Posted on 10/13/2002 1:12:36 PM PDT by aconservaguy
After September 11, reflection on what President Bush means when he calls himself a compassionate conservative has about disappeared. He is now mostly a war leader, and surely compassion is not a virtue of a commander-in-chief. The president does know how to put a compassionate face on what we must do in Afghanistan. We are dropping bombs on our enemies the Taliban, but food on our friends, the hungry and oppressed people of that pathetic nation.
And we, the president adds, are not at war with Islam; genuine Islamic believers are also compassionate or kind and gentle conservatives. We are at war only with terrorists who distort that religion for their evil purposes. But let's face it: We know those seemingly compassionate distinctions are mainly rhetorical devices the president is employing to vanquish our enemies and secure our "homeland." At this point, we must hope and we have reason to believe that we do not have a compassionate foreign policy.
But the president's resolute response to the terrorist attack can be, I think, integrated into compassionate conservatism properly understood. The phrase means that genuinely conservative policy is not libertarian, or at least not completely libertarian. It is based on some concern for the souls of Americans.
I remember reading on the day of President Bush's inauguration an article by anti-tax activist Grover Norquist that sought to remind us that the Democratic party is not primarily stupid but "evil." The Democrats, Norquist alleges, remain the party of "coercive utopianism." That phrase, of course, was used to describe the totalitarian regimes of the twentieth century. But say what you will about Bill Clinton, he was no coercive utopian. As president, he put his faith far more in the market than in government planning, and in his mind communism's failure completely discredits its theory. Not only that, President Clinton was pretty much for freedom across the board: On the social or cultural issues, such as abortion and gay rights, he is pro-choice or libertarian. He was, all in all, the most consistently libertarian president we've ever had. (Someone here might object with environmentalism or affirmative action, but I didn't say perfectly consistent!)
Dare I say that President Bush sees that the greatest danger to human liberty now is far more "anticoercive" than "coercive" libertarianism? Both anticoercive (meaning libertarian) and coercive (meaning Marxist) utopians share the vision of the withering away of the state. We now know that certainly will not happen through the revolution Marx described. Old-fashioned libertarians did not really believe that it would happen at all. They tended to look not forward but backward. They favored the restoration of some freer—if not perfectly free—moment in America's past and whined that history was not on their side. They also served liberty, of course, with their anticommunism. But today libertarians believe that the progress of history or technology will make their dream a reality. They call their opponents, as Marxists used to do, enemies of the future. They believe that we will have a designer future. Biotechnology will extend life indefinitely, and so we will even be relatively unconstrained by biological necessity. And genetic manipulation in the womb will even make it possible for parents to design or perfect their children. Economic freedom, meanwhile, will triumph over political restrictions; the technological imperatives that produce globalization cannot be stopped.
President Bush sees that conservatives are now defined, or ought to be defined, by opposition to extreme libertarianism and unfettered technological progress. They must insist that technology must be subordinated to properly human purposes, and they realize the moral and political limitation of technology will require political will and coercion. That is, in fact, what the president said in his most thoughtful speech defending the limits he imposed on stem cell research, and it is what he implied by making Leon Kass—our most eloquent opponent of biotechnological assaults on human nature—his chief advisor on biotechnology. When it comes to issues like abortion, euthanasia, cloning, cyberporn, and so forth, conservatives such as the president are to some extent statists. They see libertarianism as culminating in a misanthropic form of compassion: The libertarian hope is that technology can liberate us altogether from human suffering by overcoming what had been regarded as natural limits to human choice. As the president explained in his inaugural address, conservatives are now distinguished by their defense of the virtue of beings who can not only be compassionate but courageous, and who can acknowledge their necessary and beneficial dependence on God.
The unprecedented attack against America on September 11 only reinforces the anti-libertarian or political impulse of compassionate conservatism properly understood. The president just said, quite rightly, that Americans now are all soldiers. They must now remember, in other words, the basic duty of citizenship; they cannot escape the fact that human beings are necessarily citizens. True compassion means acting effectively to protect those who are truly vulnerable, a category which now includes our fellow Americans even here at home. We have been reminded forcefully of another dark side of globalization and high technology; we are more vulnerable than ever to the forces of evil in the world. The world is a much more dangerous place because so many governments have become so weak. We have also been reminded that human beings remain divided religiously, and that our view of liberty cannot be separated from very definite views concerning the dignity of the human being and his or her relationship to God. Tolerance cannot mean indifference to the truth about what we really believe. Our enemies believe they can succeed only because they mistakenly believe that Americans have become so mindlessly decadent that they are no longer capable of acting as if they had souls, that we have become so apathetic and self-absorbed that we are incapable of acting compassionately and courageously.
