Society and Virtue

Matt Lewis continues to reflect on some of the broader conceptual stakes of the "culture war":

Of course, there has always been a tension between virtue and liberty. But at some point, America ceased emphasizing community values and began valuing extreme individualism. More and more, Americans — including many conservatives — now believe that individuals should do whatever they want so long as it isn't hurting anybody else.
But the cultural conservative says that there is a "tragedy of the commons" problem with this — that the "if it feels right, do it" mentality will eventually hurt society collectively.
And while social conservatives attempt to argue this point on purely secular grounds, the truth is that it makes little sense without God. As Dr. Benjamin Wiker writes in his new book, Worshipping The State, "For liberalism to make sense, we would have to live in a world without ends — to put it in technical philosophical terms, in a non-teleological universe (telos means "goal" or "end in Greek), where, since there are no ends written into nature (including human nature) by God, we are free to create them ourselves."
Absent a higher purpose, laws are arbitrary. Never was this spelled out more clearly than in the Supreme Court decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
In a moral relativist world, aborting an unborn child becomes "giving a mother the right to pursue happiness." Making divorce easy becomes "unburdening individuals to pursue happiness."
Almost every hot-button issue we wrestle with can fundamentally be traced to the struggle between what traditional conservatives deem to be virtue (based on tradition and Judeo-Christian teaching) and the desire to satisfy the individual's desire for extreme freedom.

A Way Forward?

The New York Times hopes that Republican opposition to an immigration amnesty is fading, but Ross Douthat raises doubts about the electoral benefits of a Republican pivot toward amnesty:

The Republican National Committee’s extended autopsy on the G.O.P.’s 2012 defeat, which officially abjures policy recommendations but then goes on to nudge the party toward supporting comprehensive immigration reform and gay marriage, is the highest-profile distillation of what I described last week as the “donorist” view of how the Republican Party needs to change. As Ramesh Ponnuru suggests, this the party elite’s vision of domestic policy reform, reflecting the views of people who are already “more likely to favor same-sex marriage and comprehensive immigration reform on principle,” and who don’t “tend to have any major problems with the Republican economic agenda and do not believe it needs to be rethought in any serious way.” Or to put it another way: If you believe that Mitt Romney’s economic platform and “you built that” rhetoric would be the basis for a durable majority if they weren’t associated with the religious right and anti-immigration sentiment, then this is the vision of Republican reform for you.

Mickey Kaus reminds ambitious politicians that the establishment consensus on amnesty presents a political opportuninty.

The Next Spark?

A potentially very troubling bit of financial news from Cyprus:

ATHENS — In a move that could set off new fears of contagion across the euro zone, anxious depositors drained cash from automated teller machines in Cyprus over the weekend, hours after European officials in Brussels required that part of a new €10 billion bailout be paid for directly from the bank accounts of ordinary savers....
Under an emergency deal reached early Saturday in Brussels, a one-time tax of 9.9 percent is to be levied on Cypriot bank deposits of more than €100,000 effective Tuesday, hitting wealthy depositors — mostly Russians who have put vast sums into Cyprus’s banks in recent years. But even deposits of less than that amount are to be taxed at 6.75 percent, meaning that Cypriot creditors will be confiscating money directly from retirees, workers and regular depositors to pay off the bailout tab.  

As some have noted, this kind of move could lead to a spike of uncertainty and increase the instability of banks across the EU (and elsewhere in the world).

Sustainable Conservatism

In The Weekly Standard, I lay out a case for a "sustainable conservatism," which would combine civic fellowship with targeted reforms:

Even as Washington settles into another battle over the budget, an increasing number of conservative writers (and a few elected officials) are becoming aware of the fact that anti-government platitudes are losing their electoral punch and of the need for conservatism to be about more than the budget. Now is probably not the space to give a laundry list of the names of pundits who have considered conservative reform, but it might be worthwhile to turn to a recent online debate between Hot Air's Ed Morrissey and the Daily Caller's Matt Lewis as revealing two major trends for the future of conservatism---and to look at what a synthesis of these approaches could mean.

