Capitalism Needs Social Conservatism

For the past week, I've written about the decline of the nuclear family, with follow-up posts about divorce and sex education, and about the negative impact of the of the welfare state on family formation.  These post have generated some wonderful discussions and input from followers, and I've been surprised by their popularity.

As I wrote in "Values Have Consequences," I'm devoting Friday posts to discussions of social conservatism.  Social conservatism is increasingly the red-headed stepchild of the traditional Republican "tripod" coalition that also includes national security and economic conservatives (with the rise of Trump, populist nationalism could count as a fourth leg).  Politically, this marginalization makes some sense, as it's not likely that fifty or sixty years of cultural attitudes and values will be changed at the ballot box.

Nevertheless, social conservatism is an important leg of the tripod.  Indeed, I would argue that the three coalitions are not at odds, but create logical synergies that allow each leg to stand.  The stool is much more stable when the three legs work together.

Economic conservatism--by which I mean the belief that freer markets, fewer and lighter regulations, and lower taxes, or what is more properly called neoliberalism (after the classical liberalism of the 18th-century thinkers like Adam Smith)--is wonderful and hugely important.  It's led to massive gains domestically and globally, lifting untold millions off people out of poverty.  It allows people to enjoy a greater variety of goods and labor-saving devices, and provides more leisure time (and plenty of things to do during that time).

Exercise your economic liberty by donating today!  Support quality content and angry Internet comments!

But free markets unmoored from guiding principles, strong and stable institutions, and the rule of law can morph into mindless Mammon worship.  Without a shared sense of trust and belief in human dignity, capitalism becomes cold and abstract.

Further, full-fledged economic liberalization without the limiting principles applied by constitutionalism and a morality supported by strong families and a robust civil society can lead to socially-destructive disruptions and behaviors.

As I've argued many times, making mistakes or bad choices is the necessary price of liberty.  But for self-government to work effectively--and to avoid social instability--a healthy dose of social conservatism is the best medicine.

 

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee wears the most socially conservative outfit ever; later, he played bass on Fox News.

(Image Source:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huckabeemike.JPG; photo by Craig Michaud)

To offer an illustration from recent history, contrast the post-Soviet experiences of Poland (and most of Eastern Europe) with that of Russia.  Despite decades under Communism--an ideology that was aggressively atheistic, stressing loyalty to the state and Communist Party over all else--Poland roared back into the West.  It adopted neoliberal (modern conservative) economic policies, and was one of the few European nations not to suffer severely during the Great Recession.

Russia similarly adopted "shock therapy" after the Soviet Union collapsed for good in 1991.  Rather than experiencing a huge economic boom, however, well-connected former Communists and others close to the old regime made off like bandits, leaving most Russians left holding the bag.

What's the difference?  For one, the Russians lived under Communism for nearly a generation longer than the Poles, meaning there were several generations of downtrodden, state-dependent Russians by the time the USSR collapsed.  Many of these Russians were unable to adjust to a free-market system after living in a closed economy for so long.

Another key difference--and one that I think is extremely significant--is that Russians lost any scrap of civil society they might have possessed prior to the Bolshevik takeover in late 1917.  Civil society--the institutions between the basic family unit and the government, like churches, schools, clubs, civic organizations, etc.--was automatically preempted when every club, organization, or activity became part of the Soviet government.  The severely crippled (and, as I understand it, collaborationist) Russian Orthodox Church was unable or unwilling to push back against Soviet rule, providing little in the way of a spiritual alternative to the totalizing influence of Communism.

"[F]ree markets unmoored from guiding principles, strong and stable institutions, and the rule of law can morph into mindless Mammon worship."

Poland, on the other hand, managed to maintain its deep Catholic faith.  The Catholic Church as an international organization (and with powerful, influential popes, most notably the Polish anti-Communist John Paul II) could never be wiped out completely by Soviet Communism.  Further, the Poles formed the Solidarity trades union movement, which offered an alternative to official Communist organizations.

