Tag Archives: duty

Conservatism and Liberalism

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote yesterday about who a Conservative is; today I’d like to discuss the relationship between conservatism and liberalism, and how the two evolve.

The relationship between the two is fairly stable—conservatism and liberalism have generally oppositional views of how best to support our people and our country—it’s their individual roles in politics that evolve.  Indeed, the two have swapped roles since our founding.

In broad, general terms, an 18th Century Conservative holds a fundamental belief about the role of government in men’s lives similar to the more or less enlightened view delineated by Edmund Burke contemporaneously with our Revolution.

Burke has been termed a friend of the American colonies for his support for them and for their rights in the English Parliament.  However, he was a monarchist through and through.  He argued forcefully for our rights as Englishmen, true enough.  But those rights, in his view, consisted entirely of the right to be subjects of a pater familias monarchy, of a government that claimed for itself the authority to define the detail of that right, to define for today what our freedoms might be—until the monarchy saw fit to withdraw those rights, those freedoms tomorrow.  This was so because a mere commoner was viewed as incapable of reason, he could not determine for himself what was best for him: he needed the…guidance…of his betters.  Moreover, the right to govern, circularly, was an inheritable right, but only by those already comprising that government, for their superior fitness to govern was demonstrated by their being part of the government.

Set in contrast to that, as I noted in that earlier post, the 18th Century Liberal belief of the sovereignty of man over his government; the principle that legitimate government can only be formed by men themselves, voluntarily; and that liberties and responsibilities are inherent in each of us individually as gifts from God, not severally as handouts from government.  Thus, a man, says that 18th Century Liberal, has rights and responsibilities that are indivisible from him because they are inherent in his humanity, in his very existence.  And he has the innate wherewithal, from that, to determine his own lot in accordance with his own imperatives.

Then government exists to protect these rights and for no other purpose.  When such a government strays too far from this duty, the citizens of this wholly voluntary polity have an equally inalienable right (in the Declaration of Independence, our Founders aver a duty, as did Locke) to do whatsoever is necessary to bring that government to heel or to replace it with a more obedient one.  This is the very antithesis of the world of governance extant in the 18th Century Conservative’s mind.

That 18th Century Conservative’s view was repackaged and articulated in more modern terms by (among others) Theodore Roosevelt and Herb Croly, founders of the Progressive (modern Liberal) movement early in the 20th century.  Since, it has become the central theme of liberals generally (for instance, Democratic Party Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said that she was a proud Progressive).  Here is what Herb Croly wrote in his The Promise of American Life,  in 1909:

To be sure, any increase in centralized power and responsibility, expedient or inexpedient, is injurious to certain aspects of traditional American democracy.  But the fault in that case lies with the democratic tradition; and the erroneous and misleading tradition must yield before the march of constructive national democracy….  [T]he average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

President Theodore Roosevelt, in his 1904 Annual Message to Congress, had this to say:

The Government must in increasing degree supervise and regulate the workings of the railways engaged in interstate commerce.

And again, in his 1908 Annual Message [emphasis added]:

The chief reason, among the many sound and compelling reasons, that led to the formation of the National Government was the absolute need that the Union, and not the several States, should deal with interstate and foreign commerce; and the power to deal with interstate commerce was granted absolutely and plenarily to the central government…. The proposal to make the National Government supreme over, and therefore to give it complete control over, the railroads and other instruments of interstate commerce is merely a proposal to carry out to the letter one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose, for which the Constitution was founded.

And again, in his 1910 New Nationalism speech:

It has become entirely clear that we must have government supervision of the capitalization, not only of public-service corporations, including, particularly, railways, but of all corporations doing an interstate business.

…

We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used.  It is not even enough that it should have gained without doing damage to the community.  We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.

Because Big Government knows best how to manage business, for what purpose a man should be required to use the fruits of his labor, and that man can be allowed [sic] to enjoy his success only in approved ways.

We’ve seen this desire in modern Liberals—Progressives—to insert Big Government into our economy, into our lives, with the 21st century nationalization of both our health insurance industry and our health care industry and with the effective control over our financial industry achieved with Dodd-Frank and its unconstrained Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

We’ve also seen the Progressive disdain for our Constitution—the product of those 18th Century Liberals—and thus for the rule of law in, for instance, unconstitutional “recess” appointments of officials while the Senate was in session and in the imposition by regulation of that which our representatives in Congress had explicitly rejected.  This is rule by the men of government, instead.

