A New Conservatism

ic ^ | July 9, 2009 | Joe Hargrave

[NYer]

The prospects for conservatism as a political force in the United States are arguably grim. The GOP's electoral prospects may be on the verge of drying up due to demographic shifts, particularly the growth of the Hispanic vote -- the kind of shifts that, in the past, have driven major political parties into extinction.

 

There are serious problems with the youth vote as well. Some commentators insist that the GOP must begin distancing itself from moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, that it must put on a more "socially progressive" face if it is to win this demographic. But President Obama didn't win the Christian vote because he was pro-choice, or tolerant of gay marriage, or because he favors gun restrictions. If anything, he won it in spite of those positions, because Christian voters in the 21st century, for better or worse, place other issues (like the economy) higher on their priority lists.

 

The current economic crisis may have shifted the economy more decisively to the foreground this past election, but opinion polls going back further than the most recent election cycle show that economic and foreign policy issues consistently outrank abortion and gay marriage on the American voter's priority list. While one or two polls is no reason to change political strategy, patterns in recent history ought to be.

 

The good news is that the low priority Americans assign to moral issues important to conservatives, and to us as Catholics, may end up working to our advantage.

 

Those of us who wish to remain faithful to the teachings of the Church and support a pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage agenda are faced with a number of political options. The first is hardly tenable: to accept the prevailing status quo within the GOP and the conservative movement. If the movement's leaders and its intellectuals remain committed to its current ideological course, it will fail spectacularly, and drag the Catholic social agenda down with it.

 

A second option is to build a socially conservative, pro-life wing of the Democratic Party. The demographic shifts we are facing may make this possible in a way it simply could not have been before, with millions of immigrants from a different culture playing a role in the shaping of American politics.

 

But a third option may be our best: a conservative movement with a revamped economic philosophy that is neither laissez-faire nor welfare-statist, but which comes much closer to Catholic social teaching. With the publication of Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate, there is no better time for conservative Catholics, following in the footsteps of those who drew inspiration from Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, to rethink the way in which they talk about economic ideas and begin to develop a new socio-economic vision.

 

 

The idea has caught on in other Western nations. Conservatives in Canada and the United Kingdom are coming around to "Red Toryism," a refreshing mixture of tested conservative values with bold new economic proposals. One of its leading spokesmen, Phillip Blond, explains why conservatives ought to find it appealing in his article "The Rise of the Red Tories" (bear in mind that, in the British context, "liberal" means what "classical liberal" means in America):

 

Conservatives who believe in value, culture and truth should therefore think twice before calling themselves liberal. Liberalism can only be a virtue when linked to a politics of the common good, a problem which the best liberals -- Mill, Adam Smith and Gladstone -- recognised but could never resolve. A vision of the good life cannot come from liberal principles. Unlimited liberalism produces atomised relativism and state absolutism . . .

 

[I]f Conservatives are to take power . . . and give it to the people, they must develop a full-blooded "new localism" which works to empower communities and builds new, vibrant local economies that can uphold the party's civic vision.

 

Blond writes of "re-capitalizing the poor" as well as four other crucial economic goals that American conservatives could adopt: "relocalising our banking system, developing local capital, helping normal people gain new assets and breaking up big business monopolies." The Red Tories propose not only to teach a man to fish, as the old saying goes, but to give him the rod to do it.

 

Can these ideas gain popularity among conservative American politicians? Few may realize that a conservative Republican congressman, Dana Rohrabacher, proposed the "Employee Ownership Act" back in 1999. The act would have established a new type of corporation known as an Employee Owned and Controlled Corporation (EOCC) and provided tax incentives for those who start them. The EOCC would be defined by the following characteristics:

 

·         Employees would own at least 50 percent of all voting stock in the form of an employee trust. At least 90 percent of employees who worked more than 1,000 hours a year would have to be allowed to participate in this trust.

·         Employees would be allowed to vote on all corporate issues, including board elections.

·         Distribution and valuation rules would correspond to existing Employee Stock Ownership Plan rules.

