A Frothy Mixture of Collectivism and Conservatism

Reason ^ | Septemer 6, 2005 | Jonathan Rauch

[Larry Lucido]

What you described as "Freedom" would more accurately be called "Entitlement."

[rob777]

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[Paul Ross]

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!

[Larry Lucido]

True.

[Paul Ross]

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.

[goldstategop]

The family is the basis of social order and Edmund Burke referred to them as the "little platoons." In life, they're all we have and they take care of us in a way no government ever will.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[MNJohnnie]

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?

[California Patriot]

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.

[street_lawyer]

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.

[Sam Cree]

"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?

[Sam Cree]

"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.

[x]

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.

[street_lawyer]

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.

[Sam the Sham]

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.

[rob777]

Still, I think your point is that morality should, as much as possible, be enforced by society instead of government.



Exactly.







Do you recommend Meyer's book?



Yes!

[trawler]

Rick Santorum, Big Government and Anti-Conservative Republicans
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1486874/posts

[KDD]

The election of 2006 was a repudiation of Rick Santorum, James Dobson and their ilk. It will be interesting to see if they have the grace to make a dignified exit from the political arena and allow conservatives to reestablish the conservative coalition of the Goldwater/Reagan base.