Crunchy Cons and the Limits of "The Right"

In The New Counterculture from today's Wall Street Journal, the historian of the American conservative movement George Nash reviews the new book by our own Rod Dreher, Crunchy Cons. Rod, says the reviewer,

is an unabashed religious and social conservative. He has little use for the morally relativist and libertine tendencies of modern liberalism. Too often, he says, "the Democrats act like the Party of Lust."

But Mr. Dreher is also a passionate environmentalist, a devotee of organic farming and a proponent of the New Urbanism, an anti-sprawl movement aimed at making residential neighborhoods more like pre-suburban small towns. He dislikes industrial agriculture, shopping malls, television, McMansions and mass consumerism. Efficiency--the guiding principle of free markets--is an "idol," he says, that must be "smashed." Too often, he claims, Republicans act like "the Party of Greed."

The review describes the book accurately, but from a point of view I think problematic in itself. Nash writes that Rod's argument

is a reminder of the enduring tension on the right between those for whom the highest social good is freedom--the emancipation of the self from statist restraint and oppressive custom--and those for whom the highest social good is virtue: the formation of character, the cultivation of the soul.

I don't myself identify with the broad movement he calls "the right", and so don't feel any "tension" between the libertarian drive (or appetite) and the traditionalist or conservative insight. They seem to me so fundamentally different that though they might be allies in a battle against a shared enemy, like statist and relativist liberalism, and for various reasons nearly permanent allies, they are as distinct as, oh, the United States and France in dealing with a nuclear Iran.

And just as the United States cannot trust the French not to make a deal with the Iranians if they can find some profit in it — truth, justice, and the interests of their allies be damned — so traditionalist conservatives cannot trust the libertarians not to side with the enemies of virtue if they can find some profit in it. Unprofitable virtue is easily taken to be "oppressive custom."

Nash uses "tension" as if he were speaking of stresses within a family, between husband and wife, or father or son, or perhaps as if he were speaking of stresses within a church — within, in other words, something with an established identity and a shared and coherent mind. But at best, the tension is like one between nations. It's not a case in which one can say, "Bob's wrong, but he's my brother, and we'll work it out." It's rather a case in which one must say, "That country is acting against our interests and against justice and the well-being of others to boot, and we can't pretend we're on the same side."

Which is not to say, before some of you start howling, that a traditionalist conservative or any other Christian might not think some version of libertarian economics superior to the alternatives. But he doesn't begin with a primary allegiance to "freedom" — an infinitely elastic idea — rather than virtue as a social good. He begins with virtue and all it represents and makes his economic decisions by its principles and on most matters, on which traditionalist principle does not direct one to any particular policy, prudentially. He might well advocate what the libertarian would consider "statist restraint."

I was reminded of the limits of "the right" just last night when reading the local weekly newspaper (of the sort once called "alternative" and now distinguished by liberal agitprop in the feature pages, a large number of movie and music reviews, and the many pages of detailed "personal" ads in the back) and came to the column titled "Savage Love." It is as hateful and degraded work as you will find in American journalism.

The writer has started to use "to Santorum" as a term of abuse, and this week's column included a letter from the editor of the economically conservative magazine The Economist. The editor, named Bill Emmott, wrote that he was flattered that the column had picked up his magazine's use of "to santorum" and "very much hope[d]" that people read both the column and the magazine.

He seems to have thought the two close allies. He continued:

Although nonreaders often think of us as a conservative magazine, we've actually always been socially highly liberal, whether on immigration, gay rights or many other things, including the legalisation of drugs. [And abortion too, I might note.] The Economist was among the first mainstream publications, on either side of the Atlantic, to advocate legal recognition of gay partnerships . . .

In its economics, The Economist is part of "the right," but what has it in common with the vision of people like Rod Dreher?

Comments

[The young fogey]

My position on gays is like that on prostitution: libertarian. It's wrong but none of my business as long as it's not a public health hazard nor done in the middle of the road where it might upset the horses.

In the Dan Savage sense santorum is a very yucky new noun.

