laws that would restrict conspicuous consumption in order to promote a virtuous frugality. And Santorum is right to observe that no healthy society is made up of people who view themselves as detached and unencumbered individuals.

"But to move from that sociological truism to the proposition that the family is the fundamental unit of political liberty," says Galston, "goes against the grain of two centuries of American political thought, as first articulated in the Declaration of Independence." With It Takes a Family , Rick Santorum has served notice. The bold new challenge to the Goldwater-Reagan tradition in American politics comes not from the Left, but from the Right.

Jonathan Rauch is a senior writer and columnist for National Journal and a frequent contributor to Reason. The article was originally published by National Journal.

I think the libertarian position is more "anything goes" as long as it doesn't infringe the liberty of others.

Keeping in mind that during the 60's the Left made a concerted effort to have folks do drugs, etc. in an effort to destroy American society. I think it is this that has confused many liberals (and conservatives) into thinking that you can be leftist and libertarian simultaneously, when in fact the positions are in extreme conflict.

You are right. The early libertarian movement recognized the importance of virtue, but did not consider the government to be an institution capable of promoting virtue. They drew a very sharp distinction between the state and civil society. The state is founded on the legal use of force, so its ability to promote virtue was seen as EXTREMELY limited. The promotion of virtue was the prerogative of civil society. Beyond enforcing laws against theft and violence, the best the state can do to promote virtue is to get out of the way and let civil society do it's job. In the 60's and 70's, the libertarian movement was inundated by anti-authority types who saw morality as a threat to liberty. Part of this was a response to some sections of the conservative movement that saw an expanded state role in the promotion of virtue.
The happy medium, in my mind, was reached by Frank Meyer. Meyer wrote a book entitled "In Defense of Liberty and Other Issues". He promoted an approach derided by his critics as "fusionism". (A fusion of the traditionalist focus on virtue and the libertarian focus on liberty and limited government.) His position did end up as the approach that defined the conservative movement, which gave rise to Goldwater and Reagan. Now that fusion is splitting.

I won't rush to disagree with what you say.

But I will point out that the Left is very consistent about "re-purposing" vocabulary.

"liberal" used to mean free enterprise, with little risk of government interference. Today, "Liberal" means lots of government interference in everything.

"Freedom of Church and State" used to mean the government should leave churches alone. Today, "Freedom of Church and State" means religion should not play a role in political decisions or government policies.

My post (in part) was pointing out that many Americans think "Freedom" means they are entitled to do anything and have anything they want -- it's a free country, man! Europeans are usually pretty blunt that in a Free Society you shouldn't have to worry about food, housing, or basic necessities.

I think the real meaning of "Freedom" has been lost, but I think "Liberty" is still valid. Thomas Jefferson would still support "Liberty", IMO.

Agreed. Poppycock. This is a hit piece on Santorum from an extremist, who wouldn't know what Reagan and Goldwater believed. And if he was confronted with their views on family, he would declare solemnly that Goldwater and Reagan had abdicated their own principles.

Santorum doesn't expend a great deal of ink on the fundamentals of limited government theory...because for him they are Axiomatic. He is starting from Goldwater and Reagan's precepts and elaborating on them since we are still dealing with the fact that their ideas are not fully implented yet. We are still left with the FDR/LBJ/Nixon/Carter/Xlinton edifice. GWB has done nothing to dismantle it. And Santorum is clearly not a fan of GWB's budgetary principles. So all we can say of Rauch is:

What a Maroon!

Thanks for the useful analytical history. It jibes with my own recollections. I never forgave Goldwater for his abominable turncoating against Reagan. I ascribed it at the time as envy. But your points on the ideological distinctions make it clear that it was more... Goldwater was the intemperate one, and not spiritually humble.

The lapses into right-wing talk-radioese ("liberals practically despise the common man

That is not right-wing talk-radioese but a plan statement of obvious fact by anyone who THINKS about politics rather then FEELS them.

If Liberals don't, "despise the common man" why do they feel they need to used Govt to dictate EVERY aspect of a Citizens life is to be lead EXCEPT a person's sexual life?

Rauch is full of krap.

Reagan was definitely a family-values guy. While Goldwater may or may not have been (liberals present his later, socially liberal positions on a couple of issues as the classic Goldwater positions, which is dishonest), many of Barry's 1964 supporters were concerned with social issues -- from a conservative perspective.

Santorum is saying something more like the reverse: If you shore up the family, you will strengthen the social fabric and ultimately reduce dependence on government.