Thus, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Poland emerged with a strong civil society anchored in a richly Christian worldview and ethic.  The shared sense of morality--one that stresses mutual respect, the dignity of human life, and the importance of honesty--allowed the complex deals and uptempo economic exchanges of capitalism to occur smoothly and rapidly.  From these civil and religious values came a firmer grasp of and respect for the rule of law, making predictable economic activity and long-term planning possible.

Russia, on the other hand, devolved into a fast-paced, nationwide run on the national cupboard.  Those with good connections grabbed whatever public funds and goodies they could.  Normal Russians couldn't figure out whey their government checks and free lunches stopped coming, and couldn't understand why (or how) to pay taxes.  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, all civic organizations ceased to exist, because they were all part of the Soviet government.  Without any civil society or other enduring institutions to model good behavior and to stress and enforce moral values, Russia struggled--and continues to do so--to adapt to global capitalism and democracy.  Not surprisingly, they've turned to a dictatorial strongman for guidance.

***

What of the American context?  As I've written before, I'm skeptical of full-fledged libertarianism--what I would broadly define as the marriage of economically conservative and socially liberal views--because it fails to acknowledge the need for strong moral values to uphold its own economic assumptions.  Liberty and self-government can only really work when coupled with self-imposed order and restraint.  Without moral common ground and shared values that stress self-control, liberty rapidly turns to libertinism.  Libertinism without a great deal of wealth leads to shattered lives, which in turn wreck families and communities.

Eventually, unbridled, unchecked lasciviousness--even among (formerly) responsible adults--results in social chaos, requiring a dwindling number of hardworking, honest, and thrifty individuals to pay for the ramifications of poor moral choices that have been magnified many times over.

"[L]ibertarianism... fails to acknowledge the need for strong moral values to uphold its own economic assumptions.  Liberty and self-government can only really work when coupled with self-imposed order and restraint."

Capitalism's blessing of unparalleled abundance is also a potential curse.  Without a strong civil society that stresses good moral values--and without proper historical perspective--it becomes easy to take that abundance for granted.

That abundance also allows, for a time, more and more individuals to pay for the price of bad decisions.  Prior to the modern era, few people were wealthy enough to risk the negative consequences of immorality.  Now, Americans and Westerners enjoy a level of material comfort and well-being that can absorb at least some of the unpleasantness of questionable choices.  Over time, however, that security breaks down.

Richard Weaver likened the situation to an alcoholic who is so addicted to his drink, he's unable to do the work necessary to pay for his addiction.  The more he needs the alcohol, the less capable he becomes of obtaining it.  Likewise, the more individuals become addicted to luxuries, the less able they are to work hard to maintain them.

To avoid the fate of Weaver's drunk, we must recognize the importance of social conservatism.  While we should maximize individual liberty as much as possible, and within the bounds of the Constitution, we should also stress the moral and religious underpinnings that make that liberty both possible and responsible.

Third Party Opportunity?

This election cycle, both major American political parties nominated figures with low likeability and favorability in most polls.  Many hard-left progressive Democrats despair that their party nominated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who they view as a political chameleon and corporatist.  Similarly, some Republicans, both of the movement conservative (such as National Review) and establishment (think Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) varieties, are dismayed that GOP voters elected Donald Trump as their party's standard-bearer.

The question, inevitably, is "why not a third-party candidate?"  Indeed, the Libertarian Party saw a doubling of registrations after Trump secured the Republican nomination in May.  A number of dissatisfied progressives are turning to Jill Stein, perennial favorite of the Green Party (more interestingly, a significant minority of Bernie Sanders supporters are morphing into Trump fans).  If both major political parties have such negative figures at the helm, why not reject both and vote for a third party?