[Gene Godbold]

Rodney Stark's most recent book suggests that the "efficiency" of which Rod Dreher disapproves is a by-product of the "victory of reason" that was released onto the world with the advent of the gospel of Jesus.

[Joe Long]

Oh, for a world where the tension between social conservatives and free-market libertarians was the chief political argument; I'd have to think about individuals and assorted issues in detail every election, not just vote against the Democrat. I find, at least around here in a Red State, the libertarians and conservatives generally agree about what things are right and wrong - just not about the appropriate level of government jurisdiction over them, or the best way to promote the better choices. The modern Left, on the other hand, seems to hold much deeper disagreements with both traditional American viewpoints. (Adding confusion, American political "conservatives" are trying to "conserve" institutions with strong libertarian influences on their creation...)

[Tony Esolen]

Young Fogey,

Alas, it is ALWAYS done in the middle of the street -- meaning that a society that condones prostitution or celebrates (note the verb change) and promotes homosexual behavior becomes a very different society, for everybody. We are all in one boat, together. Consider the analogy of pornography, or permissive laws regarding divorce, or the legalization of abortion.

[Joe Long]

Libertarian regulations on immorality wouldn't have to result in public display...if social sanctions existed. Nosepicking is perfectly legal, but we don't have to see it much, not even on TV.

George Washington expressed the opinion that liberty was dependent upon religion, to give a moral sense which would keep the people from license - to understand that not everything "lawful" was "expedient." (Though Washington did not quote St. Paul, so far as I know.)

Given the lack of cultural coherence, though, we have to use law more often - blunt instrument though it is.

As far as I can tell - just to pick one issue:
The Conservative would have people arrested for smoking pot.
The Right-Libertarian wouldn't have anyone arrested for pot, but would tan his own kid's hide for ever smoking it.
The Left-Libertarian would smoke pot with his kid.
And the modern "Liberal" would require kids over a certain IQ to smoke lots of pot, in order to "level the playing field" and give them "multicultural insights".

[GL]

Tony's point is crucial to understand. As I have mentioned elsewhere, I am working on a law review article on efforts to force pharmacists to fill prescriptions for "emergency contraceptives." Many pharmacists have refused to do so due to religious beliefs against either contraception or abortion (arguing that "emergency contraceptives" are in fact abortifacients as they are intended to prevent implantation after conception). Some jurisdictions, Illinois for example, have threatened to revoke the licenses of pharmacists who refuse to fill these prescriptions. How did it come to this?

Contraception and abortion were criminalized in the 19th century. In the 20th century, advocates began to push for decriminalization of these practices, arguing that all they wanted was the right to make their own moral decisions, a very libertarian position. In other words, they argued, you don't have to use contraceptives or have abortions or assist us in doing so. Let's live and let live. Over the course of the last century, these libertarians got what they wanted. Now, having got what they wanted, they now want to force those who have moral convictions against these acts to be required to assist them. So much for libertariansim; so much for live and let live.

[Juli]

And the modern "Liberal" would require kids over a certain IQ to smoke lots of pot, in order to "level the playing field" and give them "multicultural insights".

Cute, except it bears no resemblance to how any of the liberals/progressives I know actually relate to kids, or what they work for in the schools with which they are involved. My own community is one with a very high level of parental involvement in the schools, where both parents and schools work hard for and expect a lot of students. People in this community tend to vote strongly Democratic and also support their schools with both their money (voting yes on school-support referenda) and their time (logging in lots of volunteer hours).

[Christopher]

Julie makes a good point - "Liberals" are often heavily involved in government schools on almost every level. The point of contention is the very "work" they do. Often, they labor for broken systems and for a culture that is decadent to the core (e.g. sex-ed, the current "educational" standards, etc). They also work very hard against anything that threatens real change and their own positions (e.g. school voucher/choice). They even seem to be confused about what is "their" money and what is their neighbors money, as Julie (no doubt unintentionally) pointed out.

