Unity… Part II
Posted on Monday, December 1st, 2008
Reading Fridays post “Unity – Today’s most needed trait” by Blue Collar Muse I was delighted by the positive and progressive tone (the good progressive). This is exactly where we need to be right now as a movement. We need to be recovering and regrouping, not pointing fingers.
Although BCM included a paragraph on Christians valuing the works of Hayek, Rand and von Mises, it was pretty clear to me that “Unity” was written by a primarily fiscal conservative speaking to other fiscal conservatives. BCM exposed the value in not “politically excommunicating” the religious right from the movement as it would be detrimental to our cause. I agree whole heartedly and in the same spirit of unity I’d like to beg the same question of social conservatives: Consider the Libertarians. What is to be gained and what lost if we politically excommunicate them?
The argument for dismissing the libertarian wing, just like the argument for dismissing the religious right, lies primarily in campaign expedience. This was clearly evident in this year’s election cycle. It is close to impossible to sell a hard-line free market point of view in a retail political world when the free market is collapsing. The populist message is so much more comforting to the average American. Imagine the uproar if Senator McCain had stood up and said, “This is the market correcting itself. This correction will be unbelievably painful. Hundreds of thousands of you will lose your jobs, your homes will devalue, and you will earn less money. And as president I assure you that I will do nothing to stop it, but work to make sure the federal government prevents a repeat by not meddling in the market again.” This seems politically suicidal; however, I believe that acting by what is politically expedient has put us where we are. The benefits of free market principals far outweigh the diligence required to defend the sentiment of this statement.
To understand these benefits from a Christian perspective we must understand the liberty that a valuable life demands. We work tirelessly to defend the unborn life because of the belief that life created in God’s image has supreme value. This value does not lose relevance after birth. This value is what makes the “truths” that the Founders spoke of “self evident.” If individual life has value how dare we use the police power of the state to make it the slave of any other earthly cause? This sentiment is the base of the philosophical argument for libertarianism. In his article “THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY,” Walter E. Williams of the Cato institute writes:
All too often defenders of free-market capitalism base their defense on the demonstration that capitalism is more efficient in terms of resource allocation and, hence, leads to a larger bundle of goods than socialism and other forms of statism. However, as Milton Friedman frequently points out, economic efficiency and greater wealth should be promoted as simply a side-benefit of free markets. The intellectual defense of free-market capitalism should focus on its moral superiority. In other words, even if free enterprise were not more efficient than other forms of human organization, it is morally superior because it is rooted in voluntary relationships rather than force and coercion, and it respects the sanctity of the individual.
Look at this again and replace “the individual” with the synonym “life.” “…and it respects the sanctity of life.” Looks a lot like the platform of the Christian right, doesn’t it? Americans who value life should be terrified of notions such as using tax policy to achieve “fairness.” By understanding the liberty that valuable life demands we learn the value of an entire movement built around defending this liberty.
It is my belief that this isn’t an impossible sell. That if we understand that a belief in free-market principles doesn’t necessarily stem from greed or selfishness we can convince the majority of Americans to vote on the clearly morally superior message. The common good is a collection of individual lives not some government generated statistic. It is attained by default if we work towards the good of all individuals, not by weighing the relative success and failure of individuals in some sort of social equal-arm balance where a net balance is considered “fair.”
-Scott Thornberry
Scott,
I agree with most of your post. I however disagree with the notion that “the free market is collapsing”–its not. Even if you do not believe this yourself, simply speaking these words furthers the misconception that it is true. The failure we are witnessing is the failure of the mixed economy (privatized gains and socialized losses).
As for your other point taken from Prof. Williams, exactly right. But we have a problem, and as a practicing Catholic I see it first hand. Christian conservatives (evangelicals–maybe younger ones especially) are not generally enthused by a limited government message because they mostly do not agree with it. They are in favor of large government welfare programs, and federal intervention especially in the social aspects of people’s lives –generally in the economic aspect of people’s lives . Populism is popular. Not only do they feel it is their duty to give personal charity, they think that the government should also–(and that the government should “do something” about “the environment”) as well as a myriad of other things from HIV to poverty to marriage etc. If the curriculum in public schools allowed religious instruction and prayer–I am afraid that these folks would not have much problem with state-run education either–no matter how shoddy or unconstitutional. Its because they (for the most part) do not see big government itself as a problem, just the big government that doesn’t enforce the things they are in favor of (I hope that I am wrong, but evidence suggests otherwise). Much like what the current GOP has become.
As a Christian, I agree with the majority of social concerns held by my fellow Christian conservatives, I give privately, volunteer, and care about helping those in need. But as a citizen of this country I know that my freedom to enjoy my faith can only be protected when the government excuses itself from people’s private lives and allow us faithful and others to address our concerns privately and without the mess that comes with government involvement. Our individual rights trump any personal or religious preferences. Period. It is immoral to operate any other way.
Libertarians could also stand to come down from their intellectual high horses a bit also. Even if you’re an atheist, you have to admit that every human being should be guaranteed the rights we cherish, even the not yet born. That is not a religious opinion–it is truth. A human life is a human life, and if you have (want) the right to do drugs, marry whomever, keep your money from being taxed, and carry a gun–a person should at least have the right to live. That is a fundamental right we all owe to each other, that none of us should be able to take away. However, I am not in favor of any new laws or amendments, because this right already exists in our founding documents.
As for unity, and political expediency, maintaining the principles that created our foundation and not wavering for supposed pragmatic reasoning is the only way forward. It is disturbing to see Republicans snicker and call Ron Paul “crazy” for suggesting things that were once GOP cornerstones–actually its sad because look at where that has gotten us. So stop debating whether or not to be more “moderate”–why? so we can become like Europe? I say no thanks–but its your choice. Liberty or Death (of America as we knew it)