I received an e-mail today from a student with exactly that question.  Rather than discuss Hillary Clinton's vice-presidential picks--a topic I'll save for Friday, and which I need to research further, anyway--I'd like to address this young man's questions.  Note, this student is the same precocious young man who e-mailed me about Brexit last month.

Here's a screenshot of the e-mail, with a transcript:

 

Kids say the darnedest things.

Transcript:

With the somewhat radical left and right candidates in the major parties, how is Libertarian Gary Johnson not capitalizing on the 1/3 of independents and the rough 1/6 of soft Rs and Ds. He is somewhat centralist, having a neutral point of view and usually agreeing with the US population in policy issues. So far he hasn't garnered enough points to be in a debate, however with his support in the west, he is the former Governor of New Mexico, he might be in one soon. If Gary is able to get on the floor and be seen as the middle ground between Hillary and Trump, do you believe he could actual contend for presidency or would he just get walked over. Also, if he does garner some electoral votes come November, what candidate would he hurt the most? 

My L'il Politico brings up some interesting points, though I imagine there are many Democrats who would disagree with his assessment of Hillary Clinton, who strikes me as a chameleon who shifts policy positions with the wind; if she's part of the "radical left," it's only because that seems to be what the Democratic base wants.  Regardless, why hasn't Governor Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, garnered more attention, or done better at seizing the squishy middle of American politics?

"...Gary Johnson... won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes."

There are a number of possible explanations.  As I've already stated, there was a brief surge for the Libertarian Party after Trump's nomination.  Of course, Trump received his own bump in the polls, a typical occurrence once a candidate has won his party's nomination nod (Clinton similarly benefited from the nomination bump in June).  I imagine that, while there was an initial boomlet for the Libertarian Party, traditionally Republican or Republican-leaning voters have gotten used to or come to terms with Trump's nomination, and are naturally returning to familiar (if somewhat altered) waters.

That, of course, would only partially explain why Gary Johnson--or any third-party candidate--won't be winning the presidency this year, much less any electoral votes.

Third-party candidates suffer a number of disadvantages in the American presidential system, most of them structural.  Unintentionally, our Constitution contributed greatly to the creation of the two-party system, a system which has endured, with only temporary interruptions, for most of the nation's history.  Despite George Washington's warning against the formation of political parties in his Farewell Address, the two-party system was almost an inevitability.

For one, most States require a simple majority for a candidate to win elected office.  Unlike Britain's "first past the post" system, which allows the candidate with the most votes to win a seat in Parliament, most States require an actual majority (50% + 1), and will hold run-off elections accordingly.  In effect, then, a third-party candidate of any significant ability or recognition only really succeeds in sucking votes away from the candidate he is most akin to politically.

In presidential elections, it is possible for third-party candidates to win electoral votes--just ask Theodore Roosevelt, who won twenty-two electoral votes in 1912, beating incumbent President William Howard Taft by sixteen votes, but losing hugely to Woodrow Wilson--but it is similarly difficult even to receive a plurality of votes (as I understand it, a "first past the post" plurality is all that is necessary in most States to win all of those States' votes).  Again, third-party candidates tend to wound candidates that are most similar to them on issues, or (in the case of TR in 1912) they completely supplant one of the major party candidates, only to go down with the ship.

 "[T]he two-party system was almost an inevitability."

Just look at the example of Ross Perot in 1992, a kind of spiritual predecessor to Trump in many ways.  Perot was the most successful third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912, and while Perot won millions of votes nationally, he didn't pocket a single electoral vote.  He did, however, drain just enough votes away from incumbent President George H. W. Bush to ensure that then-Governor Bill Clinton could win the States necessary to secure the presidency.

One can look at multiple examples from US history:  the Populist Party in 1892 (in 1896, they wised up, nominated the Democratic Party's nominee, William Jennings Bryan, and still lost to the Republican candidate, William McKinley); the Socialist Party in 1920 (Eugene V. Debs won a million votes--from prison); the Progressive Party; and on and on.  Third parties are victims of their own failure, too--voters vote for and donate to perceived winners far more than to perceived losers.

