Chat with us, powered by LiveChat
Opinion

The Moral Case for Conservatism

Lee Habeeb & Mike Leven – from The National Review Online –

In the early 20th century, two of England’s towering minds, the socialist George Bernard Shaw and the Catholic G. K. Chesterton, engaged in a series of debates. Shaw was an atheist, socialist, and vegetarian; Chesterton a Catholic, moralist, and meat-eater. Shaw argued against private property, and for redistribution of wealth. Chesterton argued for private property, and warned about the perils of consolidated power. It was like Ali vs. Frazier. A clash of style and vision.

Shaw, sounding like a modern progressive, said this about wealth and equality:

The moment I made up my mind that the present distribution of wealth was wrong, the peculiar constitution of my brain obliged me to find out exactly how far it was wrong and what is the right distribution. I went through all the proposals ever made and through the arguments used in justification of the existing distribution; and I found they were utterly insensate and grotesque. Eventually I was convinced that we ought to be tolerant of any sort of crime except unequal distribution of income.

In came Chesterton:

We say there ought to be in the world a great mass of scattered powers, privileges, limits, points of resistance, so that the mass of the people may resist tyranny. And we say that there is a permanent possibility of that central direction, however much it may have been appointed to distribute money equally, becoming a tyranny.

Chesterton added, “Mr. Shaw proposes to distribute wealth. We propose to distribute power.”

The moderator warned the audience that what they were listening to wouldn’t have relevance in 20 years. How wrong he was.

Those men were engaged in a debate that rages today. How do we best organize a society? From the top down or the bottom up? With the individual — and, as Chesterton argued, God — as the ultimate sovereign, or the state, as Shaw argued? Which system drives the most effective and the fairest outcome?

If there is a single reason why conservatives continue to lose the battle of ideas, it’s because we don’t make the moral case for freedom and free markets. Our political class instead makes the economic case for our philosophy. Our smart guys are so impressed with their own intelligence; they think we can win the debate using numbers and data, charts and graphs, and political tactics and strategy.

It’s the Left’s secret advantage. They create the feeling that they care more about the average American because they make the moral case for their philosophy.

One of the advantages this confers on the Left is this: They get to play large ball, while we play a dour brand of small ball.

When you play large ball, you get to be on offense. When you play small ball, you always feel like you’re playing defense. They make big bold moves about big bold things like Obamacare, while we wallow in the weeds explaining why Obamacare won’t work. What can we do about this regrettable state of affairs? Let’s start by talking about the moral implications of a government that tries to do too much for its people.

Dennis Prager wrote a great column two years ago that included the following formulation: the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

He argued:

Not only does bigger government teach people not to take care of themselves, it teaches them not to take care of others. Smaller government is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?

From there, we should take Prager’s formulation one step further: the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector.

As more of our money goes to feed ever expanding government bureaucracies, it leaves less money for us to do with as we choose, and less for the private sector. As big government crowds out the private sector, the result is less innovation, a less efficient economy, and less job creation.

Does anyone think government is the engine of innovation, efficiency, and job creation? Will government create the next medical breakthrough? The next iPhone?

We can extend Prager’s formulation further still: the bigger the government, the smaller the church.

As the state takes more of our money, there is less for us to give to the churches, synagogues, and mosques that take care of the weakest among us. And not just with a check, but with a caring human being connected to that material support. We can point to 20th-century Europe’s experience. As the state grew, the churches there had less influence and eventually emptied.

From there, we can take Prager’s great line a step farther: the bigger the government, the smaller the family.

As people in Europe left their churches, they lost the connection between love, sex, marriage, and family. Birth rates fell below the replacement rate in many of those countries. In many parts of our nation, too, they are barely at replacement rate. Moreover, as we work longer hours and pay more to the government, it leaves less for our families. Kids are expensive, and parents keep families smaller out of economic necessity.

Now let’s take Prager’s formulation one last logical step: the bigger the government, the smaller the dreams, and the smaller the future.

More than half of recent college graduates are either unemployed or underemployed. And in inner cities of America where government manages nearly every aspect of too many people’s lives, youth unemployment is at rates never seen before.

When we make the case against big bureaucracies, we are actually making a moral case that the bureaucracy will, over time, generally seek to serve itself at the expense of service to its customers. And even at the expense of its employees, if they have the desire to reform the bureaucracy.

Big, as we all know, too often becomes impersonal and breeds alienation. Talk to anyone who has attended a high school with 3,000 students, as opposed to one with 800 or 500. No matter how hard the educators try, and no matter what economies of scale a large school creates, something important is lost — something personal, something human.

