Blogora Classic: Jim Aune on The Case for Conservatism, November 16, 2004

November 16, 2004

The Case for Conservatism

Having now caught up on the various comments on Blogora about the election and political rhetoric generally, I want to post some excerpts from a paper I gave at NCA on Nancy Fraser and Axel Honneth's "debate" in their recent book Recognition or Redistribution. I see some rumblings about political "bias" on Blogora, so in the interests of argument I want to see if I can make a good case for the conservative position in U.S. politics. (I leave out foreign policy concerns from the argument, mainly because they complicate things. One can, for example, be a social democrat and still support war with Iraq.) My understanding of the conservative argument is that it rests on two potentially contradictory theses: one on the value of the free market and the other on the importance of "subsidiarity." 

The free market argument is best represented by Millian classical liberals like Richard Posner and Deirdre McCloskey: the genius of modern capitalism is that has addressed issues of redistribution and recognition simultaneously. We will never know how much economic growth in post-WWII U.S. and Europe was advanced or retarded by government intervention, whether in the form of Keynesian fiscal policy, the legitimation of collective bargaining and unionization, or the creation of a social safety net for the poor, aged, and disabled, but the evidence suggests that these “mixed” economies (from the relatively less regulated U.S. to the heavily regulated Scandinavian countries) were more successful in reducing poverty, expanding the middle class, and creating educational opportunities than any other socioeconomic systems in history. Well-functioning markets redistribute wealth efficiently by allowing resources to flow to their most-valued uses, and by providing the tax base for government aid to the less fortunate. Social security and the earned-income tax credit, for example, have been effective tools of redistribution largely because of the popular perception that they reward those who work, and they are universal in application (as opposed to less-popular policies that have been equally redistributive, such as the role of affirmative action in expanding the black middle class, but are perceived as beholden to “special interests”). Why would one want to make a revolutionary leap into the socialist void and jeopardize the very real achievements of “actually existing” Western democracies? One might want to raise taxes on the wealthy to levels of, say, the 1950’s, when economic growth was even higher than now, but partisan differences about taxation levels don’t negate the classical liberal contention that economic growth per se is a positive good.

Honneth attributes progress in recognition-theoretical terms to the three forces of “love,” “law,” and “merit” arising with liberal democracy. To these we might also add the market itself. The same features of the market that trouble Fraser (its invisibility, its role in exploitation) actually enhance recognition. In the most famous passage from Philosophical Letters, Voltaire observed, "Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion, and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt." One is less likely to be oppressed as a woman, gay, etc. in the most powerful enclaves of corporate capitalism, both because of corporate support for affirmative action and the need to find markets. Gay men and lesbians are consumers, and thus their money is “as green as everyone else’s.” Money and a liberal-rights regime allow cultural orders to flourish on their own terms, often without state intervention; e.g. Orthodox Jews in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, gay men in the Montrose neighborhood of Houston, or Arab Muslims in Detroit.

A Burkeian conservative or traditional Roman Catholic social theorist might argue that neither redistribution nor recognition are effective social policies without the following: a consensus on core values, grounded in the “little platoons” of family and neighborhood; a commitment to “subsidiarity,” the idea that public actions should take place at the social level that directly effects citizens. Burke put it this way: To love the little platoon we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of publick affections." (Reflections on the Revolution in France, 1790.) In Pope John Paul II’s 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus he criticized the “social assistance” state for contradicting subsidiarity and depriving society of its responsibility. This “leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” Having been a client of the social assistance state for over 16 years now because I have two autistic boys, I can attest to the accuracy of the Pope’s characterization. The increase in crime, homelessness, family breakdown, and drug addiction characteristic of the past thirty years reflect the breakdown of the family system. Unregulated capitalism and an ideological commitment to free trade have perhaps contributed to the financial instability of American families, as reflective conservatives such as Patrick Buchanan or Allan Carlson have noted. Lack of voter participation and the “legitimation crisis” of Western institutions are caused by the increased bureaucratic centralization of power in Washington or Brussels. The only answer U.S. liberals have to social problems is increase federal government power, thus disempowering states and local governments as laboratories of democracy, in Brandeis’ famous phrase. A radical federalism, combined with the use of “faith-based” institutions to deliver the traditional welfare functions of the government, as well as a commitment to maintaining stable two-parent families, are solutions to the problems of both maldistribution of income, as well as to failures of recognition. Parental control of neighborhood schools, whether they be African-American, Islamic, or Southern Baptist, would restore a sense of “recognition” lacking in the "red states" targeted by Republicans.

These two points are what I take to be the core of the conservative position, as thoughtfully articulated by Michael Novak or Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, among others. I happen to think they're both wrong, and also that an unregulated market cannot coexist with the kinds of family values espoused by social conservatives, but I think our political debates would be richer if we took these arguments seriously.

Posted by jim at November 16, 2004 04:00 PM

The possible "contradiction" you point to is one that becomes really manifest in the systems argued for by secular libertarian/anarcho-capitalist types (i.e. Ayn Rand). Of course, for them, the moral issues involved with materialism and consumerism aren't that important.