Historically, only one party has successfully moved from third-party status to two-party dominance--the Republican Party--and that was in the throes of the 1860 election on the eve of the Civil War, which saw the Democrats split into two (the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats) and the formation of the Constitutional Union Party.  In such an environment, it was much more likely for an upstart Republican Party (only six years old at the time) to win the presidency, and the Republican Party benefited in part from the infrastructure left behind by the old Whig Party.

"Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties."

Also, an important point that's easy to forget (the political establishment certainly did over the past year) is that political parties are broad coalitions, and they tend to reform internally or experience revolutions from within.  They are not monolithic, Stalinistic organizations (most of the time), and they strive (often with difficulty) to appeal to and to appease multiple interest groups.  These groups often coalesce around a shared set of values (for Republicans, it tends to be limited and/or efficient government; for Democrats, it tends to be an elaborate system of patron-clientele payouts to wildly disparate interest and identity groups), but there's never perfect unity.

Right now, we're witnessing a major political realignment in both political parties, although the Republican Party is certainly receiving more of the attention due to the nature of Trump's over-the-top personality and bombastic antics.  Notice, however, that Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic Party at large) has moved much further to left, especially as the progressive, social justice warrior wing of the Party has become louder and more aggressive.  In turn, that move to radical social justice has alienated many economic Democrats, who turned either to socialist Bernie Sanders, or to protectionist Donald Trump.

So, despite the low favorability ratings, Trump scratches an itch (as I heard one political pundit put it recently) that many Americans want scratched, even if many others are cautious of him.  Similarly, many voters view Clinton as a crook, a liar, and crony, but they feel safer voting for the devil they know than the one they don't.

***

But what of poor Gary Johnson, the lovable, doobie-smoking former Governor of New Mexico?  Surely he can fill the vacuum of dissatisfied voters who don't like either option, right?

Perhaps, but for the reasons listed above, it's very unlikely.  Johnson was an effective governor in New Mexico (he apparently vetoed more than even former SC Governor Mark Sanford), but since then his biggest claim to fame is that he talks openly about smoking pot (legalization, of course, is a big issue for the Libertarians, as it is for a growing segment of the Republican Party).  Like many libertarian-minded candidates (Mark Sanford, again, comes to mind), Johnson comes across as a bit of a weirdo.  There's no doubt he's an eccentric fellow.  Should this disqualify him from the presidency?  Probably not, but, again, voters respond to emotion and perception more than to policy or positions.

 

The face of a man who won't be President.

(Image Source:  https://johnsonweld.com/)

The Libertarian Party itself is a party for the dissatisfied--that's essentially why it formed in the early 1970s, when it had legitimate beefs with President Richard Nixon's heavy-handed imperial presidency and tendency to expand the size and scope of government--and the dissatisfied voted for Trump this year.  Trump has brilliantly co-opted the libertarian momentum that in years past went to Congressman Ron Paul or his son, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul.

This fact confirms for me a long-held suspicion:  despite grand talk of ideological consistency and purity, the Libertarian Party consists, rather, of large numbers of disaffected weirdos--much like the two major political parties--that care more about presenting a certain Ayn Randian "I-am-really-the-smart-one-here" attitude than anything else.  I've rarely met a serious, consistent libertarian.  Most hard-core libertarians I've known are positively insufferable (I've experienced this phenomenon with self-described philosophical existentialists and nihilists, too), or they're really just progressives:  they want total freedom to engage in society-killing activities but become all-too willing to use the power of the state when it suits their purposes.

For better or for worse, many of these individuals have moved to support Trump or Sanders.  But could squishy voters in the middle who aren't traditionally Libertarian move to the party?

Again, I think not.  Most of these voters will stick with what they know.  A few will move from one to the other of the two major parties, and a very small few will vote third party as a protest or as a legitimate act of conscious.  Those that want to give a middle finger to "The System"--a description that fits my perception of most self-described libertarians--are going to vote for Trump.