That is why great innovation often comes from small companies, from a few guys in a garage. And it is why, as companies grow, their greatest challenge is to keep that contact with the customer, and the ability to adapt quickly as the customer’s needs change.

In a similar way, government that is small and close to home can best serve its citizen’s needs and more easily adapt to change.

The fact is that the Left doesn’t have much faith in the little guy. Or the individual. Or much faith in the faith community. Indeed, what they really believe about us without ever admitting it is that we are not very smart. We are not capable of making choices on our own. And we are incapable of great and small achievements without them.

What the big-government crowd has faith in is themselves and their ability to heal, help, and guide us along.

Their side may talk about fairness, but how is their version of fairness working in inner cities in America? How does public housing look, and how are those schools working? What if we instead gave all of those families a choice — a voucher — and let them decide for themselves where to live and where to go to school?

How about calling into question a public-education system that rewards teachers only for the amount of time on the job, and not for their performance? Is that fair to the good teachers? Is that fair to the students trapped in bad classrooms?

Does the union monopoly in education promote fair outcomes?

We should start calling the Left’s ideas unfair and their top-down approach insensitive. We should assert that their worldview empowers bureaucracies, not people.

We should then compare their dim view of mankind — and the shoddy outcomes it engenders — with ours.

While they have the heartless bureaucracies on their side, we have the love of the individual on ours. We believe in the power of the individual and in the God-given talents of all people; that the more choices we all have, the better off we all are; that we have more power over our lives than we know; and that our best guide to living productive and decent lives — our standard bearer — should not be the state, but God. Or some guiding light — some North Star — of our own.

We should then propose bold solutions to America’s problems. Show Americans of every race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class that we care about them, but also that we believe in them and will fight for their right to be happy, productive members of our nation.

Of course we should have safety nets for those in need. But those nets should not become cages. Those nets should lead people to self-sufficiency and the real self-esteem that comes from a good job, hard work, and independence.

The truth is that our side has the moral high ground, if only we have the courage to seize it. And we can win these arguments, if only we dare to make them.

— Lee Habeeb is vice president of content at Salem Radio Network. Mike Leven is the president and chief operating officer of the Las Vegas Sands.

 

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today

41
Leave a Reply

26 Comment threads
15 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
25 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Linda Hernandez

Why don’t we just call a spade a spade? Liberals promote lazy citizens who don’t need to try hard to be the best they can be. They promote more Lazy Liberals who take what they can get any way they can get it. Obama is a prime example of someone who is lazy. he does not govern, does not initiate a budget required by law, does not pay attention to the ecomony by tightening the White House belt. He simply allows the taxes of working folks to take care of his lavish lifestyle. Travel, travel, travel. I say stay at home and take care of the peoples business. That’s why we elected him. I don’t want a cool president! I want a president who will work for the benefit of the people…all of the people! That includes all colors, all races, both rich and poor. When the rich do well,… Read more »

Get your Men face on with iPhone

I’ll immediately seize your rss as I can’t to find your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you have any? Please let me realize so that I may just subscribe. Thanks. Get your Men face on with iPhone http://bz.sdhzz.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=55036

Bonnie Barber

What in the world does their diet have to do with this? I’m a very conservative woman and vegan for 35 years. I didn’t realize one precluded the other. The inclusion of their diet is supposed to prove what? I thought being conservative was all about the freedom of personal choice. I’ll be avoiding any future commentary by these two authors. Ignorance is obviously no longer just a feature of the left. AMAC, I thought you had your own writers…!

FOTH

Sorry for the multiple posts. Like Diana Erbio said, I submiotted the post and it did not post. I waited a day and it still had not posted so I re-submitted it–now it posted twice..Don’t know what else to say. Sorry.

Diana Erbio

I apologize for posting my comments multiple times….at first they did not post so I reposted.. now they are posted three times …

Bill

Great article. I wish every member of congress could read it.

Marcella A Dellaposta

Unfortunately, in this world there are people, who say they are Christian but their actions prove that they are not. They are hypocrites and therefore, their lives are not good. True Christianity does not seek to convert people by violence as do the Muslims and the extreme left. God gave us free will to either accept Him or reject Him. The socialists now in power do not allow us to use our free will. Instead they impose their “progressive’ beliefs on us and make us pay for their interference in our lives. Government is always the problem, never the solution.

FOTH

Why are mu posts not being posted?

Larry Bohannon

Great Article Lee and Mike. I grew up reading Animal Farm and 1984. So I have always known in my gut that economic freedom leads to prosperity for all (even the poor) and that socialism/comunism leads to poverty and slavery for all.