It is a classic case of good intentions paving the way to hell. Actually, that is not even right, because it is a disagreement as to what the "good" is. Of course, the classical liberal turn of mind and common method of persuasion is that any questioning or suggestion that government schools are what they are (i.e. broken) is to somehow be against the "good". In a sense, it's not about reality - it's just whether you intended to be helpful...:)

[Christopher]

Mr. Mills asks:

"In its economics, The Economist is part of "the right" but what has it in common with the vision of people like Rod Dreher?"

More accurately, the Economist really never has been part of "the right" any more than Business Week Magazine. Simply being a merchant or a journalist who writes about merchants does not make you a conservative - even economically. Certainly some of those who contribute to these magazines are conservative, but the editorship has always been liberal...

[Joe Long]

Yes, Juli, that was just an over-the-top smart remark on my part, and obviously satirical - but I stand by the point I was making with it: the folks on the Left do seem very involved and so forth, just as you say. It's just that they seem all too often to be actively promoting as "good", those very things I consider "bad". Which is entirely different from the Conservative/Libertarian spat. While the Libertarian carries on the honorable old tradition of allowing everyone to go to perdition in his own way, the modern "ilLiberal" commonly seems to insist on mandating everyone else's proper route to hell as well.

[Ray Keating]

I have long been both a Christian, a free-market economist and a conservative, and have never experienced any great internal angst. Quite simply, it's about being a Christian first, which in today's world then leads to being a conservative on many social issues. Being a free-market economist means using the brain God has given me to think through how the economy, markets, government, human nature and incentives actually work in the world, in contrast to the wishful thinking of the Left on such matters. The problem with some hard-core libertarian economists is that they distort the world into thinking that everything is about economics. Economics matters, but is not absolute and not the highest authority. Hence, this free market economist has no quarrel with laws against prostitution and pornography, for example, on moral grounds. A problem arises, though, when people who are anti-sprawlers, for example, involve the government in their crusade. Sprawl is not a moral issue in any substantive sense, but instead is a case where individuals use government to impose their personal preferences on others. Much of this is found in the environmental movement. Finally, as for efficiency, thank God, for the opposite is waste. Efficiency means doing more with less. It means rising living standards for all. Efficiency is an economic and moral good.

[Ray Keating]

I have long been both a Christian, a free-market economist and a conservative, and have never experienced any great internal angst. Quite simply, it's about being a Christian first, which in today's world then leads to being a conservative on many social issues. Being a free-market economist means using the brain God has given me to think through how the economy, markets, government, human nature and incentives actually work in the world, in contrast to the wishful thinking of the Left on such matters. The problem with some hard-core libertarian economists is that they distort the world into everything being about economics. Economics matters, but is not absolute and not the highest authority. Hence, this free-market economist has no quarrel with laws against prostitution and pornography, for example, on moral grounds. A problem arises, though, when people who are anti-sprawlers, for example, involve the government in their crusade. Sprawl is not a moral issue in any substantive sense, but instead is a case where individuals use government to impose their personal preferences on others. Much of this is found in the environmental movement. Finally, as for efficiency, thank God, for the opposite is waste. Efficiency means doing more with less. It means rising living standards for all. Efficiency is an economic and moral good.

[Ethan Cordray]

Ray, I would think very carefully before saying that efficiency is a "moral good." It may well be an instrumental good that can lead to moral goods (e.g. more effective caring for the widowed and orphaned, greater justice for the poor and the alien), but I think calling it a "moral good" risks thinking of efficiency as intrinsically good, something to be pursued for its own sake. To see where this leads, see "The Abolition of Man" by C.S. Lewis.

Also, remember that there are a great many things that don't serve moral ends, but which are "efficient" in the economic sense. Legalized prostitution, drug-dealing, and abortion are far more "efficient" ways of providing these services to those who demand them than their respective illegal economic manifestations. And it would certainly mean "rising living standards" (to use your phrase) for pimps, pushers, and abortionists. Technically, "economic efficieny" is simply the status of supply meeting demand. It says nothing about the moral question of whether that supply *ought* to meet that demand.