We’ve also seen their modern belief in Big Government clearly stated.  In October 2008, Democratic Party Presidential Candidate Barack Obama, responding to a citizen questioner in Toledo, OH, who asked “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn’t it?” said, “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”  And President Obama said at a rally in Quincy, IL in April 2010, “I think at a certain point, you’ve made enough money.”  Here is the Progressive saying in so many words that Progressives in government know better how to dispose of a man’s property, how his money should be spent, what constitutes sufficient wealth.  How a man should be allowed to enjoy what success he is to be permitted to achieve.

Today’s opposition to this Progressive liberalism is the modern Conservative: a man who now seeks to conserve those 18th century liberal principles that are fundamental to the American social compact.

Notice that: the names have reversed position, with what was once known as liberal now known as conservative, and what was once thought conservative has become liberal, but this evolution is one of name only (this often is a point of confusion when talking about liberalism vs conservatism).

But the fundamental tenets remain unchanged.  One respects the wisdom of the individual, common man and holds him sovereign over government, with rights and duties inherent in each as endowments from our Creator.  The other, in contradiction, hews to the view of government as the solution, and so government must grow to meet the problems of the day; what we obtain, and how we enjoy it, are for government to determine.

The monarchist is now the champion of Big Government and wants to change from limited government to that Big Government, while the limited government erstwhile liberal wants to conserve those principles of limited government and of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

What is a Conservative?

Posted on by
1

This post—a long one, so heads up—borrows heavily from a premise I develop early in my book A Conservative’s Manifesto.

One theme that ran through the English colonies in North America, early on, was the view that some men are better than others, and those others are born to be led—they have no liberty, only those “freedoms” and “rights” handed down from on high by the government that rules over them.  The common man is incapable of reason, is unable to decide what is best for himself, and must be led by his betters.  Of course, this governance always is for only the best of reasons: “We know better,” and “It’s for your own good.”  And it flowed, then, from a pater familias and kindly king.

However, those same colonists were an essentially self-selected population of men and women who had gotten fed up with the religious persecutions rampant in the Old World—both Great Britain and the European continent.  They also were tired of the lack of political and social freedom of that former life, especially as those stood in stark and growing contrast with the lives circumstance forced them to lead in these New World colonies.  No fatherly monarch, no benevolent and watchful Parliament, stood guard over these people; they were far too remote geographically, and rapidly becoming so emotionally, as well.  These men and women had, for their very survival, to depend on themselves and on each other, to rely on their own creativity and their own initiative—as, for instance, the survivors of the Jamestown and Plymouth colonies discovered.  They began to see, empirically, that they were capable of reason, they were fully able to decide what was best for themselves.

As a result, the colonists, having already selected themselves according to a characteristic of being able to seek something better for themselves, also began to understand what “better” might be and to pursue it.  This growing realization and a parallel growing sense of themselves as peers (in several senses of that word, even though lacking in title) of their English cousins in the empire, rather than as dependents, accelerated rapidly in the 18th century.  Their growing sense of distance and separation was helped along by an increasingly intrusive monarchy and Parliament as Great Britain sought to strengthen its hold on the colonies—both to preserve Empire and as weapons against continental powers in an also rapidly growing economic and political competition.

The American Revolution began when two major groups of people got fed up.  It began when the gentleman farmers, the lawyers, and the well-educated (most of them church school educated, church schools being the dominant source of secondary education), many of whom were men of the cloth—this colonial aristocracy, this American gentry—finally had had enough of interference from a monarchy distant and remote, not only geographically, but psychologically and morally, as well.  These men knew Locke and Rousseau, and their classical education also had taught them Roman and Greek ideas of law and polity.

The Revolution also began when the merchants, the businessmen, the small farmers, the laborers, these men who worked for a living (with no pejorative intended toward the American gentry) had had enough of interference with their business, with their pocketbooks, with their livelihoods, with their ability simply to do as they wished, from a monarchy distant and remote, not only geographically, but psychologically and morally, as well.

These two groups of colonials, one perhaps articulating the problems more crisply than the other, had done with the crown’s trampling on individual liberties, had done with the crown’s separation of man’s natural rights from the men themselves—rights that Locke had recognized and described 100 years prior and that Rousseau was articulating simultaneously with the growing colonial rejection of crown abuses of them.  Although the proximate causes of the Revolution were economic and political, the Revolution was broader and more far-reaching.  With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, the gentlemen mutually pledged to each other their Lives, their Fortunes, and their sacred Honor, and they enlisted the common man to the cause of freedom, as well.  Thus, the second paragraph of our Declaration of Independence contains an explicit reaffirmation of these natural rights as elucidated by Locke and Rousseau:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

As our Founders wrote, building on Locke and Rousseau, the relationship between the citizens of a polity and that polity’s government is a social contract that is originated by the citizens, among the citizens, and that is maintained by the citizens.  The government is an instrument of the people, not the other way around.