Lewis has suggested the value of a return to a "compassionate conservatism," one that would go beyond celebrating selfishness to think of our broader commitments to one another. This interest in rehabilitating compassionate conservatism can be seen more widely on certain parts of the right (Peter Wehner's and Michael Gerson's recent cover story in Commentary, for instance, seems informed by this impulse). Morrissey has proposed instead the value of a "practical conservatism," which would focus on reforming rather than blowing up many of the institutions that have become central to American public life since the New Deal (such as Social Security). This theme also percolates throughout various sectors of the reformist wing of the right. Perhaps I might pose a synthesizing variant of these two: "sustainable conservatism." The goal of such a conservatism would involve nurturing the public and private institutions and tendencies that help sustain a free republic. It seems as though maintaining a free republic demands, among other things, faith in government and the rule of law, a sense of civic participation, a belief in personal freedom, virtue on the part of its citizens (and especially its government officials), and some kind of wisdom or prudence. Sustainable conservatism would seek to foster these tendencies in order to renew the civic compact. 

Read the rest here.

Changing the Game

In The Weekly Standard, Matt Continetti explores the GOP's political "double bind," arguing that possible steps the GOP could take for reform could shatter its political coalition.  As he puts it:

Trying to appeal to the coalition of the ascendant and the Reagan coalition simultaneously would give the party a severe case of political schizophrenia. The GOP would bewilder its historic base of support while disappointing newcomers, leading to confusion, disillusionment, apathy, and perhaps (ultimately) dissolution.

The Republicans, like feminists, can’t have it all. They are trapped in the double bind.

Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner, who worked for President George W. Bush, have a cover story in Commentary on how to revive the Republican party. Their proposals are well intentioned, cogent, and in some ways persuasive. When they get into the nitty-gritty of specifics, though, they bump up against the double bind.

For example, Gerson and Wehner propose “ending corporate welfare as we know it”; “supporting the breakup of the big banks”; and “thoroughgoing reform of the federal role in education, focusing on public and private choice.” Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner made similar arguments shortly after the election, when he called for a “new Republican populism” that “can promise to level the field by getting the bureaucrats and politicians out of it” and by cutting regulations and ending bailouts.

Sounds great. But a word of caution: There is little evidence these policies would be any more popular than traditional Republican ones. And one reason there is so little evidence is that there is no serious advocate for these ideas within the ranks of Republican officeholders. Why is there no advocate for these ideas? Because major elements of the Republican party oppose them.

Continetti suggests that one strategy Republicans might turn to in the face of this double bind is the acceptance of the idea of a "conservative welfare state."  This kind of conservatism would accept the legitimacy of the state but then try to reform this state so that it accomplished conservative ends.  This wouldn't necessarily be totally centrally controlled state; Continetti leaves a big space open for federalism.

As he concludes his vision of a conservative welfare state, Continetti writes:

The conservative welfare state of our dreams would be, well, a state. That is, it would be an effective federal government. And it would be a community. Human beings are not faceless monads choosing identities at will from a universal menu of options. Human beings are born into families, faiths, and nations.

The security of all three of these pre-liberal forms of association is important. For families, that means growing incomes while lessening the costs of child-rearing, and giving parents blocking gear against the offenses of a hazardous popular culture. For faiths, that means protecting ministerial exceptions and religious liberty. For the nation, that means borders that are secure, a trade policy that puts the interests of American laborers over the interests of multinational corporations, a sound currency, and a fearsome military.

The emphasis on "community" in Continetti's vision has considerable merit, especially the recognition that we find ourselves members of community and that people are social animals and not just profit-seeking automatons.

Whether one agrees with all the details of Continetti's alternative vision or not, he certainly does make a good case for Republicans changing the policy playing field.

Should High Worker Wages Be a Problem?

David Frum argues that a guest worker program would pose a threat to the economic revitalization of the working and middle classes:

The immigration debate is often premised on the assumption that high wages for American workers are a problem to be overcome. If you'll look again at the Cleveland Fed chart above, you'll notice that the collapse in labor's share of national income coincides with the start of the mass immigration influx after 1970. Since then 40 million people have migrated to the United States, most of them very low-skilled. About one-third that number arrived illegally.

Immigration advocates insist that this huge surge of cheap labor has nothing to do with the persistent decline in wages that began about the same time. If so, that's one hell of a coincidence. With President Obama proposing accelerated flows of immigration in future, American workers should ready themselves for more coincidences ahead.

