Douthat and Salam—unfashionably, even heretically, in contemporary Republican circles—recognize that the new globalizing age, with the attendant dislocations being experienced by the “Sam’s Club” citizenry, calls for some considerable amount of government intervention. Given that Sam’s Club citizens are in many respects the backbone of the American citizenry, the nation has a decided interest in actively protecting the increasingly fragile institutions that support the values of hard work, self-sacrifice, family values, communal norms, and good citizenship.This is a powerful argument against settling for nothing less than conservative-libertarianism. I think it works because, quite frankly, libertarianism is not a very popular philosophy in modern America. Often times, I tend to romanticize the principles of the American founding. I tell myself: if we were only to embrace the principles of the Founding, of federalism, limited government and ! Good things would happen. Perhaps civil political discourse would return to our national dialogue. Hey - it would at least be better than this slouch towards relativism and socialism which so threatens our freedom from tyranny. But I digress.
Echoing older observations of Tocqueville, Douthat and Salam repeatedly note the likelihood that as democratic citizens are forced onto their own devices and are shorn of the bulwark of extended family and community, they will of necessity turn to the government for assistance, potentially ushering in a “massive tutelary state” that will gladly assume the functions of soft despotism. In the absence of public policies aimed at undergirding the unsteady pillars of civil society, the authors rightly suggest that truly collectivist policies of dependence will be the likely outcome if the only alternative on offer is a cold insistence on free markets and self-reliance alone.
Douthat and Salem's book seems to demonstrate the importance of political prudence (hah - I'll have to read it to be sure, I guess). There is always a great temptation for anyone who thinks seriously about politics to buy into a society that does not and cannot exist in reality, at least in the absence of a great revolution. We all have our "ideal" political community. There is the ever persistent temptation to become disenchanted with what is, and thus a temptation to neglect what is. We should be conscious of this, and not immediately dismiss calls for incremental reform.
4 comments:
If I understand this "argument," I guess I'm not very impressed. The same "argument" has been used to try to prop up every interest group since the Egyptian stone draggers were "threatened" by the wheel. What will we do without yeoman farmers? What will we do without buggy manufacturers? What will we do without the sliderule makers who are the "backbone of our nation?"
Well, we'll go on much as we have before and have a generally better life. Yes, functional illiteracy and an inability to appreciate anything more complex than a football game will be prohibitive traits, but maybe its time that the Sam's Club group rose above those markers, you think? Maybe Straussian conservatives could even learn how to think outside of 17th century cliches.
Hi Craig,
Thanks for your comment. I thought it was a provocative argument, and, seeing as it is a new idea to me, I am still not quite sure what I think of it.
If I was unclear, I think the strength of the argument lies in its analysis of the condition we find ourselves in. The case for libertarianism has been made very publicly (Ron Paul) and has been found unpalatable by a vast majority of the American people.
As I read Prof. Deneen, he is opposed to the increased scope of the federal government but is suggesting that when the choice is between libertarian-leaning policies (or lack thereof) and socialist-leaning policies (government handouts), people tend to choose the handouts every time.
It is therefore reasonable to suggest that we ought to offer some policies that bridge the gap between handouts and the total absence of governmental interference, with the long term goal of reducing the scope of the government.
Turn the tide, so to speak.
Maybe this is a bad idea, and will only produce a more convicted attitude and culture of dependence - I'm not quite sure yet.
What's the motto of the Heritage foundation again?
So, I guess that the "idea" might be summed up as fighting a forest fire by setting smaller fires? And that rationale for that is that people like destructive fires and so to "bridge the gap" we need to give them smaller fires rather than larger fires?
I am sorry, I just don't get this. Perhaps I don't get it because I am a former economist and a present lawyers. From economics I know that "property rights" are a bundle of rights to exercise control and use over a scarce thing. You can divide up that bundle in various ways [e.g., leases vs. fee ownership], but if you weaken the certainty with which any of the rights are enforceable people start to eqivalently treat the property in question as if it is a value-less object.
From law I know about the same thing from the other side - tell someone he's not really responsible for the damage he does and he'll be much less cautious about causing damage.
That is basically all there is in the social world - carrots and sticks. There is no "let's compromise with reality so people will get more real."
People who are taught that they can have what they want without being productive produce less. People who are taught that they need not be careful about the harm they inflict on others inflict more harm. The mental state or beliefs of such people don't matter. It doesn't matter whether they believe that is the way they will act or whether they believe in a reality that imposes the costs of bad acts on someone and gives the rewards of good acts to someone, they still act in accord with positive and negative incentives and the world still reacts accordingly.
So, I really don't have any idea what you and the Professor are talking about. Are you trying to coddle the neurotic into becoming psychotic?
Craig,
The goal of this idea is to move away from dependence on the federal government. What's the best way to do that?
Is it simply to tell people that we cannot be dependent on the federal government for anything and advocate the abolition of large entrenched federal programs?
What if this isn't popular - what if people like their handouts or the feeling they get from advocating handouts ?
Is there something else we can do to move in the direction of less government? Maybe not. I guess I don't really know either way.
What types of policies would you advocate?
Post a Comment