 

The bill stated, "It is the policy of the United States, that by the year 2010, 30 percent of all United States corporations are owned and controlled by employees of the corporations." It had co-sponsors from both parties and a diverse array of typically opposed ideological positions: Liberal Democrat Dennis Kucinich, conservative Republican Tom Tancredo, and even independent libertarian Ron Paul were co-sponsors of the bill.

 

Unfortunately, the bill was never debated or voted upon. Still, that it came up at all -- brought forward by a conservative Republican, no less -- and that it was ambitious in scope are hopeful signs of what might be.

 

 

In the same way a soul needs a body, conservative values need social structures that embody them in the world. That is the first and best reason for a radical shift in economic philosophy toward one that actively seeks to promote local economies though various cooperative mechanisms. At its worst, the competitive labor market, in the words of Pope Pius XI, is a "grave evil which is plunging all human society to destruction" (Quadragesimo Anno, 83). Even at its best, however, it does little if anything to reinforce and promote the integrity of family and community. Where worker ownership thrives, the sort of competition among producers that benefits the consumer can also thrive, without threatening the economic security of workers and their families.

 

The GOP's current economic philosophy has alienated the majority of voters, including and especially my generation, the "millennial generation." The state-managed economy envisioned by some Democrats cannot be successfully countered with the standard laissez-faire rhetoric -- but it can be countered with a communitarian, cooperative vision in which the state plays a supporting role.

 

The fruits of such a shift will hopefully include a greater receptiveness to the social and moral issues important to conservatives. In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict expresses his dismay with "the arbitrary and selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy of respect," and goes on to say that "insignificant matters are considered shocking, yet unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated." (75) From where some of us sit, the modern American conservative movement has not done enough to acknowledge and address the unprecedented injustices in the economic sphere, including the great global and social inequalities that are criticized more than once by the pope in his encyclical. Without making a sincere effort to do so, how can we ever expect those outside of the movement to acknowledge the seriousness of other injustices that we point out, such as abortion on demand?

 

At the very least, political priorities being what they are, those less inclined to fully embrace our positions on life issues may accept them if they are also presented with an economic program that they can get on board with -- as they have done for secular liberals in the Democratic Party.

 

---

[NYer]

Joe Hargrave writes from Phoenix. He blogs at A New Catholic Paradigm, Vox Nova

[NYer]

Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list

[pissant]

“The prospects for conservatism as a political force in the United States are arguably grim”

I have a novel idea. Let’s try it first before we give up on it.

[dforest]

I have an even more novel idea. When Marxists decide they need to become more conservative, I will give this notion a bother.

[x]

The idea has caught on in other Western nations. Conservatives in Canada and the United Kingdom are coming around to "Red Toryism," a refreshing mixture of tested conservative values with bold new economic proposals. One of its leading spokesmen, Phillip Blond, explains why conservatives ought to find it appealing in his article "The Rise of the Red Tories" (bear in mind that, in the British context, "liberal" means what "classical liberal" means in America):

Conservatives who believe in value, culture and truth should therefore think twice before calling themselves liberal. Liberalism can only be a virtue when linked to a politics of the common good, a problem which the best liberals -- Mill, Adam Smith and Gladstone -- recognised but could never resolve. A vision of the good life cannot come from liberal principles. Unlimited liberalism produces atomised relativism and state absolutism . . .

[I]f Conservatives are to take power . . . and give it to the people, they must develop a full-blooded "new localism" which works to empower communities and builds new, vibrant local economies that can uphold the party's civic vision.

I wouldn't dismiss his view entirely, but too often "red toryism" (or the American equivalent) is "me-tooism": it's simply offering just what the left offers only less of it.

There are times when voters like that sort of thing (the 1950s are a classic example), but sometimes it's also necessary to straighten things up and clean house, since too much me-tooism results in economic stagnation.

[Mogollon]

Reagan conservatism works everytime it’s tried. Problem is, we haven’t tried it since Reagan left office.

[Steamburg]

Is Hargrave part of the Californication of AZ. He needs a frank visit with Sheriff Joe. AZ doesn’t need a fence with Mexico, they need one with California.