On the other hand, the two people you cite (Novak and Neuhaus), would I think acknowledge the possible confluence between a sort of lassez-faire capitalism (or radical free trade) and the decline of cultural and moral values. This point of possible "contradiction" in the interests of conservatives is precisely why capitalism needs moral underpinnings.

One question to raise is whether the decline of cultural and moral values is catalyzed more by the free market than it is by socialism. I happen to think that the structures themselves tend to provide the framework within which it is more or less likely to have a virtuous society, but that it is not a simple equation whereing capitalism = a virtuous populace. From a Christian perspective, I think, the moral makeup of the people is achieved through the work of the church (e.g. salt and light) and not via the coercive power of the State OR through the persuasive power of the market. At best, the power of the State is limited to preserving a form of civil good, but its preservational ability is limited by the makeup of its citizenry. It's hard to imagine a functioning society in which the majority of the citizens committed murder regularly, for example.

The importance of the free market and the need for subsidiarity, when combined with an emphasis on personal responsiblity and moral virtue, thus become complementary theses, neither of which are fully adequate without the other.

For more on this, I suggest "Toward a Free and Virtuous Society," by Rev. Robert Sirico:
http://www.acton.org/publicat/occasionalpapers/virtuous.html

Posted by: Jordan at November 18, 2004 10:14 AM

I regularly read materials from the Acton Institute. It is a subject of intense amusement to me to read a Catholic priest arguing for subsidiarity in light of the pedophile scandals in the Church. As the parent of two autistic boys I now can look forward to a Republican future in which they are beaten by Baptists or raped by priests in faith-based institutions after I die. . .

Posted by: jim at November 18, 2004 12:23 PM

Since I'm not Catholic, I don't feel bound to defend the hierarchical structure of the Roman church, which I think tends to promote the sort of abuses to which you refer.

Of course, it should be of even greater amusement to you then that JPII places such great emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity, as you point out in your post (sans vitriol) since he's the earthly head of the Church...someone with a bit more control over the structure and activity of the Church than a priest.

And as far as Baptist beatings, I'm not really sure what you are talking about. If you were taking the arguments of the conservatives seriously, however you would know that this hypothetical "Republican" future you reference certainly wouldn't require you to commit your boys to any particular institution.

I'm sure you could find a program run by some nice atheists who wouldn't mistreat them. And you'd be free, in fact, encouraged, to place them where you chose.

At least you'd have options that wouldn't otherwise be available to you, as in a situation where you have to rely on the state and "a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending."

In any case, I wonder if your response is indicative of an approach which takes the conservative "arguments seriously." Do you read the Acton Institute materials seriously or only for your "intense amusement"?

Posted by: Jordan at November 18, 2004 01:18 PM

I am most emphatically not an atheist, I must point out. I attend religious services regularly and contribute to my religious organization financially and with service. My boys also have been served well for 16 years by hard-working, underpaid, and underappreciated public school teachers and aides. All the group homes for the disabled in my community are now in the process of being closed down by the state, because of no money. As Jesus said, "By their fruits shall ye know them."

Posted by: Jim at November 18, 2004 02:27 PM

I'm sorry that you inferred I meant to call you an atheist. I was merely attempting to describe a hypothetical future situation in which you wouldn't have to rely on Baptists or Catholics. There are myriad other options beyond the Baptist-Catholic-athiest triumvirate, of course. Your derision for the former two seemed to revolve around their "faith-based"-ness, so I chose to use an example that was as far removed from such odious "faith based"-ness as I could.

Posted by: Jordan at November 19, 2004 10:59 AM

Re: the claim that an unregulated market economy cannot exist alongside the kinds of family values that social conservatives desire. I have two questions for Jim:

First question: If the welfare state (or any apparatus--socialist, interventionist, statist, local, federal--ensuring “security” from the market’s inequities and its volatilities) lures the material wolf from the door by guaranteeing protection from hunger, early death, etc., then does socialism in the end promote an environment where “family values” truly can be debated? (I guess this is a variation on Hannah Arendt’s claim that if the oikos is secured for all citizens, the public space of action can grow to its deserved prominence.)

Second question. If ensuring security removes material issues from the rhetorical table, then did western mixed economies create the conditions for the kinds of alliances that we see in contemporary conservatism: social values driving the discussion with free-market policy tramping along in the empty railcars? In short, does the welfare state make “family values” the principal issue while libertarian policies sneak along under the rhetorical radar?

These are real questions that I have. They’re raised by my recently having read Inglehart’s _Modernization and Postmodernization_, a theoretically thin but statistically fat volume mapping the rhetorical terrain of “advanced,” welfare-state democracies like the US. His conclusion is that the welfare state does take the wolf from the door, allowing recognition to trump redistribution. I’m wondering what to make of this in light of your arguments about taking conservatism seriously.

Posted by: Mark G. at November 19, 2004 12:21 PM