Considering the violence, looting, and rapes that took place after the damage done by Katrina, one wonders if Santorum is correct. Individuals acted lawlessly in the vacuum of governmental control which was created in the aftermath of Katrina. Will anyone question if the majority of crimes were committed by victims of broken homes, one parent families, children who can not identify their fathers?

If those same individuals were the products of a traditional family structure, one wonders if the outcome might have been different. Ultimately an orderly society depends more upon the individuals who compose it, and not upon the police power of the government. It is nice to say that that government should not interfere with individual rights, but if individuals will not police themselves, then it is the function of government to maintain order and prevent chaos and crime.

"The early libertarian movement recognized the importance of virtue, but did not consider the government to be an institution capable of promoting virtue."

Sure, what virtue is there in doing something under coercion? And it's true that liberty cannot exist without virtue, if we do not behave ourselves and act responsibly, we are sure to lose our freedom.

Still, I think your point is that morality should, as much as possible, be enforced by society instead of government. For instance, homosexuals pretty much kept quiet in times past, as much because society abhorred it as because the law prohibited it. Now that the state is enforcing morality, however, gays are in everyone's face.

Do you recommend Meyer's book?

"It is nice to say that government should not interfere with individual rights, but if individuals will not police themselves, then it is the function of government to maintain order and prevent chaos and crime."

Which is to say that if individuals don't exert personal responsibility (virtue), they will lose their freedom. It's not an argument against individual freedom, but an argument in favor of virtue. One that most of our founding fathers adhered to, I believe.

The irony is, in my view, that the welfare state, which rewards failure and punishes success, discourages personal responsibility and rewards lack of virtue. The more the people act irresponsibly, the more government is forced to grow and interfere in our lives. The liberal call for more government and less freedom is a self fulfilling prophecy to the extent that their social policies are followed by the state.

I'm pretty sure that I'm agreeing with you here.

Santorum isn't so far off from what Russell Kirk was saying at the beginning of the modern conservative movement.

A lot depends not on what people's goals are but on whether the means will really achieve the end. Plenty of more libertarian conservatives assume that limited government and free markets nurture individual responsibility and strong families. If that's true it may be enough. If it's not, different means may be desireable.

Santorum believes that government can help strengthen families and individual responsibility. If it's true it's something to think about. If not, then it doesn't matter.

I'm not so sure that Madison and Jefferson took the same view of things. Both supported disestablishment of religion and could be taken as supporters of separation between church and state. But Jefferson was more small government and localist than Madison, whose views shifted over time.

I'm not so sure that Madison would be opposed to Santorum's views. Madison believed that one couldn't depend on virtue alone to defend liberty. Shared or common interest would have to play a role as well. But he didn't believe that nations could do without virtue or that virtue and liberty were opposites.

the welfare state, which rewards failure and punishes success, discourages personal responsibility and rewards lack of virtue.

Yours are my sentiments exactly. At the risk of sounding weird, I believe that there is a spiritual divide, the conflict as I see it is not one of ideology, but far more basic and personal. The evidence is clear that the battle is between traditional notions of morality, which are believed to come from a divine creator, and moral relativity; this hegemony instead of dictating conduct is constantly being modified to conform to a desired conduct. Moral relativity has infected the decisions of the Supreme Court. Lawyers rely upon Supreme Court precedent to advise their clients, but when the standard can change based upon on outcome determinative test, it is practically impossible to predict the outcome of a case based upon precedent, and in some cases the application of precedent that was useful to force the outcome in one case, when applied to a changed set of circumstances, an exception is necessary to the general rule to avoid an absurd outcome. For example, whereas it is lawful to display a religious artifact on the interior of a public building, it is illegal to display it on the lawn in front of the building.

This piece is ludicrous.

You can talk all you like about "limiting government". But government does what society asks it to do because it can no longer do it.

We live in a society of two child families. A two child family cannot take care of its elderly or nurse its sick the way 5+ child families used to. We have a two child family culture because we have an individualistic society in which families do not have more children than they can afford to send to college.

Only people who buy into "be fruitful and multiply" have more than 2 children. It requires a traditional, religious culture, not an individualistic one, to have a birthrate large enough that people no longer look to the state to protect them from the predictable hardships of life, sickness and old age. You cannot put the cart before the horse. You must have a religious, traditional culture of large families before you can even think about dismantling middle class welfare.

To have a 1900 state, you have to have a 1900 culture and society. Libertarians never see that.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.