The Conservative Contradiction

[BX 0]

I saw this at Legal Fiction, which is fast becoming my favorite blog. I whole-heartedly agree with his assertion that the capitalist, free-market system is the true cause of many of our societies ills.

 

GOLDBERG'S HOMERUN - The True Cause of "Moral Decline"

__________

 

It’s not every day that you read something profound on National Review Online, but credit where credit is due. Jonah Goldberg could not possibly be more correct than he was yesterday. In what seemed like a casual aside, Goldberg stumbled on to something much, much bigger:

 

 

[O]ne of the reasons Gingrich was such a useful foil for Clinton is the inherent contradiction within the conservative movement. Conservatives are the chief defenders of a capitalist, free-market system, and the capitalist, free-market system is perhaps the most profoundly unconservative social force in human history. Markets topple established customs, they raze settled communities and erase whole ways of life.

 

A-friggin’-men. I’ve made this precise argument before (since I was in college, really), though I haven’t been able to find where I did (those archives are getting longer). Anyway, I cannot stress how important - and interesting - this point is. It exposes the massive internal contradiction that lurks within much of modern conservative philosophy.

 

Aside from the pure libertarian wing (which isn’t that large), the heart of the modern Republican Party is a strange hybrid of economic libertarianism (or classical liberalism) and social paternalism (or illiberalism). An example will help explain what I mean. My friend Feddie over at Southern Appeal wrote a post this week lamenting the rampant individualism and the “me culture” that he sees with respect to various social issues in America today. Obviously, I disagree with many of his views on the merits, but that’s not the point today. The point is that Feddie, like many other social conservatives, is most certainly not a libertarian with respect to social issues. His argument is that social libertarianism is amoral and lacks the values necessary for a healthy society:

 

 

Sadly, most Americans have bought into the idea that nothing matters more than their personal happiness. But embracing this form of radical individualism has a profound effect on society: It creates a culture of death and despair.

 

Fine. But here’s my question. Why isn’t that exact same logic applied in the economic sphere as well? You know who Feddie sounds like when he talks like this? Karl Marx. Marx viewed Western liberalism (classical liberalism - meaning libertarianism, not Ted Kennedy) as morally bankrupt as well. The freedoms of Western liberalism were inherently amoral because it was content to let people "freely" starve and live horrible lives under the control of the more powerful. Marx wanted to impose a value-laden order upon an amoral economic libertarianism. It’s the exact same logic that Feddie was applying, except that Marx applied it to the economic realm rather than the social realm.

 

So the question is – why? Why aren’t more social conservatives favoring Democratic economics (which are – at least on the margins – more concerned with intervention in the name of values and empathy). There’s been a big debate about why working-class conservatives seem to be voting against their financial self-interest. The standard conservative response is that these people are (rightly) valuing morality over materialism. Fine, but that doesn’t answer the question. Specifically, it doesn’t explain why working-class constituents continue to favor economic policies that hurt them. I mean, they could have both, right? If they were being purely rational, they would support socially conservative policies and economic policies that value everyday Americans over the plutocracy. Blue-collar conservatives aren’t irrational because they’re voting Republican. They’re irrational because they support policies that hurt them (especially from an opportunity costs perspective) even after Republicans win and the threat of Democrats is long gone (see, e.g., the South).

 

I’m getting a little off-track. Here’s the big point I wanted to make, and this is what Jonah was getting at. I think that most conservatives are blaming the wrong victim. They look around and lament the decline of the moral order, the decline of the community, the decline of the family, and the increase of various social ills from drug use to teen pregnancy. The problem, though, is they blame it on the wrong man. They blame it on the moral decline caused by 1960s, or Hollywood, or rap music, or college professors, or ending school prayer, or the lack of the Ten Commandments. To them (and this is critical), the real problem is some abstract notion of a “decline” in “moral values,” however that concept is defined.

 

But that’s the wrong man, my friends. The real culprit is free-market capitalism. So much of what conservatives see as the breakdown of traditional social orders were caused by concrete economic forces, and not by some abstract decline of the even more abstract concept of moral values.

 

Look at what Jonah said - “Markets topple established customs, they raze settled communities and erase whole ways of life.” That’s got to be true, right? What do you think is causing the worldwide fundamentalist backlash? Values? What does that even mean? No, it's caused by the concrete stresses of globalization. The markets are changing the world order and scaring the hell out of people – whether through technology or immigration or economic dislocation.