Thomas Paine wrote in Common Sense during the winter of 1776 while actively fomenting rebellion, “A government of our own is our natural right….”  Paine repeated this in 1791 in his Rights of Man:

There never did, there never will, and there never can exist a parliament, or any description of men, or any generation of men, in any country, possessed of the right or the power of binding and controuling posterity to the “end of time,” or of commanding for ever how the world shall be governed or who shall govern it: and therefore all such clauses, acts or declarations, by which the makers of them attempt to do what they have neither the right nor the power to do, nor the power to execute, are in themselves null and void.

Further, as Locke and Rousseau emphasized, and as our Founders acknowledged in word and their action of the Rebellion, these natural rights cannot be given up by man to a government; they are God’s gift to man and so are indivisible from us.

Our Founders went further.  Not only is a government the servant of the people, the direction of this relationship utterly determines and controls the nature of the powers that the government has.  This government, this object of the social contract that men have with each other to create that government has only those powers, only those authorities and permissions, explicitly granted to that government by the people in their social contract with each other; and that government has no other such powers, authorities, or permissions whatsoever.

Thus, the social contract which our Founders wrote and which Americans approved among themselves and for themselves, includes the Constitution of the United States, which created a government with the following structure, carefully crafted to correct the deficiencies, both moral and physical, of the monarchy being replaced.

  • an assemblage of representatives of the people, elected by the people.  (Originally, one part of this assemblage, the Senate, had its members chosen by the States’ elected assemblies, in turn elected by the citizens of each state).
  • to counterbalance this assemblage, a national executive officer, also elected by the people (albeit indirectly; the choice is made by an Electoral College, but the electors of a particular State are chosen by a mechanism determined by that State’s legislature, and these legislatures, again, are elected by the citizens of the respective State).
  • counterbalancing these two, an independent judiciary as a third equal branch of the government, whose purpose is to try matters of law, both civil and criminal as created by the representatives and carried out by the executive officer.  The Supreme Court of the United States also makes the final determination, when particular cases rise through the appellate process to it, of the Constitutionality, the legitimacy, of any law.

It originally was envisioned that gentlemen would become the elected officials.  The thinking here was that gentlemen, having no pecuniary interest in the world, were best suited to govern because they would do so disinterestedly and solely with the best interests of the nation at heart (centuries old habits die hard, even in the fire of Revolution).  Here is where the radicalism of our Revolution appears.  The citizen soldiers, the common man, who did most of the actual fighting (through their sheer numbers in the continental forces; this is not to denigrate the sacrifices of gentry, who fought with every bit as much courage and sacrifice), took the American aristocracy, the gentlemen of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Paine with his pamphleteering, et al., at their word: government should flow up from the people and not down from the pinnacle of an aristocracy.  These private citizens and these pecuniary merchants and businessmen voted in earnest, alongside the gentlemen, in the elections subsequent to victory, and more radically, they stood for office and got elected to city governments and to State and Federal office, in competition with the gentlemen.

Thus, this liberal/radical movement, for this is what it was, even though it was not so organized, brings us to the major outcome of our Revolution.  Society, politics, and the underlying conceptualization of these were changed completely in our new nation compared to the English colonies of just a few short years prior:

  • A completely new social contract among the citizens of the new country was created, one which laid out the new nation’s principles of liberty and which created a republican government subordinate to the people, who are sovereign in that new nation, and which removed all monarchy from the polity.
  • Perhaps most importantly, the individual was recognized as politically superior to government, in control of government, with national sovereignty acknowledged as residing solely in the people and not at all in the government.
  • Related to this, government was recognized to be, and created as, an instrument of the people with the sole purpose of protecting the individual’s natural rights.
  • Religious tolerance (not merely nominal freedom) replaced persecution, and the new government-as-people’s-servant was explicitly enjoined from taking any action that might even begin to seem like taking a stand on religion.
  • Society was severed from government.  Perquisites of social standing, business deals, honors, and the like no longer flowed from a monarchical peak downward through a pyramid of class relationships.
  • Society itself changed and was no longer hierarchical.  Who one was or could ever be was no longer defined by to whom one was connected or where one lived.  Who one was or could become was defined instead by the character and characteristics of that person.
  • More than not merely not hierarchical, society became truly classless:
    • The relationship between a common man and a gentleman changed.  One might work for the other (it was, indeed, a two way relationship, as many of the gentleman were economically ruined by the war and others were unable to collect enough in rents to cover expenses, and so these gentlemen had to work for pay, as well), but each was the equal of the other where it most mattered—civilly, in the eyes of the law and in open court; religiously as our social contract also explicitly recognized, in the eyes of God.
    • Businessmen and merchants were getting elected to legislatures at all levels of government jurisdiction; government service no longer was the sole province of disinterested gentlemen.
  • Central government was limited to a very few, explicitly identified powers.  If the Federal government didn’t have these powers, the people did or their State governments did, and neither needed any permission from the Federal government to exercise them.  Further, the non-named powers were not government’s to give or to withhold; they resided solely in the people or their State governments—which, being closer to the people, were even more directly under their control.

