A spectre is haunting the liberal elite — the spectre of conservatism.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Huge government debt and financial instability were supposed to be problems of South American dictatorships. Underemployment was a problem of unregulated capitalism, of the bad old days when employers exploited the reserve army of the unemployed. Ineffective government was supposed to have died out with the end of royal sinecures or at least with the reform of the patronage system. But in the second decade of the 21st century every developed country is bending under the weight of huge government spending and debt. European levels of unemployment have come to America as labor force participation has declined in the aftermath of the recession of 2008-2009. Governments at every level are failing to deliver social services competently and efficiently. Something has gone wrong with the modern state.
The core functions of government are rather simple. Norman Tebbit, minister in the United Kingdom in the 1980s, put it succinctly. A state must have territory and a people. It must defend its territory from aggressors foreign and domestic; it must have a currency and a legal system to foster agriculture, industry, and trade. Modern governments do most of that rather well, because they involve tasks that require only bureaucratic routine. You can write a law to fix a problem in one of these areas and expect it to work for decades.
But people do not go into politics to watch the grass grow; they go into politics because they are interested in power and doing the things that only the powerful can do. After securing a territory from enemies foreign and domestic they look for new vistas to conquer, and venture into areas for which political power is not suited: activities requiring adaptability, flexibility, creativity, and concern for people as individual persons and intimate groups. Thus the modern government does not just secure peace for its citizens; it goes on to direct retirement finance, health care, education, and the relief of the poor. Unfortunately, governments go about these activities as they would a campaign of imperial conquest or of national defense. They mobilize the people against an existential threat: they declare war on poverty, on cancer, on ignorance, on inequality. They they vote credits and enlist recruits into a bureaucratic army of grant-awarders and regulators, and march forth to engage and defeat the enemy. Modern governments have failed miserably in all these areas and their failures have placed their core functions at risk.
But if the modern state is failing, what shall we do? Today the centralized administrative state has taken over much of our lives. We just expect the government to school our children, for we know that we could never afford to pay for private school on our own. We never knew a time when government didn’t run a universal pension scheme, and who would trust Wall Street for their retirement security rather than government? We never knew a time when government didn’t run the health care system, and we know that a single expensive illness could us wipe out financially. We cannot imagine paying for health care without huge government subsidies.
It was not always thus. The notion that government could, and indeed should direct the details of peoples’ education, health care, and pensions is relatively new. It all began in the second half of the 19th century when various political movements led by the educated sons of the rising middle class looked at the work of their fathers, the creative spirits of the Industrial Revolution, and saw not creation, but destruction. They saw poverty, oppression, superstition in the ways of their fathers, and they were determined to fight for a better world. It doesn’t matter whether we are talking about autodidact pampleteers or the pampered sons of businessmen, the reactionary Prussian landowner Otto von Bismarck or the Fabian intellectuals trying to curb the waste of individualism and the higgling of the market. All of them saw political power as the answer to the Social Question of the 19th century. Every problem was now a problem of politics and the solution was more government, which now looked to benefit the working class rather than the landowners or the bourgeoisie as of old. Government grew in Britain from 14 percent of Gross Domestic Product in 1900 to 46 percent in 2010.1 In the United States government grew from 8 percent of GDP in 1900 to 40 percent in 2010.2 Today, government is the chief guarantor of pensions for the aged. It is the principal in the organization of health care. It is the educator of children and the reliever of the poor. These great social responsibilities thus no longer engage the attention of the people but of the rulers. And the rulers do this work very badly.
The question that the crisis of the modern state presents is the oldest question of all: how shall humans flourish? To what extent can we social humans flourish through our instincts for cooperation, and to what extent must we supplement the velvet glove of cooperation with the mailed fist of force? And what about religion? For many people God has died, and yet the early 21st century is experiencing in radical Islam and in global Christianity a strong renewal of religious faith. In the United States, religious faith and government power are famously supposed to be separate. Yet most of the political movements of the 20th century are best understood as secular religions, militantly combining church and state in a holy war for a new heaven on earth.
