One of the questions of political theory bugging me a lot lately is the compatibility (or incompatibility) of conservatism and libertarianism. This is of particular interest to me because I consider myself a conservative, but conservatives and libertarians generally get lumped together in America as "the right" or "the Republican party." This classification isn't completely inaccurate, of course. For example I belong to a student group that advertises itself as "conservative/libertarian." However, this classification does tend to obscure some fundamental differences between the two groups.
So, what are these differences? Well, that's one of those big questions that gets very complicated very fast. Nevertheless, Hunter Baker, writing at First Things, has managed to put together a relatively concise, and I think quite accurate, summary of the main differences between conservatives and libertarians. In other words, follow that link and read the article for yourself!
But, if you want to cheat and get a very quick summary from me, here it is. The main difference between conservatism and libertarianism, according to Baker, is that libertarians believe that the state should exist for the limited purposes of keeping the peace and creating a legal environment in which commerce is allowed to do its thing. Conservatives, on the other hand, are essentially Aristotelian and believe that the state should enact laws that promote human flourishing in more ways than just securing peace and encouraging the economy; conservatives believe that politics has something to do with a transcendent order. This difference explains, for instance, why many (probably most) libertarians support gay "marriage": Gay "marriage" isn't a threat to peace and isn't a threat to prosperity, so why should the state forbid it? Conservatives, on the other hand, see gay "marriage" as fundamentally at odds with a broader notion of human flourishing rooted in a transcendent order, and thus can be regulated by the state.
The example of gay "marriage" also raises the question that libertarians will always ask conservatives when it comes to moral regulations: What's to stop the state from becoming a busybody poking its nose into everybody's life? Is there any line we can draw to prevent the state from becoming a moralistic tyrant? Baker doesn't raise this question, but it's worth considering for a minute.
The key distinction to make here is that the state can encourage moral behavior, but it will never be able to redeem us from sin. Any time the state crosses the line from encouraging moral behavior to attempting to redeem us from sin, it has gone beyond anything conservatives would countenance. It may not always be a clear distinction, but then again these things never are perfectly clear. The important point is that conservatives acknowledge the transcendent order, unlike libertarians, but also recognize that the transcendent order cannot be realized perfectly, unlike utopians. Or, in the immortal terminology of Eric Voegelin: Don't immanentize the eschaton!
(Finally, this essay by Russell Kirk just came to my attention. Kirk, recently discussed by Aaron, compares a coalition of conservatives and libertarians to "a union of fire and ice," and gives at least six reasons for that conclusion. Warning: Libertarians won't like it.)
(Finally, this essay by Russell Kirk just came to my attention. Kirk, recently discussed by Aaron, compares a coalition of conservatives and libertarians to "a union of fire and ice," and gives at least six reasons for that conclusion. Warning: Libertarians won't like it.)
11 comments:
Steve, you noted states can encourage moral behavior but not redeem us from sin, per conservatives. Sin taxes, I think, would be to encourage moral behavior, but what would conservatives and libertarians think of specialty courts like DWI and Drug courts? There's no spiritual element (officially), but the courts are very involved in people's lives for an extended period of time and are trying, in a way, to redeem them.
Question: If conservatives and libertarians are different in this regard, can they cooperate? Where and how?
It seems to me the great "conservative" alliance of post-war America was between libertarians and social conservatives. And the motivation was that both saw that they were threatened by totalitarian atheistic Communism. Does that mean the alliance is now without a purpose?
Finally, while we're talking about useful alliances between different ideological groups, can utopians and conservatives ever find common cause? Utopians and libertarians?
Pardon my ignorance, Therese, but I've never actually encountered special DWI or Drug courts here in Illinois. What do they do up in Minnesota? The closest example I can think of was the case of a client accused of trying to procure a prostitute who was sent to some kind of anti-prostitution program as part of his probation. I have no problem with that at all, especially since they "outsource" the counseling.
Aaron, I think you're right about Communism as the threat that drove libertarians and conservatives together. But, I don't think the alliance is useless today. For instance, they can work together to reduce the welfare state, or make health care more local and effective. The common thread here, though, is that conservatives and libertarians fight a common enemy, not for a common vision of the good.