[Christopher]

Ethan,

I would be interested in you expanding on your reference to Abolition (Lewis) - I for one don't recall a conflict between Mr. Lewis and the efficiency that Mr. Keating refers. I also would recommend a second reading of his post, for he does a good job of expounding (in the small confines of his post) a very Christian limit on "efficiency" with the proper "ought's"...

[Juli]

They even seem to be confused about what is "their" money and what is their neighbors money, as Julie (no doubt unintentionally) pointed out.

Huh? I said

People in this community tend to vote strongly Democratic and also support their schools with both their money (voting yes on school-support referenda) and their time (logging in lots of volunteer hours).

If a sizable majority of voters in a community vote for a referendum, which they will support with higher property taxes, how does this register confusion about which money is theirs? Is there something intrinsically wrong with voting yes on any spending referendum, when one is a taxpayer with a stake in that community?

[Joe Long]

Juli - not intrinsically "wrong", but it's a question of definition: they are voting on what to do with money which has been taken from everyone, not what to do with "their" money. Voluntary private contributions to the school would be "their" money. I pay property taxes; I homeschool my kids. Homeschooling my kids is something I decide to do with MY money. But when I vote on a referendum to increase public-school budgets, I am deciding what to do, primarily, with other peoples' money. Which doesn't mean I will always vote "no" - our local public schools are becoming more reform-minded, and I could imagine supporting a referendum if I trusted the stewardship of the school board and believed more money would actually benefit the region's education. (Another question entirely.) But it wouldn't be MY money I was sending - or only a tiny fraction would be - it would be mostly the money of retired people with nicer houses.

[Juli]

they are voting on what to do with money which has been taken from everyone, not what to do with "their" money

But who besides the taxpayers has more right to vote on how to spend the taxpayers' money? I'm not sure what you're advocating, unless you think that taxes = bad in all circumstances, but that's a separate argument.

[Christopher]

What I would argue against is the political philosophy that says that if a majority vote for a tax, it must = good. A principled conservative would not vote for a tax increase simply because it benefited his self interests, because he is aware of what a tax really is. It's not "free money", as in "free" or "universal healthcare". Again, we come back to the liberal/conservative divide on what ones duty is to ones neighbor...

[Joe Long]

And what I'm arguing, actually, is just for accurate language. The willingness to dedicate tax money to something, and the willingness to dedicate your OWN money, are different levels of commitment and separate moral problems. The distribution of government money should never be construed as personal generosity. It is only good, or bad, stewardship of public funds.

[Juli]

The distribution of government money should never be construed as personal generosity. It is only good, or bad, stewardship of public funds.

The people I know who vote and campaign for local school funding referenda support the schools at all sorts of levels - personally by making contributions of time and money and through their tax dollars. It's not a matter of either-or, nor is it a matter of self-interest; thank God I know at least some people who support schools even though they don't have children or their own children are grown. Of course, the entire community benefits from good schools, so you could call it self-interest - but many people (and not just Christians) really do feel some obligation to the next generation and the larger community.

If taxpayers vote to raise their own taxes in support of something they consider worth supporting, what is wrong with that? Again, the ones who do so are generally (in my experience) the same ones who are volunteering their time and contributing their own money to schools (and churches, etc).

[Joe Long]

Juli - to repeat my point again: NOTHING is morally wrong with the taxpayers deciding to raise their own taxes. They are, however, raising EVERYONE's taxes. That isn't necessarily wrong, EITHER. But it isn't THEIR money, it is government money. When an employee gets "confused" about what is his money, and what is his employer's, bad things happen to that employee.

Speaking personally, it IS my percieved duty to the next generation and to the larger community which drives my opposition to the current priorities of the public schools, and particularly to their insulation from competition and the lack of accountability for their funding.

I am glad your friends back up their beliefs with the donation of their efforts, time, and personal cash. I hope it helps their schools. I would be a great deal less thrilled with them "donating" MY money through taxes, democratic though the decision would be. References to "generosity" would be highly inappropriate regarding to that money, and the winners of the referendum calling it "their" money would gall me.

[kevin]

Very good point Juli I agree with you 100%.