If there are problems in the world — poverty, sickness, ignorance, inequality, oppression — what can government realistically do to mitigate them or solve them and, if government action has its limitations, what can other means achieve, such as religious faith and friendly cooperation? That is to say: knowing what we know about the nature of governments and politicians and their supporters, what should we expect from a government program to, e.g., fight poverty? Or is this the wrong question? We might ask instead what is left of a meaningful life for ordinary people when the government has appropriated the social space of education, health care, providing for the future, relieving the poor, and marked off that space as the playground of politicians and activists?
With the failure of the modern administrative state a space is created for a new philosophy of limited government. But how to found it, how to design and build it? Conservative and libertarian thinkers have traditionally argued for smaller government from the philosophies of the 17th century Glorious Revolution and the 18th century American Revolution. But for over a century these arguments have not persuaded the educated elite that now constitutes the ruling class in Europe and North America. Drawing on 19th century thought the modern educated elite has developed an apology for the rule of the educated and the expert, and rejects 17th and 18th century ideas as irrelevant and outmoded, when not utterly vitiated by the racism, sexism and classism of that era.
In the second decade of the 21st century, it is time to argue for a new birth of freedom from a new point of view. By remembering how the 19th century thinkers of the left experienced the Social Question as an indictment of the 18th century’s errors, we may perhaps gain traction by arguing that the failures of the 20th century administrative state arise out of the errors of 19th century thinking. Could it be that ideas of thinkers from the 20th century might point the way to a new birth of freedom? And might we conservatives even countenance ideas from sadder, wiser men of the left?
Assisted by 20th century ideas we shall argue in these pages that the problem with the modern state is that there is too much compulsion and too little cooperation, too many declarations of moral equivalents of war and not enough agreements to differ, too frequent collusion between religious and political power and between political and economic power and not enough separation of power. We shall argue that governments and politicians are the human means for defense against existential perils and sudden emergencies. But most of human life is working and discussing and exchanging and living and trying to divine the meaning of it all, for which we shall argue that government’s mailed fist is not the answer. We shall try to develop a social vision that balances the imperative for a defense against the dangers of the time with the need in every human to take up the responsibility, moral and practical, of freely and gladly contributing to the welfare and the flourishing of others in order to flourish for themselves.
Humans are social animals called to cooperate and exchange for the common good in ordinary times and called to sacrifice during times of crisis. They are not born to be serfs on a plantation or mechanical cogs in a government or corporate machine.
How is it that human social animals got to be regimented into the nursery of a nanny state? The answer is: the secular religions that rushed to fill the hole in the human soul left by the death of God. They did it. They determined to fight the economic and social injustices they saw, and knew that they had to seize the commanding heights of the culture and the government to do it. After winning the culture and replacing the ruling class, then they began to build a world of peace and justice here on earth. But in their cramped imaginations the prophets of heaven on earth could not conceive of a way to build their perfect society except with political rage and government force.
The utopian imagination cannot understand that government force is a blunt instrument good only for cowing your enemy into submission whereas the whole point of human society is to provide for human flourishing with a minimum of force. You can’t make a flower bloom by bashing it into submission with a spade.
It cannot be emphasized enough: government is not social; it is not cooperative; it is not adaptable; it is not inspirational. Government is force.
1Christopher Chantrill, ukpublicspending.co.uk, accessed 06-19-2014. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/spending_chart_1900_2016UKp_F0t
2Christopher Chantrill, usgovernmentspending.com, accessed 06-19-2014. http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1900_2016USp_F0t
Government and the Technology of Power
If you scratch a social reformer, you will likely discover a plan for more government.
Business, Slavery, and Trust
Business is all about trust and relationship.
Humanity's Big Problem: Freebooters and Freeloaders
The modern welfare state encourages freeloaders.