 

But let’s look at the more local issue of the perceived breakdown of the American family. Is this supposed breakdown of families and communities caused by a decline in values? Again, what does that mean – and how can you test your theory? Doesn’t it make more sense to argue that these breakdowns have been caused by the economic necessities that force both parents to work longer and longer hours with fewer vacations? Or by the relentless pressure put on children to get into a good college from age 3 on? Or by the financial stress of lacking health care (over 40 million Americans)? Or by the gadgets that we stare into all day (Playstation, TV, Internet) – gadgets that isolate us from our family and human connections? Or by the economic pressures and hardships that force families to uproot and leave their friends and communities again and again and again? Perhaps it’s caused by not stopping mass chains like Wal-Mart and McDonald’s from sucking local color and money out of smaller communities, and replacing good jobs with horrible ones. [All of these explanations can be assessed empirically.]

 

It’s not that morals have declined. It's that economic stresses are taking their toll. It’s that Americans are working themselves to death, and usually to buy stupid shit that no one needs, but is purchased only to compete in the ridiculous status game of “Who Can Conspicuously Display Their Wealth?” Americans are tired, they’re isolated, they’re sad, and they’re lonely. And when you feel this way, you don’t feel like helping your neighbor or hanging out with your kids. Quite simply, we have decided to sacrifice our lives to our jobs. In doing so, we have also sacrificed family life.

 

You want to know why I’m a Democrat? It’s because I think we could be doing more to relieve the concrete economic stress that dominates so many American households – especially those in the middle and at the bottom. I mean, just think of how much better life would be for so many people if everyone had health care? What if no parent ever had to worry about lacking the money to pay for their child's injury or illness? This concrete measure would do so much more than putting up a plaque of the Ten Commandments in a classroom (which would have approximately .0000000000000000000001% effect on people's lives).

 

Anyway, that’s the contradiction. Most conservatives are supporting economic policies that are in perfect contradiction to their social values – and actually are at the root of most of the social problems they perceive.

 

The whole issue comes down to a deeper philosophical question about the role of economic causation. I tend to be an economic determinist, which means I think most everything is about money first and foremost. The problems of the inner-city and Appalachian poverty are, at essence, economic problems. Yes, culture plays a role, but it’s not an either/or. If we assign percentages, I’d say the problems endemic to the inner-city are 90% economic and 10% something else.

 

Again, before you think I’m off singing proletariat songs, I would urge everyone to stop thinking in dichotomies. No one is a pure socialist and no one is a pure capitalist – both are equally stupid. The question is simply what good things can we take from each to increase overall happiness. Personally, I think we need to move a few percentage points left on economics, and we need to move several percentage points toward libertarianism on social issues.

 

I suppose people could argue that I have the same internal contradiction, except in reverse – less economic libertarianism and more social. Perhaps, but I think my view stands up better. Even though I often feel alienated from Red America, I share many of the same goals of those who call themselves social conservatives. I too want to help families and communities – the microstructures that form the foundation of society. I also want people to be as happy as possible during their short stint on earth. Those are my goals. And I think that targeted, progressive economic intervention is the best way to achieve those goals. Just look at life in 1896 versus 2004 - just look at how much better life has become because of economic intervention. Go read The Reckless Decade and see what urban life was like before the administrative state. Jonah Goldberg, not understanding this, almost ruins a solid column by throwing in this bit of, well, horseshit:

 

 

Freedom without economic freedom is a farce. And economic security provided by government planners has, historically, been the security of guaranteed impoverishment.

 

I wonder what Jonah would say if he were forced to choose (behind-the-veil) whether to be born in 1970 or 1870 without knowing the family he would be born into. I suspect he would choose to live in the era of "guaranteed impoverishment."

 

[uPDATE: Commenter Paul made an interesting objection that is worth a brief response. He asks how I can say that modern capitalism has caused the decline of morals, when I later go on to say that government intervention has softened the effects of the "free market." In other words, how can capitalism cause the decline in morals when unfettered capitalism was much stronger in 1870 than 1970?

 

Here's the problem - and one I should have made more clear. I don't believe in the notion of "declining morals." Even if I did, I'm not sure how you would test for it. Times change and people have (for as long as there have been people) treated these changes as a fall from a past golden age. The belief in a "decline" requires a very selective reading of our culture. For example, many are complaining about the decline of religion even though college campuses are far more religious than they were 30 years ago. Also, I believe our country is a much better place, morally speaking, because of the various forces collectively known as the 1960s. Again, it's not an either/or. Some things are better (racism), some are worse (media consolidation and war frenzy).