There is almost nothing less true than the libertarian view that high technology will cause the state to wither away and produce a new birth of almost unconstrained human freedom. Political will is needed now more than ever to defend human liberty against two dangers posed by technological progress. The first is the threat that technology poses to human nature or the soul itself, and the second is the threat posed by the access those that hate us have to that technology. Compassionate conservatism turns out to be about how government can defend and encourage the virtues characteristic of a free human being under God.
Peter Augustine Lawler is a professor of government at Berry College in Georgia.
URL: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/01/lawler/compcons.html
----------------------------------------
Shiiiiiiiit. But he believes it.
I guess this guy never heard about Hillary's health care plan. Or about Waco. Or about Elian. Or Bill's wonderful "pro-market" belief that citizens can't have their tax dollars returned to them because they "might not spend it wisely".
I stopped reading right here. The very concept of "coercive libertarianism" is an oxymoron. The very fact that this guy used it means he doesn't have a clue.
Calling Bill Clinton the most libertarian recent president was also preposterous. How about HillaryCare, his biggest first effort? Raising taxes in his first term? There was one period in his second term where he was proposing a new federal program every week. Only the fact that the Republicans were running Congress at the time prevented a lot of that from becoming reality. Libertarian president, indeed....
how does this guy not have a clue? could you give some reasons?
how free may people be?
The very foundation of libertarianism is that you are free to do what you like as long as you don't use force or fraud to get what you want. Coercion is use of force to get what you want (via threats) and therefore contrary to the fundamental principle of libertarianism. That's why I said the term "coercive libertarianism" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "free market socialist" - two contradictory ideas in the same phrase.
This guy, along with many others (including many on this site) seem to have a completely erroneous idea of what libertarian philosophy is all about. Instead, they make up their own convenient interpretation of what it is just so that they can bash it. This is exactly the same tactic used by many liberals against conservatives - "conservatives want to throw old people out in the streets, conservatives don't care about the environment, conservatives are cold, heartless, b@$t@rds", etc. etc. It's a nasty, dishonest tactic when used against conservatives, and it's just as nasty and dishonest when it's used to bash libertarianism.
How can individualism possible be a tyranny? If I'm free to run my own life, but prohibited from using force or fraud to impose my will on others, what can possibly be tyrannical about that? The only thing I can do to you is to try and persuade you - how could I possibly get to tyranny that way?
Now, if you mean that you might not like what I'm doing and want to stop it, well, then it's you who are interested in restricting freedom, not me. It's you who are therefore much further up on the tyranny scale.
The phrase "tyranny of individualism" may sound very smooth, but in reality it makes just as much sense as "coercive libertarianism", i.e. none at all.
C.S. Lewis made an observation applicable to do-gooders everywhere: "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
There are limits as to how libertarian a society can be. I wouldn't say that extreme libertarianism is the main enemy today, but the further norms and rules in social life decline, the less likely it is that we will move much further in the direction of hands-off government.
As for the question of technology, I think Lawler has too much confidence in President Bush. The GOP will delay the acceptance of the forms of technological change that Lawler disapproves of for a few years, but will eventually cave in. That is what the indications have been so far.
In theory.
Communism is also the absence of force. In theory.
In practice both are fool's utopias that cannot be sustained except artifically and fraudulently through coercion.
In swooning over unworkable utopian lunancies, the zealot libertarians are bosom twins of the communists. The Marxist theoretician Antonio Gramsci called Marx "the greatest libertarian who ever lived" for good reason.
And, yes, Bill Clinton was definitely the most social libertarian president we have ever had. There are few sexual vices, addictions, or drugs he did not try or at least tolerate privately regardless of his public posturings. Privately he was very much in favor of relaxing marijuana laws, and his consumption of pornography is legendary.
So do I. You'll take death and chains, for that is where both extremes lead.
Hemlock?
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.