The Bonds of Faith
No society known to anthropology or history lacked religion.
A Critique of Social Mechanics
The problem with human society reduced to system.
The Paradox of Individualism
Is individualism the gospel of selfishness or something else?
From Multitude to Civil Society
The larger the government, the smaller the society.
The Answer is Civil Society
In between the separated powers.
The Greater Separation of Powers
If you want to limit power then you must limit power.
Conservatism Three by Three
Conservatism, political, economics, and cultural.
The Culture of Involvement
Imagining lives without the welfare state
The Poor Without the Welfare State
Can the poor thrive without the welfare state?
The Middle Class Without The Welfare State
How would the middle class live without all those middle-class entitlements?
Liberals and the Welfare State
Liberals, the ruling class of the administrative welfare state.
From Freeloaders to Free Givers
The path to the future lies through moral movements.
The Real Meaning of Society
Broadening the horizon of cooperation in the last best hope of man on earth.
[W]hen I asked a liberal longtime editor I know with a mainstream [publishing] house for a candid, shorthand version of the assumptions she and her colleagues make about conservatives, she didn't hesitate. Racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-choice fascists, she offered, smiling but meaning it.
Harry Stein, I Can't Believe I'm Sitting Next to a Republican
Families helped each other putting up homes and barns. Together, they built churches, schools, and common civic buildings. They collaborated to build roads and bridges. They took pride in being free persons, independent, and self-reliant; but the texture of their lives was cooperative and fraternal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
[To make] of each individual member of the army a soldier who, in character, capability, and knowledge, is self-reliant, self-confident, dedicated, and joyful in taking responsibility [verantwortungsfreudig] as a man and a soldier. — Gen. Hans von Seeckt
MacGregor Knox, Williamson Murray, ed., The dynamics of military revolution, 1300-2050
For [the left] there is only the state and the individual, nothing in between. No family to rely on, no friend to depend on, no community to call on. No neighbourhood to grow in, no faith to share in, no charities to work in. No-one but the Minister, nowhere but Whitehall, no such thing as society - just them, and their laws, and their rules, and their arrogance.
David Cameron, Conference Speech 2008
Imagining that all order is the result of design, socialists
conclude that order must be improvable by better design of some superior mind.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[Every] sacrifice is an act of impurity that pays for a prior act of greater impurity... without its participants having to suffer the full consequences incurred by its predecessor. The punishment is commuted in a process that strangely combines and finesses the deep contradiction between justice and mercy.
Frederick Turner, Beauty: The Value of Values
[The Axial Age] highlights the conception of a responsible self... [that] promise[s] man for the first time that he can understand the fundamental structure of reality and through salvation participate actively in it.
Robert N Bellah, "Religious Evolution", American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 3.
But the only religions that have survived are those which support property and the family.
Thus the outlook for communism, which is both anti-property and anti-family, (and also anti-religion), is not promising.
F.A. Hayek, The Fatal Conceit
[T]he way to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis,
Brown II, 349 U. S., at 300–301, is to stop assigning students on a racial basis. The way to stop
discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.
Roberts, C.J., Parents Involved in Community Schools vs. Seattle School District
A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is merely relative, is asking you not to believe him. So dont.
Roger Scruton, Modern Philosophy
Paul Dirac: When I was talking with Lemaître about [the expanding universe] and feeling stimulated
by the grandeur of the picture that he has given us, I told him that
I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion.
However [Georges] Lemaître [Catholic priest, physicist, and
inventor of the Big Bang Theory] did not agree with me. After thinking it over he
suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.
John Farrell, The Creation Myth
Within Pentecostalism the injurious hierarchies of the wider world are abrogated and replaced by a single hierarchy of faith, grace, and the empowerments of the spirit... where groups gather on rafts to take them through the turbulence of the great journey from extensive rural networks to the mega-city and the nuclear family...
David Martin, On Secularization