Yesterday I explained my belief that the social aspects of conservatism are essential to its success, in part because collectivist politics are presented as a passionate moral argument. It’s not hard to understand why many people will support policies that are wasteful or inefficient, if they believe opposing such policies is immoral. I would wager that every fiscal conservative has seen a perfectly logical argument against Big Government activism drowned out in a familiar wail of anguish: “But we’ve got to do something!” No one should be surprised that much of the human race believes moral considerations outweigh practical ones.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, should understand both the moral and practical arguments for limited-government fiscal conservatism. Liberty and capitalism are the mechanics of virtue, through which moral ends can best be achieved.
It’s common to hear people describe themselves as “fiscally conservative but socially liberal.” There are plenty of people who hold the opposite set of beliefs. George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” was an attempt to marry Big Government spending with traditional social goals. The Religious Left doesn’t get as much negative media attention as the Religious Right, but a large number of people sincerely believe their faith requires them to support massive government welfare programs. Many of those who founded the Progressive movement, the precursor to modern welfare state liberalism, justified their politics on social and religious grounds. President Woodrow Wilson was very energetic in expressing his belief in the religious mandate of Progressive politics. Today, many of the same people who rail endlessly against the incipient theocracy of the Religious Right are quite happy to watch the Democrats treat black churches as union halls with better music and stricter dress codes.
Not all socially conservative people are religious, of course, but it would be silly to overlook the sizable overlap between religious faith and traditionally conservative social attitudes. The Constitution speaks strongly in favor of respecting religious faith, which by extension must include the absence of religious faith. The government is prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion, or establishing a State religion. Those who honor the genius of the Constitution should understand the importance of embracing its respect for the religious beliefs of others, from Pentecostals to atheists. If reflexively dismissing an idea because it was born through religious inspiration is wrong, and irrational, it follows that ideas should also be granted due consideration when they have entirely secular origins.
Social conservatives should listen to the warnings of fiscal conservatives, and resist the temptation to harness the power of Big Government for moral purposes. In the end, Big Government will inevitably turn against them. Confiscatory tax policy, intrusive regulations on personal behavior, and income redistribution are sins against the liberty of free people, unsuitable as the foundation of a moral society. Those who expect virtue from a thief who promises to donate some of his loot to charity are bound to be disappointed.
Anyone with a sincere concern for the well-being of the poor should measure the economic weakness of heavily regulated command economies against the vitality and wealth of capitalism. Nothing does more to improve the lives of the poor than the innovation and competition of capitalism. Free-market breakthroughs in technology, production, and distribution – making essentials like food and medicine cheaper and better – have produced more real improvements in the lives of the poor than every socialist welfare program ever created. The moral implication of the Laffer curve, which I mentioned yesterday, is that the willing charity of a prosperous nation is worth far more than the thin blood of a stagnant and corrupt collectivist state.
The engine of taxes and regulations opposed by fiscal conservatives is like a massive computer system that becomes self-aware. No matter what noble intentions guided its creators, when it reaches a certain size, it begins acting in its own self-interest… and its interests do not parallel those of social conservatives. The behaviors encouraged and required by Big Government are not consistent with faith, tradition, or self-reliance. It’s no coincidence that every collectivist government, from socialists to fascists and communists, acts to eliminate the competition to its authority from these areas. You’ll find no exceptions in the annals of history.
At the gargantuan level of the modern state, economic policy shapes moral behavior. Name a social pathology, and it grew worse under the New Deal and Great Society. Twenty years of Lyndon Johnson’s socialism unleashed a tidal wave of crime, dependence and broken homes that might take a century for the most dedicated efforts of social conservatives to drain away… if it can be done at all. Consider that the black families destroyed by these socialist policies were among the most religious demographics in America. The economic liberty championed by fiscal conservatives is the most effective tool available for restoring the moral fiber dissolved by the welfare state.
The citizens of a massive central State will always find themselves competing with its judgment on moral issues. Most laws are expressions of morality, so a large government that creates many laws is imposing many moral judgments on its citizens. This is especially true in the case of children, whose moral development is a keen interest of the State. Those who argue about issues like prayer in school are missing the point: your children are already praying in school, according to the religious doctrine of radical environmentalism. They are being taught to sing hymns to political figures favored by the party of the education establishment. The only way to “get religion out of the classroom” is to break down the public school monopoly, and let parents decide what sort of prayers and hymns their children will learn.
The limited central government envisioned by fiscal conservatives will return power to states and communities, where individuals can have more influence over local community standards, and the freedom to live in communities that represent their beliefs. A social conservative who is confident in the power of his beliefs has no reason to fear such a competition. It won’t be easy – competition never is – but at least conservatives won’t be squabbling over control of a central government that generally works against them. Indeed, the struggle for control of such a government compromises the morality of the contestants… no matter how pure their original intentions were. Fiscal conservatives, who refuse to define “freedom” as one vote for the leadership of a monstrous State that seeks control over every aspect of our lives, can explain why no one emerges from that struggle innocent, or victorious.
