Tradcons vs. libertarians

Via Reihan, this essay by libertarian Edward Glaeser. Key passage:

I start with the view that individual freedom is the ultimate goal for any government. The ultimate job of the state is to increase the range of options available to its citizens. To me, this is not a maxim, but an axiom that is justified by both philosophy and history. On a basic level, I believe that human beings are the best judges of what is best for themselves. I also believe that the right to make our own decisions is an intrinsically good thing. I also believe that people become better decision-makers through the course of regularly making their own decisions.

That's as concise a definition of the libertarian ethos as I've seen. One can certainly see why it's attractive. But it is not traditionally conservative. A traditional conservative sees the state not as the mechanism by which choice is expanded -- an essentially consumerist vision of statecraft and society -- but as the means by which the common good is defended by maintaining the rule of law and a strong defense against outside enemies. Libertarianism sees "the common good" as the aggregate of all the freely made choices of the people in a polity; it's focus is not on what's chosen, but on the fact of choosing. Traditional conservatism sees the common good as defined by an objective standard of virtue; it's focus is on what is chosen, not the fact of choosing.

A tradcon could not affirm that human beings are the best judges of what is best for themselves, because he is aware of the distorting effect of the Fall (which is to say, mankind's intrinsic imperfection). This is not to say that tradcons favor an authoritarian state. Ideally, the people will make proper use of their liberty to make virtuous choices. It is generally the case that in a pluralistic secular society like our own, the only way tradcons can carve out a space for themselves and their communities is through a libertarian order. For example, the public school system is inimical to the kinds of values tradcons believe are necessary for the proper and sustainable function of the schools. There is no way to reform them around tradcon lines. The best option available to tradcons, then, is to favor the libertarian policy of school choice, including the right to homeschool.

But making tactical alliances with libertarians -- fusionism, basically -- is not the same thing as endorsing libertarianism. In his new book "Consumed," the political scientist Benjamin Barber observes that a society organized around the values of consumer capitalism can become materially rich but spiritually and morally poor. This is the standard religious critique of consumer capitalism, and it does not follow that poverty and want make one virtuous. Where I think Barber makes a real contribution to the current discussion is his argument that the materialism of late capitalism undermines the virtues necessary to make capitalism sustainable. That is, capitalism (which he favors, as do we all, yes?) is an unparalled success at improving the material conditions of society, but it did so only within the framework of the virtues, in particular the ascetic conviction that gratification of desire should be delayed for a higher end. But today, people are acculturated toward the consumerist ideal that if you want it, you should have it right this very instant. The people -- the freely choosing people -- tend, then, to lose an appreciation for the difference between what they want, and what they need. Hence a nation and a booming economy built on massive indebtedness. Hence a society in which the idea of objective truth is losing its coherence, as "truth" becomes a matter of what you choose to believe -- a "fact" or a standard that "works" for you, not an objective principle around which one organizes individual and common life.

I stand with Pope Benedict, who criticized both Marxism and consumer capitalism as distortions of human nature that can lead individuals and societies astray from their proper ends. The problem facing tradcons in this society is that absent a commonly shared religious sense to both instruct and bind us, there can be no agreement on "proper ends," and thus a libertarian social order may be the only real alternative to preventing the hostile state from transgressing what tradcons see as its boundaries. On the other hand, a libertarian social order tends to leave us unprotected against the depredations of big business, as under our legal order, businesses are seen as akin to persons.

Not sure where all this ends up, though as you know, MacIntyre believes that it will all fall apart because there is no center to hold it together. I do wish, modestly, that conservative Christians would wake up and realize how consumer capitalism and its values undermine what we profess to believe in. You cannot be a conservative, especially a Christian conservative, and view the free market uncritically.