 

But here's the point. Modern capitalism isn't destroying morals, but it (and not moral decline) is responsible for certain concrete changes in family and community structures that lead to the problems currently attributed to "moral decline." For example, urban wage workers had a crappy life in 1890, but they did live in more clan-like structures with stronger communities and extended families (because capitalism was still fairly new and hadn't "razed" these older micro-structures yet). Modern wage workers have better working conditions but are more atomized, and face more pressure from the rise of mass commercialism (as another commenter pointed out).

 

In short, I don't think capitalism has led to a decline of morals. But I do think modern capitalism is responsible for a host of stresses on the family and community, which social conservatives have been attributing to "moral decline." So Paul - the overall point is not that capitalism is the source of a decline (I don't believe in that). The point is that the stuff that social conservatives complain about is largely caused and exacerbated by economic conditions (even if those conditions have improved since 1890).]

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Sigh. Where is MikeSC when you need him?...

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

Was about to say the same thing, and saw you beat me to it. Damn.

 

--Ryan

...oh well...

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Was about to say the same thing, and saw you beat me to it. Damn.

 

--Ryan

...oh well...

Oh c'mon! It's a good piece of writing.

[Guest PlatinumBoy]

It was good reading, but why mention Marx at the start? Not to open a whole can of worms here, but anyone who knows more than basic Econ knows Marx essentially had ZERO solutions, he just talked about the problems.

 

Hell, with Marx being an angsty guy who was so into the stuff that two of his kids committed suicide, and Engels being a rich guy who did the stuff as essentially a hobby; I could see them today at some rally or something--Marx being the guy who smells bad and tells his Green Party friends that Nader is a corporate tool and Engels being the guy who goes to "No Blood for Oil!" rallies in his 100,000 dollar sports car to be hip.

 

I actually met a "Rich commie" type recently who's parents gave him a trust fund and who constantly would blabber on about how evil we are and oppressed Cuba is. When I finally told him that since he's rich, all this communism shit doesn't affect him in the slightest and he's just trying to be trendy, he looked at me for a minute and then replied, "Well....... well........... by saying that your just perpetuating the class structure I hate so much and proving me right!!!"

[AndrewTS 0]

Crap--I had a long post breaking it down and the board auto-signed me out.

 

Well, here's my summary of my lost post:

 

First off, you have to believe in the humanist perspective to buy the argument at the core of this.

 

Secondly, the ones "working themselves to death" are usually the ones who do so out of *choice*. This guy can't make up his mind if it is out of "necessity" or to get the money to keep up with the Jones'. Obviously, crappy jobs will require lots of hours, but both instances aren't going to be the case for any one person.

 

Thirdly, we haven't had a "free market, capitalist" economy over 60 years. McDonalds and Wal-Mart must be stopped, by the way. They're replacing good fast-food and retail jobs with horrible fast-food jobs and retail jobs (right?)!

 

Finally, "values" aren't equal to moral values. Values are what you value. If you give people better jobs, more money, and less hours, there are plenty of them who will want a better job than that, even more money, and they'll work more hours to do so.

 

Poorer communities have more crime, and that I won't deny, but that's not making the connection he's trying to make.

[Guest Cerebus]

Ironically, capitalism created the medium that allowed him to get his hippy message across.

[AndrewTS 0]

Did anyone else get a laugh out of this?

 

Or by the relentless pressure put on children to get into a good college from age 3 on?

 

I'm almost convinced this was originally written about Japan and edited. It would make much more sense and be more persuasive if so.

 

Ironically, capitalism created the medium that allowed him to get his hippy message across.

 

Actually, the 2000-2004 President who was screwed over royally created it, silly.

[AndrewTS 0]

It was good reading, but why mention Marx at the start? Not to open a whole can of worms here, but anyone who knows more than basic Econ knows Marx essentially had ZERO solutions, he just talked about the problems.

 

Hell, with Marx being an angsty guy who was so into the stuff that two of his kids committed suicide, and Engels being a rich guy who did the stuff as essentially a hobby; I could see them today at some rally or something--Marx being the guy who smells bad and tells his Green Party friends that Nader is a corporate tool and Engels being the guy who goes to "No Blood for Oil!" rallies in his 100,000 dollar sports car to be hip.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Ironically, capitalism created the medium that allowed him to get his hippy message across.