And so we come now to my definition of an 18th Century Liberal.  The Liberal movement had succeeded in withdrawing government from its absolute control over life, and the movement had replaced that with a government that was subordinated to free men as a product of a social contract among free men, with the sole function of preserving the individual liberty of free men, and with powers limited to exactly those necessary to achieve that end and no more.

This Liberal movement also had changed the state of mind of man from that of a dependent whose worth, whose very definition, depended on his connection to others in a governing hierarchy, and restored him to his proper status as a free and sovereign individual and thereby restored to him his understanding of his own true worth.

This movement had restored man, with his rights morally inseparable from his person.  This movement had restored to the individual man his own morality, his own responsibility to act and to accept the consequences of those actions.

This movement had restored to the individual man his freedom of choice.  This movement had restored to him the actual ability to enter into agreements, of his own free will, with his fellow man, and to engage those agreements for any purpose he would—including the purpose of forming a government that can, and can be required to, devote itself to the preservation of his abilities and of his freedoms.

In sum, this movement had restored to the individual man his rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.  This movement was consummated by these men, now finally freed of a government thrust upon them against their will (a government which tended to deny the very freedom of that will), reaching an agreement among themselves on the proper nature of a government working for them as sovereign, and then by their establishing that government.

An 18th Century Liberal, then, is a person who recognizes and acts to achieve and to support the following:

  • The individual man is sovereign over his person and his beliefs.
  • The individual man, acting in concert with his fellows, is sovereign over their common polity.
  • The individual man is the sole decision maker as to what he will or will not do, and is acknowledged to have a rationality and freedom of will to do so.
  • The individual man is the sole person responsible for the outcomes of his actions.
  • The individual man is fallen and imperfect but can take his own steps to improve himself, both in physical circumstance and morally, without government mandating those improvements or their means of achievement.
  • The government formed through the mutual agreement of these free men is subordinate to, responsible to, and has only those powers explicitly granted it by, those free men.
  • The government formed through the mutual agreement of these free men must be kept small and limited to, and in, the powers granted it by those free men.
  • The government formed through the mutual agreement of these free men has as its sole purpose the preservation of the liberties of those free men.”

Our contract thus acknowledges that we begin life equal—created equal, equal under law, with equal opportunity—while protecting our freedoms to pursue our own interests and to achieve our own goals without government interference.  This is key: freedom to do as we will and sole ownership of our private property are inseparable from our responsibility for our actions; if we cannot act freely, if we do not own our property exclusive of all other claims, then we cannot assume that full responsibility.  On the other hand, if we do not assume that responsibility, if we somehow slip that off onto another entity (government, for instance), then we give up control over our actions—we lose our freedom.

Now, what is a Conservative?  Today’s Conservative is that 18th Century Liberal: he lives by the principles codified in our social contract, written 230 years ago, which has needed modification only a few times, and then only after open national debate of those specific Amendments.  A modern Conservative trusts to the wisdom, talent, and strength of the individual American citizen, acting individually or in concert with his fellows (a non-government collective action), to resolve crises and to make better lives for ourselves and our children, doing so without the hindrance of government welfare.  A modern Conservative recognizes that on those rare occasions where government assistance is warranted, that assistance must be narrowly defined, short-lived, and a last resort.

Who Has Israel’s Back?

Posted on by
Reply

Not the Obama administration.  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lately pressed Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama to make clear what—if anything—would trigger a concrete response to Iranian efforts to obtain nuclear weapons—an effort that is very near to success.  Netanyahu also said that the Obama administration and other Western “allies,” by failing to draw a bright red line, lack the moral authority to press Israel not to preemptively attack Iran.

If Iran knows that there’s no deadline, what will it do?  Exactly what it’s doing: it’s continuing without any interference towards obtaining nuclear weapons capability and from there nuclear bombs[.]