***

But what if Gary Johnson does well enough in the polls to get on-stage at the presidential debates?  That's a possibility, although I don't think it's likely at this point for the reasons stated above.  If he does, it would certainly help his profile, and he would likely win over some voters--especially those that lean Republican, or believe the Republican Party has left them behind by nominating Trump--but not enough to win.  It would certainly be healthy for the body politic to hear another set of ideas.  Regardless,  I would be surprised if Gary Johnson won any electoral votes in 2016.

However, in this scenario it's very likely that he could suck enough votes away from Trump that a Clinton victory would be assured.  Trump--or any Republican--has a very fine line to walk in the Electoral College, where the Democrats automatically enjoy a huge advantage thanks to California, New York, Illinois, and several other high-population, deep-blue States.  Trump needs to win several Midwestern Rust Belt states and Florida to have a shot; that shot disappears with a mildly interesting, somewhat conservative third-party candidate.

All that being said, I respect those third-partiers who are deeply committed to their organization, or who believe they must vote for a third party as an act of conscious.  Fortunately, our political system affords us this freedom.  However, the most effective way to impact political change is within the traditional two-party system.  Parties can be changed from within; after all, they are made up of normal people.  With a little dedication and a lot of hard work, people can use the structural advantages of the established parties to push for their views and beliefs.

In other words, why reinvent the wheel, when the wagon's already moving?  Hop on board, and have a say in where it's heading.

Mark Sanford's Ideology

There has been much discussion lately about Governor Mark Sanford’s resistance to accepting federal stimulus money.  In the face of enormous public and political pressure, the governor has accepted these funds but will exercise considerable authority in determining who gets it.  For the purposes of this letter, I am not interested in whether or not this was the right thing to do.

I am more concerned with how the governor’s opponents have characterized his decisions.  Sanford’s rivals have accused him of political posturing.  Ignoring the vehement protestation against the governor’s actions, I find this interpretation lacking.  While the cynic in me is willing to acknowledge that there might have been an element of posturing to Sanford’s resistance, it seems highly unlikely that this was his only, or even a major, motivator.

His month-long battle against the federal stimulus, however, is much more readily explained by taking a look at his ideology and his record both as governor and as a congressional representative.  Sanford is perhaps the most ideologically consistent politician in contemporary American politics.  Since entering the political arena in 1994, Sanford has been the quintessential Republican; at least, he has been what the quintessential Republican should be.  By this I mean Sanford has sustained an unwavering faith in free enterprise and the free market while also endorsing socially conservative measures.  He is not quite a libertarian, but he has the general ideological bent of Ron Paul when it comes to the economy without the gold standard baggage.

A cursory glance at a website like ontheissues.org demonstrates how consistent Sanford’s ideology is.  In fact, the only inconsistency in his voting over the past 15 years is on affirmative action in college admissions.  While in Congress in 1998, Sanford voted against ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions, but in 2002 he said that affirmative action was acceptable in state contracts but not in colleges.  A closer examination of his voting history in Congress might reveal a few more inconsistencies, but I would wager any additional irregularities would still be far less than the typical congressman.

Regardless, Sanford’s commitment to fiscal conservatism and government accountability is astounding.  Sanford has repeatedly supported term limits (for example, he imposed one on himself while a representative to Congress), a balanced budget, and lower taxes, as well as pushing for choices for citizens in education.  Therefore, if we view Sanford’s struggle against the federal stimulus through the lens of his voting record and his statements as a congressman and governor, it is clear that his position derives from his sincere belief in his ideals.

Whether or not the governor is right is another matter.  That is not the point I want to make.  Agree or disagree, Governor Sanford is not taking a stand for political attention.  He is taking a stand because he believes it is right.  And, after all, isn’t that the important thing?