I'm not sure conservatives and utopians could ever find common cause. My basic reasoning is that conservatives are the anti-utopians. As for libertarians and utopians, I would say that there's a certain strand of libertarianism (especially of the Ayn Rand variety) that has a utopian vision of the market place and the invisible hand replacing a benevolent providence.
Comments from the Facebook feed:
Peter: Aristotle would be angry, being placed in a vacuum like that. The philosopher's desire for the state to encourage moral behavior was understood in a completely different societal structure than what we face today. That's a long time gone. Sure human nature does not changed, but is it possible to compare the organization of society in ancient Greece to modern America?
Also, manducate on this one. Is "state" as we know it different in degree or kind from Aristotle's state?
Aaron: It was, perhaps, a glib use of Aristotle's name on Steve's part. Nevertheless, I think his point is well-made. Modern conservatives are in broad agreement with most political thinkers of the ancient and medieval world on this point.
That having been said, you're quite right that society is organized in a considerably different way. But rather than simply saying the analogy is bunk, I think the real challenge is to analyze what Aristotle's claims meant in his own society and then translate those into our society. How can the same principles be applied in different circumstances?
Peter: You can't let the great be the enemy of the good. When most of society is ignorant and/or evil, it's best to minimized their ability to put such evils into law. Sure, it would be great for the state to enact laws which promote virtue, but do you put that much trust into the modern state?
John: Wow, a refreshing distraction. Thanks guys.
Aaron: Peter, you make the basic argument for limited government, an argument I generally buy. I would note two things, however.
(1) You use the term "evil". This, in itself, is a moral judgment. For many libertarians, I think, the only real evil is imposing yourself on another. So perhaps we could make a distinction between ideological libertarians, whose use of moral terms is quite narrow, and prudential libertarians, who advocate similar policies, but on moral (ie, conservative) grounds.
(2) You ask, "Do you put that much trust into the modern state?" What is it about the modern state that makes it different from the ancient state that interests/concerns you?
Peter,
You're right, of course, that the American state and a Greek polis are very different. I made the reference to Aristotle because the original article does. As for the propriety of invoking Aristotle, in my post I tried to dance around that difference between state and polis by making a broader reference to "politics." But, I obviously didn't make my point very clearly. There's a whole body of interesting literature on the question of when the term "state" (in relation to politics) came into common usage. I've heard that Machiavelli was one of the first (if not the first) to use the term state in its modern sense. The same goes for the concept of sovereignty, which most would trace to Jean Bodin (the French absolutist), and from him to rather questionable/heretical notions floating around in the late Middle Ages. But, Aaron's point still stands, I think: Human nature and politics haven't changed so much that we can't at least apply Aristotle's theories to our own situation.
As for allowing our modern state to enact laws relating to morality, that's more a question of prudence than principle. On principle, it would be better if we lived in a society where we could trust the state to enact laws that encourage virtue. Whether that's possible today, though, is a different question--and that's part of what makes the alliance between conservatives and libertarians possible.
More from the Facebook chatter:
Peter: Ideological libertarians, as you so call them, cannot escape moral judgment. In fact, they are repeating Rousseau's belief that left alone nature (society and man) is at peace. IE: the peaceful state of nature comes with the removal of structural obstacles (like laws and regulations) Follow the train all the way down the tracks... man becomes his own savior. Its a bad rerun of the 18th century.
Now lets get really radical. Libertarianism leads to Totalitarianism. That's right, you start with Rousseau, your ending with Stalin no matter what route you take. The libertarian, as you stated, "believe that the state should exist for the limited purposes of keeping the peace and creating a legal environment..."
So one is beholden to the Law, not man. Freedom and equality demand that man cannot impose himself on another. Skip to the end. A society which governs itself on impersonal law and not personal virtue becomes soulless. Soulless society become Stalin.
Q.E.D
Aaron: Sounds like you're saying we're damned if we do and we're damned if we don't. How do we prevent libertarianism from becoming impersonal totalitarian, or prevent conservativism from becoming totalitarian moralism?
Peter: Welcome to the fallen world. No system can save us from ourselves.
Aaron: True enough. So we reject utopianism. Where do we go from there? What system is the best damage control, given our fallen nature?