[Altura Ct.]

The prospects for conservatism as a political force in the United States are arguably grim. The GOP's electoral prospects may be on the verge of drying up due to demographic shifts, particularly the growth of the Hispanic vote -- the kind of shifts that, in the past, have driven major political parties into extinction.

There are serious problems with the youth vote as well. Some commentators insist that the GOP must begin distancing itself from moral issues such as abortion and gay marriage, that it must put on a more "socially progressive" face if it is to win this demographic. But President Obama didn't win the Christian vote because he was pro-choice, or tolerant of gay marriage, or because he favors gun restrictions. If anything, he won it in spite of those positions, because Christian voters in the 21st century, for better or worse, place other issues (like the economy) higher on their priority lists.

Communism is dead! Yeah right.

God save us from those hellbent on destroying our country, culture, heritage and race.

Molon Labe - I defy them!

[familyop]

"...they must develop a full-blooded "new localism" which works to empower communities and builds new, vibrant local economies that can uphold the party's civic vision."

The local leaders are as bad as the federal leaders. Further "empowering" the local leftist government/corporate mafia witches won't help.

"The state-managed economy...can be countered with a communitarian, cooperative vision in which the state plays a supporting role."

...communism by another name. The local elites are nasty. They shut down attempts by families to start new businesses, because they don't allow competition. They steal children from working class families to sell them to their friends by way of local governments.

We need new leadership at all levels of government, business and academia. We should encourage the spendthrifts to spend more, and welcome the ensuing defaults. They are pushing for their own demise.

[parsifal]

This is probably the best article I have read on FR in the last 11 years.

“The final piece of the puzzle is for Conservatives to break with big business. We must end a model in which competition is reduced to a cartel of vast corporations maximising profits by discouraging competitors and minimising wages by joining with the liberal left to encourage mass immigration. A covert alliance between the liberal left and liberal right has destroyed incomes and identity at the bottom of the scale.”

parsy, who has been preaching this for years on FR and in fact, became a democrat after Bush signed the bankruptcy reform bill.

[parsifal]

I actually saved the article to my word processor. I love this gem:

The state-managed economy envisioned by some Democrats cannot be successfully countered with the standard laissez-faire rhetoric — but it can be countered with a communitarian, cooperative vision in which the state plays a supporting role.

parsy, who thinks the country is ripe for intelligent conservatism

[ElPatriota]

Yeah... That seems to be the Mantra... by the Republican-LEFT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the "weasel" who tried to bamboozle social-conservatives into trying to elect Lefty-Traitor McCain and move the party to the LEFT... He thought that Palin would put MaCaca over the top... NAHHHH... We are not that dumb. And now, after the election, his CAMPAIGN MANAGER, is showing his true colors.

Warning: this links to the Huffinton Post!... We should not go there, but that is where the article came from)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/17/steve-schmidt-mccain-camp_n_188354.html

[SuziQ]

I think Mr. Hargrave is confusing what has happened in the financial markets recently with Republican principles. What we've had for the last several years is NOT a 'free market'. If the economy were run under the principles that conservatives have proposed for many years, we'd have prosperity, and the economy would provide opportunities for lower income folks to bring themselves up in their economic status. For those who truly cannot help themselves, Republicans have always advocated providing help, we just don't like subsidizing freeloaders.

Some Catholics mistakenly believe that the Democrats are much better on 'Social Justice' issues, because they give money to the 'poor'. What they don't understand is that just giving folks money doesn't necessarily help them in the long run; they just become dependent on the assistance. This has what has happened as a result of the War on Poverty, which we seem to be losing.

[Pyro7480]

heritage and race

Funny, I didn't know Americans were one specific race.

[Altura Ct.]

Funny, I didn't know Americans were one specific race.

You may be a Borg but I am not.

[Pyro7480]

You may be a Borg but I am not.

What's that supposed to mean? My earliest ancestors came here during colonial times (they were Quakers in Pennsylvania/northern Delaware), and yet, I'm an American of mixed race. Am I "less American" than you?