|Moral Imperatives of Modern Culture||The Sweating of Business|
by Christopher Chantrill
November 21, 2008 at 9:57 am
IN THE CHAOS of defeat Republicans and conservatives feel most ashamed about the profligate spending. How was it that the conservative President Bush and the Republican Congress of 2001-2006 could have so increased the weight of government on the backs of the American peopleincluding that most shameful spending of all, earmarks?
The answer is simple. Republican politicians know that the American people dont really want to cut government. They found that out in the 1995 government shutdown battle with President Clinton.
This was obvious already at the beginning of the Reagan era when the Great Communicator declared at his inaugural In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. Then in 1984 he continued with the generalities in his radio address on waste, fraud, and abuse.
Talk like this betrays the fact that as soon as you get down to specifics, actually identifying programs that you want to cut, you lose the American people.
Lets look at the numbers from usgovernmentspending.com for 2009 (leaving out the trillions of bail-out money, of course):
Pensions: $891.1 billion
Health Care: $958.2 billion
Education: $873.7 billion
Defense: $806.1 billion
Welfare: $467.7 billion
Everything Else: $1,555.6 billion
Total Spending: $5,552.4 billion
Want to cut Pensions? Youll find its defended to the death by Social Security and public employee pension recipients. Want to cut Health Care? Try to persuade any woman in America that she has enough health care. Cut Education? You just dont care about kids.
But what about the trillion and a half of Everything Else? Well, good luck with that. Before you burrow down to the infernal earmarks, youll find general government expense, interest on the debt, police, judges, prisons, and water and sewer to contend with.
And of course, the American people just voted in President-elect Obama on a platform of increasing health-care and education expenditures, not to mention the fight against global warming.
The fact is that in the United States in 2008, most people instinctively feel that when theres a problem, the government should do something about it.
In the perspective of Michael Novaks model of The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism, this means that people believe that whenever there is a problem we should not look to the economic sector or to the moral/cultural sector to solve the problem. No, people immediately reach for government, the political sector. And the political sector is the realm of force and compulsion.
So that means that most people cannot conceive of solving a societal problem without force and compulsion. They cannot imagine pensions without government. They cannot imagine health care without government, and they cannot imagine education without government. And as long as they think that the weight of government will continue to increase.
Now you know the size of the problem as conservatives go into opposition.
In their everyday lives people do not think this way. They live by cooperation and persuasion. Yet now vast areas of our lives are controlled by political power. And there has never been a time when government had such powers as it has today.
We know how this has happened. The progressive educated class wanted it that way. In the mid 19th century Marx and Engels argued that unless the proletarians rose up and seized political power from the capitalists they would be immiserated as the capitalists threw them out of work. In the late 19th century Fabians wanted to replace the wasteful higgling of the market with genuine democracy based on rational factual socialist argument. In the early 20th century William James wanted to fill the political void once occupied by warlike activity with the moral equivalent of war. All these roads led to bigger government.
On their ascent to power the progressive educated class used these political weapons to great effect. The weapons hit home with the immigrant masses in the city and with each rising generation of the progressive educated elite.
A century of progressive politics has accustomed ordinary people to the vast powers of the state, and now most people cannot imagine a life that is not rigorously controlled by the political sector.
Conservatives are different. Our belief system is founded upon a vision of society with limited government and limited powers. We understand that this is only possible in a society where the power of the political sector is checked and balanced by equally powerful economic and moral/cultural sectors.
Conservatives ask citizens to live a life of faith and trust. Conservatives say: put not your trust in princes, but in the love of God. Conservatives say: get yourself a skill and then offer it to the world. Trust that the world will value your skills and offer a fair days pay for a fair days work. Conservatives say: give to the world. Give to your spouse, your family, your neighborhood, your city, and the world will give back.
Why in the world would anyone believe stuff like that?
The answer is simple. If you want to reduce the weight of government and the power of the progressive educated elite, then you have to believe stuff like that. Its the only game in town that offers the hope of a society of contract and trust and a reduction in the weight of government.
But how do we persuade the young people, who voted so enthusiastically for President-elect Obama, that the conservative way is the real way of hope and change, and that to build such a world you must force the political sector to share its power with the other equal sectors?
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.
[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050
Civil Societya complex welter of intermediate institutions, including businesses, voluntary associations, educational institutions, clubs, unions, media, charities, and churchesbuilds, in turn, on the family, the primary instrument by which people are socialized into their culture and given the skills that allow them to live in broader society and through which the values and knowledge of that society are transmitted across the generations.
Francis Fukuyama, Trust
[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists, she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican
[T]he Liberal, and still more the subspecies Radical... more than any other in these latter days seems under the impression that so long as he has a good end in view he is warranted in exercising over men all the coercion he is able[.]
Herbert Spencer, The Man Versus the State
These emerge out of long-standing moral notions of freedom, benevolence, and the affirmation of ordinary life... I have been sketching a schematic map... [of] the moral sources [of these notions]... the original theistic grounding for these standards... a naturalism of disengaged reason, which in our day takes scientistic forms, and a third family of views which finds its sources in Romantic expressivism, or in one of the modernist successor visions.
Charles Taylor, Sources of the Self
Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable...
[1.] protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; [2.] recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family... [3.] the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.
Pope Benedict XVI, Speech to European Peoples Party, 2006
No lesson seems to be so deeply inculcated by the experience of life as that you should never trust experts. If you believe doctors, nothing is wholesome: if you believe the theologians, nothing is innocent: if you believe the soldiers, nothing is safe. They all require their strong wine diluted by a very large admixture of insipid common sense.
Lord Salisbury, Letter to Lord Lytton
What distinguishes true Conservatism from the rest, and from the Blair project, is the belief in more personal freedom and more market freedom, along with less state intervention... The true Third Way is the Holy Grail of Tory politics today - compassion and community without compulsion.
Minette Marrin, The Daily Telegraph
In England there were always two sharply opposed middle classes, the academic middle class and the commercial middle class. In the nineteenth century, the academic middle class won the battle for power and status... Then came the triumph of Margaret Thatcher... The academics lost their power and prestige and... have been gloomy ever since.
Freeman Dyson, The Scientist as Rebel