Dan: There must have been an important piece in the "skip to the end" from libertarianism to Stalinist totalitarianism.
One problem with government sponsored morals is the very cheapness and transiency of the morals they propose, coupled with the insubstantial character of the politicians who take it upon themselves to espouse them. Another is simply... Read More that morality cannot be imposed no matter how good the intention; sinful man's rebellious nature will drive him to break even the most nurturing of laws.
The answer? Society founded upon courtesy, and discourtesy punished by a smoking gun. With the quick, the polite, and the inconsequential forming distinct blocs of power.
Aaron: Yes, it was a fairly large skip. Peter, care to elaborate?
I'm not sure the morals sponsored by a government are necessarily cheap or transient. Often governments propose to support very profound and transcendent morals. They just fail to execute.
As we talk in circles here (and I mean that in a good sense), I think we actually find ourselves in something like agreement. In his initial post, Steve used the term "encourage" not "impose". I think he'd agree that, at the end of the day, morality cannot be imposed. But what form would "encouragement" take?
Peter, as for libertarianism leading to totalitarianism, you're not completely off-base, but you could make your demonstration a little tighter. There's a passange in "Democracy in America" (I'll have to find the exact location later) where Tocqueville states that voluntary associations are so important to Americans because they are intermediary steps between the individual and the state; they reduce the power of the state. However, Tocqueville also mentions that certain intermediary associations (such as the family) are generally weak in America, because whenever anybody in America has a problem with the intermediary association, they appeal to the state for help. The individual always turns to the state. In effect, then, our own individualism/libertarianism has brought us to the point where the state is much stronger, and totalitarianism more likely, even though we exalt the individual, because we have weakened family ties and intermediary assocations.
What I find interesting is that the way conservatives are described in the post would apply to a lot of liberals. Also, it wouldn't apply to a lot of conservatives (Could one be a Platonist and a conservative? I think so.) I believe politics has to do with transcendent order and that the state has a duty to enact policies which promote virtue (i.e., flourishing), but then, I'm more of a liberal.
I'd draw the distinctions along different lines: Conservatives want to protect tradition, particularly cultural values, and want government to try to ensure this end. Liberals want progress towards a better society, even if it means breaking from tradition, and want to see government action towards this end. Libertarians don't give a damn about tradition or progress, but just want the government to maximize individual freedom, limiting government to only critically essential roles. All of them want whats best for individuals and for socieity. All 3 camps have their share of utopians.
Paul, I'd agree that the question of tradition/progress may be a better guide to what we usually mean by the terms "conservative" and "liberal", though perhaps these are not the best categories for dividing the political world. I think your observation that all three camps (liberal, conservative, libertarian) want what is best and have their share of utopians demonstrates that perhaps the liberal-conservative-libertarian distinction overlooks a lot of other important questions.
One footnote on tradition: It seems to me there are two strains of thought (not necessarily exclusive to one another) on this issue among conservatives. One claim is that tradition is good, the embodiment of collective past wisdom. The second claim is that departing from tradition too quickly is dangerous, creating social chaos and unintended consequences. While the two can go together, I think you'll find them mixed in different proportions in different conservative thinkers. Part of the reason I bring this up is because neither of these claims is strictly at odds with the notion of progress. Someone holding the first position might claim that tradition is the giant on whose shoulders we stand to progress further. An adherent of the second position might also favor progress, but argue that it should be measured and careful.
Hmm... This could have dovetailed into the post on progress rightly understood, had I thought of it earlier. Oh well...
For Peter's benefit, here's a link to an article about Robert Nisbett's thesis about libertarian-leaning individualism leading to collectivism:
http://www.frontporchrepublic.com/?p=4115
I found this passage particularly enlightening:
Nisbet concludes – following a basic insight of Alexis de Tocqueville: ”It is impossible to understand the massive concentrations of political power in the twentieth-century, appearing so paradoxically, or it has seemed, right after a century and a half of individualism in economics and morals, unless we see the close relationship that prevailed all through the nineteenth century between individualism and State power and between both of these together and the general weakening of the area of association that lies intermediate to man and the State.”
Post a Comment