Obama insists that concrete measures are unnecessary: a campaign of financial pressure and diplomacy are sufficient.  Never mind that he’s waived key parts of the sanctions for 20 of Iran’s primary trading partners—including Russia and the People’s Republic of China.  Indeed, Obama flatly refuses to set red lines.  He doesn’t want to be committed to actual action.

Netanyahu has asked to meet with Obama on the matter while in New York, or in DC, were that more convenient to Obama.  Obama, though, refused the meeting.  No, the candidate would rather be out campaigning than doing the foreign policy part of his job.

Israeli officials confirmed to Fox News that the White House had rejected their request.  A White House spokesman also confirmed that Obama is not expected to meet with Netanyahu anywhere, citing “scheduling conflicts.”  Further, according to the spokesman,

They’re simply not in the city at the same time.

Never mind the offer to be in a city at the same time.  And more weasel-words from the candidate, through his surrogates: Tuesday, they released a statement denying that any formal offer was made for a meeting in the capital—without saying whether an offer was made for a meeting elsewhere, like New York.

Contrary to reports in the press, there was never a request for Prime Minister Netanyahu to meet with President Obama in Washington, nor was a request for a meeting ever denied[.]

No formal request.  And no denial that the informal, impromptu request was made and rejected.

Further, the statement said that while the guy who occasionally sits in the President’s chair will be addressing the UN General Assembly and the Clinton Global Initiative, he will not be having one-on-one meetings with world leaders; this should not be seen as a snub of Netanyahu.

Sure.  The leader of a nation whose very existence is threatened from a nuclear assault is just one among many leaders.  No big deal.

Sounds like excuse-making to me.  Obamatalk.

Former Ambassador John Bolton has a slightly different take:

I don’t see it so much as a snub as a horrible, substantive mistake in American foreign policy.

After four years, this guy still isn’t ready for the big leagues?  And he said what about Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s foreign policy readiness?

Which Party is the More Worthy?

Posted on by
Reply

One party trusts Americans to make our own decisions, to see to our own prosperity, to honor our own obligations.  This party wants to see a smaller government that is less intrusive into our business’ and our private affairs, wants to reform, and so to preserve the principles underlying, Social Security and Medicare—including privatizing significant portions of them, trusting us to make our own decisions wisely—wants to foster an economic environment that restores our equality of opportunity so that, in the Theodore Roosevelt’s words, each American can “show the best that there is in him.”

The other party says we Americans are not able to make the right decisions; we need government to see to our prosperity for us, to assume responsibility in our place.  This is the party of affirmative action, insisting that some of us must be carefully sheltered and nurtured (and based on the color of our skin and not on the content of our character) because the best that there is in us just isn’t good enough.  This is the party of wealth redistribution because some Americans are inherently incapable of working toward our own, in John Adams’ terms, “safety and happiness;” we cannot make wise decisions on our own accord.  This is the party that says government must take our wealth and redistribute it in particular ways to particular groups of us because the party does not believe we can—or will—honor our own duty to take care of those around us who are less fortunate.

But It’s the Wrong Problem

Posted on by
Reply

Ron Williams, a former Chairman and CEO of Aetna Inc, in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, described his evolution toward opposition of Obamacare’s Individual Mandate, which he had supported initially.  He then offered a couple of alternatives to the Individual Mandate; however his alternative solutions are as erroneous as the Individual Mandate is an overreach of Federal government power.  The reason for his error is that he’s pursuing the wrong problem.

Williams says

As a society, we have a moral obligation to ensure everyone has access to affordable health care.  We must find a way to cover those who are no longer healthy but need care.

No.  There is a difference between health care and health insurance; the two are conflated far too often—sometimes cynically and deliberately, sometimes out of genuine ignorance, and sometimes just out of careless thought.  People who are no longer healthy do not need health insurance; they need health care.  We must find a way to help them to get that care.  Moreover, this social obligation is not at all a government obligation, or even a legitimate government task.  Society is not our government—it is us.

When government butts out of our affairs, when it leaves our money in our hands, it becomes a lot easier for us as individuals to see to our obligations ourselves, and in our own way.  Then we can do more of what we need to do—directly, or through our local communities, or through our churches and private charities, or some combination of these.  Government legitimately comes into play only as a last resort, not the first resort—or only resort, as some would have it—and the Federal government must be last among these.  New York’s tax funds, to the extent they’re involved at all, should go first to New York’s poor, not first into a general national pile from which, for instance, Illinois or California might draw ad lib.

On top of that, competitively sold health insurances policies, sold nationwide rather than within 50 different state jurisdictions, would be a powerful market solution that would potentiate our ability as a society to act on this imperative.