In Defense of Virtue

Matt Lewis picks up an important---but often ignored---component of the American founding: the importance the Founders placed not on relentless private acquisitiveness but on self-restraint and sacrifice in the name of the public good.  As Lewis puts it:

Our founders believed self-imposed responsibility was essential to the preservation of freedom. An immoral majority will eventually discover that they can vote "themselves largess from the public treasury." But a nation's elite must also be moral — which is to say, not greedy. As Ed Morrissey noted, "Any society with a large class of exploited poor will have no end of social difficulties and instability, the costs of which in a properly ordered system would far exceed the assistance extended." That's the invisible hand at work.

Without private and public responsibility, the enterprise of this republic could founder.  There's a reason why Jefferson spoke of a natural aristocracy of virtue and talent.

Conservatives Must Continue in Search for Health-Care Solutions

The recent announcement by Chris Christie that he is seeking federal funds (secured by Obamacare) to extend Medicaid has ignited a lot of wrath from the right.  But, as I note in The Weekly Standard, anger at Christie or other GOP governors for accepting Obamacare isn't enough:

With New Jersey governor Chris Christie's announcement that he would accept funds for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, the number of Republican governors accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion money rises to eight: Jan Brewer (Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), John Kasich (Ohio), and Christie. Many of these governors rode to power in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and protested vociferously against Obamacare, so their about-face on Obamacare money stokes more than a little ire on the part of some on the right. I am not sure, however, that conservatives should rest content with excommunicating these governors from the Church of True Conservatism and casting them into the darkness of the RINO Establishment.  The acceptance of these Obamacare funds—however tentative—drives home the need for Republicans to offer an alternative health care model.

There might be an aspect of political self-interest in these governors' decisions. Many of these governors are from states that President Obama won in 2012.  But it would be a mistake to attribute this decision solely to politics. Mitt Romney carried both Arizona and North Dakota handily, and Republican governors who embrace Obamacare funding likely risk a considerable backlash within their own ranks.  So politics alone cannot explain this conversion. 

- See more at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/absence-conservative-solutions-health-care_704924.html?nopager=1#sthash.Er84eUAB.dpuf

With New Jersey governor Chris Christie's announcement that he would accept funds for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, the number of Republican governors accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion money rises to eight: Jan Brewer (Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), John Kasich (Ohio), and Christie. Many of these governors rode to power in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and protested vociferously against Obamacare, so their about-face on Obamacare money stokes more than a little ire on the part of some on the right. I am not sure, however, that conservatives should rest content with excommunicating these governors from the Church of True Conservatism and casting them into the darkness of the RINO Establishment.  The acceptance of these Obamacare funds—however tentative—drives home the need for Republicans to offer an alternative health care model.

There might be an aspect of political self-interest in these governors' decisions. Many of these governors are from states that President Obama won in 2012.  But it would be a mistake to attribute this decision solely to politics. Mitt Romney carried both Arizona and North Dakota handily, and Republican governors who embrace Obamacare funding likely risk a considerable backlash within their own ranks.  So politics alone cannot explain this conversion. 

- See more at: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/absence-conservative-solutions-health-care_704924.html?nopager=1#sthash.Er84eUAB.dpuf

With New Jersey governor Chris Christie's announcement that he would accept funds for Obamacare's Medicaid expansion, the number of Republican governors accepting Obamacare Medicaid expansion money rises to eight: Jan Brewer (Arizona), Rick Scott (Florida), Rick Snyder (Michigan), Brian Sandoval (Nevada), Susana Martinez (New Mexico), Jack Dalrymple (North Dakota), John Kasich (Ohio), and Christie. Many of these governors rode to power in 2010 on a Tea Party wave and protested vociferously against Obamacare, so their about-face on Obamacare money stokes more than a little ire on the part of some on the right. I am not sure, however, that conservatives should rest content with excommunicating these governors from the Church of True Conservatism and casting them into the darkness of the RINO Establishment.  The acceptance of these Obamacare funds—however tentative—drives home the need for Republicans to offer an alternative health care model.


There might be an aspect of political self-interest in these governors' decisions. Many of these governors are from states that President Obama won in 2012.  But it would be a mistake to attribute this decision solely to politics. Mitt Romney carried both Arizona and North Dakota handily, and Republican governors who embrace Obamacare funding likely risk a considerable backlash within their own ranks.  So politics alone cannot explain this conversion.

Read the rest here.


Earlier this week in the National Review, Avik Roy also stressed the need for conservatives to think in a more sustained way about health-care reform.