Bill

Our government just pours money and entitlements to the masses of the people to keep their mouth shut. People in time get use to the freebes and just sit and get lazy

Phil

The labels Liberalism and Conservatism should be renamed for what they actually are: TAKERS AND PROVIDERS

FOTH

To Shaw the natural distribution of wealth was criminal and it was the role of benevolent government to correct that evolutionary defect. America’s Founders were content to accept the rule of the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God (a notion which later found support in Chesterton’s moral defense of those laws). Through the studied understanding and application of those laws they sought not economic equality, but the Blessings of Liberty. “We the People of the United States, in order to… secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” Americans understood that for a benevolent government to redistribute wealth fairly and equally (if it were possible to do such a thing) it must know too much about all of the citizenry and control too much of their lives for them to enjoy the Blessings of Liberty. Today,… Read more »

Simon

George Bernard Shaw held extreme views on eugenics. In one recently surfaced clip, he suggests that people of ill breed are ‘more trouble than they are worth’, and should be forced to justify their existence. He also proposed implementation of the lethal gas chambers as part of eugenic policies, of which the development of a ‘humane gas’ was essential.

Joseph E Simon

George Bernard Shaw held extreme views on eugenics. In one recently surfaced clip, he suggests that people of ill

breed are ‘more trouble than they are worth’, and should be forced to justify their existence. He also proposed

implementation of the lethal gas chambers as part of eugenic policies], of which the development of a ‘humane gas’

was essential]. George Bernard Shaw is now in eternity…may he rest in HELL

Doyle Hargraves

Socialism and communism fly in the face of human nature. They assume that people will continue to be productive when the rewards for productivity have been taken from them by the state. Thus, the empty grocery stores in the Soviet Union. Soviet citizens used to say, off the record, “We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us.” What kind of life will that give you?

PaulE

What needs to be done is educate the public, which has become largely ignorant of history, why socialism / communism in all its forms is ultimately a failed ideology to follow. The last 100 years of world history provide more than enough real-world examples from which you could fashion a compelling case against what is portrayed as the socialist utopia. Capitalism, which is conservatives economic principles, has done more to lift people out of poverty and provide more opportunity in the countries where it is practiced, than any other ideology. Socialism / communism has led to more death and misery over the last 100 years, than both WW1 and WW2 combined. If you keep the discussion framed in those terms, you have a compelling argument the left can’t refute. There are NO SUCCESSFUL cases of socialism / communism ever leading to wide-spread improvement of their populations. All have either collapsed… Read more »

Chuck Rose

G. K. Chesterton was a prominent member of the Distributist Movement, who believed that owning his own land and what the work of his hands produced was sufficient for good life, free of government intervention. (a rather incomplete synopsis of his position, I admit)

DrJCA1

Until the Republican extremists get off tehir moral high-horse, we will never win anything again. When the flamers on the right speak of the “rightness” of their god, their beliefs, and their values, it then becomes NO different between them, and the same pap and trash the taliban and al-quaida are spewing out of their mouths. If true conservatives truly believed half the stuff they say, they would then leave others alone and let those who disagree with them run their lives the way they see fit. Hypocrites always say one thing and then try to force the opposite onto others because the others are “wrong” and they are “right”. If you believe abortion is wrong, then don’t have one, and teach that to your children. If birth control is morally wrong for you, then don’t use it. Stop playing the holier-than-thou game and complain about liberals forcing things on… Read more »

Diana Erbio

Great Points. I especially like the Conservative simple message “While they have the heartless bureaucracies on their side, we have the love of the individual on ours. We believe in the power of the individual and in the God-given talents of all people; that the more choices we all have, the better off we all are; that we have more power over our lives than we know; and that our best guide to living productive and decent lives — our standard bearer — should not be the state, but God. Or some guiding light — some North Star — of our own.” Now we as Conservatives need to as you say “Show Americans of every race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and class that we care about them, but also that we believe in them and will fight for their right to be happy, productive members of our nation.” This week in… Read more »

Henry

A good example of how bureaucracies grow so big they eventually take care of only themselves is the Benghazi affair. No leader in any of the departments involved is seeing any consequence for 4 American citizens being killed on the aniversary of 9-11 by terrorists. Hillary Clinton who was the head of the State Department “took responsibility” but what consequences did she suffer? She led a department that did not provide adequate security for the Benghazi consulate which requested it and, in fact, turned down repeated requests for additional security. She said she was monitoring the actions in Benghazi as they were happening but never communicated with the Leon Peneta who might have been able to get forces in to help the people at the consulate during the 7 hour attack. She said she knew it was a terrorist act from the beginning but repeatedly misled the American people by… Read more »