No, Al Gore did...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I didn't bother to read it because I already know the angst ridden, Communism is misunderstoof pile of shit this guy probably wrote about.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I pretty much agree with his premise: that social conservatism and economic liberalism are somewhat contradictory ideologies.

[Guest Crazy Dan]

Well, my History Professor in college talked about Marx and he said that Marx's theory was a failure in practice. As much as I think a Capitalist society does have its flaws, like all types of society do, it is the one that does fit human nature more than Communisim. Humans have a need to compete and competition that is healthy is good as it forces people to become better, or invent better products, etc. Even though sometimes I think it also brings out greed a little too much and some people will bend the rules to "win", overall I think Capitalism is a society I much rather live in, just as long as everyone has a chance to make it if they work hard and put the effort into it and have the opportunity.

 

The problem with Marx's theory is that it assumes we are all created equal and that we all should have the same. Well equality is not so bad concept, but when applied to governments it opens the door for corruption in the government, all it takes is a group of people who are just slightly more equal than others to take power and completely oppress its people. Stalin killed over 30 million of his own people and there was no way for anyone to remove him, becuase they were not at his level. I understand why Marx theorized what he did as he probably so much inequality in the world and wealth. But, I don't think he considered how is theory would be used by governments, which as history has shown, produced many corrupt governments that ended up making it worse for the people, rather than better. Communism is a failed theory, it just is based on the assumption that people want to be the same, when human nature obviously indicates this to be false.

[BX 0]

You know, I probably should have reconsidered the thread title. It is misleading, isn't it?

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

and it's a bit of a contradiction for people who advocate getting the Government off our backs to be in favor of anti-sodomy laws and FCC action against indecency

[The Czech Republic 0]

I think the GOP needs to give up on legislating morality and take a more libertarian stance on a lot of things.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I think the GOP needs to give up on legislating morality and take a more libertarian stance on a lot of things.

I agree.

 

But it would not be politically prudent to do so. Moral conservatives are a major part of the Republican coalition at the present.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

Social Libertarians are free to join the Democratic party

 

[Slayer 0]

and it's a bit of a contradiction for people who advocate getting the Government off our backs to be in favor of anti-sodomy laws and FCC action against indecency

Ding ding ding

 

That's one of the reasons I moved from conservativism to total libertarianism.

 

The claim the conservatives want small government is bullshit. They want a big controlling government like liberals do, just for different reasons.

[Guest Loss]

What's sodomy?

[Slayer 0]

Something you haven't been getting lately

 

OH~!

[Guest Loss]

Something you haven't been getting lately

 

OH~!

Word.

 

I mean, is we gonna have to take this to the streets?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I'll have a long retort later to this either here or on TWB, probably both.

[Guest Cerebus]

I'll have a long retort later to this either here or on TWB, probably both.

About getting sodomy?

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

Or in defense of capitalism and free trade, but if you'd prefer sodomy...

 

...I'll leave you alone for a few hours.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

My retort regarding sodomy would only be about five inches...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

err, I mean sentences. Yeah, sentences...

[BX 0]

Disgusting. Mike leaves, and CE turns into Fagg0try City.

 

It's all right...... It's outta Sight..

[Highland 0]

and it's a bit of a contradiction for people who advocate getting the Government off our backs to be in favor of anti-sodomy laws and FCC action against indecency

Ding ding ding

 

That's one of the reasons I moved from conservativism to total libertarianism.

 

The claim the conservatives want small government is bullshit. They want a big controlling government like liberals do, just for different reasons.

The same here. It's why I'll never take social conservatives seriously. Or hippies, who are just as bad with their need for all encompassing political correctness.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

There's nothing wrong with being morally/socially conservative. I actually am quite conservative in my personal life. It's just that I don't try to push my conservative lifestyle onto others. I'm fine with your drinking, smoking, taking drugs, promiscuous sex, reality TV, and pornography as long as it doesn't bother me (e.g. drinking & driving).

[Guest sek69]

I always thought the biggest irony is that free market capitalism taken to its logical end (only the strong surviving) leads to a corporate oligarchy where a few megacorporations have control.

 

I was reminded of this while reading about the Sprint/Nextel merger, which happened a month or so after the AT&T Wireless/Cingular merger, leaving 3 companies in charge of almost all wireless phone service.

 

What's so great about having every industry run by one or two mega giant companies that have no real reason to offer competitve prices, wages, etc?