By Charles C. W. Cooke
Thursday, June 20, 2019
In some quarters of the American Right, it has become
fashionable of late to blame our classically liberal order for the ills that
afflict American conservatism, and then to hint vaguely that an alternative
system of government might deliver more-salutary results for religious and
social conservatives. This argument — insofar as one can call it that — is a
poor one, and perhaps even a dangerous one. It should be resisted.
The critique offered by the “post-liberal” or
illiberal-curious crowd contains a number of fatal flaws. It relentlessly
confuses the bones of our political system with the meat that free people put
upon them, and thereby becomes both incomprehensibly vague and nigh on
impossible to interrogate and find any meaning in. It badly misidentifies its
enemy, which leads its progenitors to turn, mistakenly, upon their allies. It
is wantonly self-destructive, in that, if followed to its natural conclusion,
it would limit, rather than increase, the power of those who advance it. And,
because it is not tethered to any specifics, it inevitably invites respondents
to inquire, “So let’s assume you’re right about classical liberalism — so
what do you want to do about that?” Taken together, these defects reduce it
to little more than a whine — a lament that can be summed up in terms familiar
to the three-year-old: “That’s not fair.” And whines do not great political
systems make.
Defenders of our classically liberal order such as I
contend that its purpose is not to deliver endless victories to one group or
another within society, but to create a framework within which people who hold
markedly different conceptions of what constitutes the Highest Good can coexist
without going to war. In America, this end is achieved in part by our
constitutional structure, which is designed to protect the individual and to
foster the pluralism that is necessary for peace, and it is achieved in part by
the inclusion of democratic elements that ensure that the losing side in any
dispute has a chance to win in the future. Ultimately, the classically liberal
order places only one condition on participants, and that is they agree
not to try to abolish it or to permanently take it over. Beyond that, it
doesn’t much care how it is used. The result is a country in which the Amish
and Silicon Valley can coexist, and in which the Mississippi Baptist and the
Brooklyn hipster can thrill to the same flag. It is a country in which Texas
can thrive, and so can Massachusetts. It is a country that can host both
Franklin Graham and Marilyn Manson (but not Charles Manson).
Critics of the liberal order reject this
characterization, charging that the system is unjust because it merely pretends
at neutrality and toleration while in fact smuggling in its own values and
imposing them on the public square. This critique is similar in kind to the
progressive claim that, say, neutral and expansive free-speech protections are
not, in practice, neutral and expansive but rather serve to reinforce a
particular view of the good life — say, white supremacy or patriarchy or
Christianity or capitalism. If this critique were correct, it would be damning.
Fatal, even. But it is not. And, in fact, it is entirely backwards.
To grasp why, one needs only to look at the
examples of failure and hypocrisy that are offered up against the classical-liberal
order. The Obama administration forced religious business owners to pay for
contraception. Aha! Jack Phillips can’t run his bakery in Colorado without his
conscience rights being assaulted. Aha! College campuses are shutting down
speakers! Aha! And so on. Now, it is true that these things have all happened.
But it is also true that they are not reflective of the classically liberal
order but of an illiberalism that seeks to amend or undermine it. Or, to
put it another way, these infractions are the products not of our system
working correctly, but of its being rejected by a progressivism that is
openly hostile to its presumptions.
Moreover, these departures are being fought — and
remedied — on the back of liberal provisions such as the First Amendment and
the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That the owners of Hobby Lobby had to
sue for their rights is an indictment of the Obama administration, certainly.
And yet they won — and at a Supreme Court that was less likely to
protect religious liberty than is today’s. Jack Phillips may have been targeted
and abused in a way that no man in a free society should be, but he also won
7–2 at the Supreme Court in a case whose holding is likely to be expanded in
the future. And the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports that,
while there are still free-speech problems on campus, the number of
institutions that earn its “red light” warning has dropped from 74.2 percent to
28.5 percent over the last decade. There is no easy way to prevent attempts to
crush the individual in any society, but there is an easy way to repel them.
The liberal order is the dissenter’s best friend.
What of the culture? Doesn’t the liberal order
eventually corrupt that, even as it insists that it is merely a framework within
which all people may thrive? Writing at First Things, Sohrab Ahmari has
argued vaguely that it does, and he has pointed to the existence of something
called “drag-queen story hour” at a library in Sacramento, Calif., the
existence of which apparently demonstrates that we are sliding to Gomorrah on
John Locke’s back. Leaving aside that there is nothing intrinsic to the liberal
order that prompted such an event — America had the same political, judicial,
and constitutional system in 1930, and there is no way that this would have
happened then; what has changed is the culture on top of that system —
it is hard to discern in what alternative nonauthoritarian political system
such a practice could easily be ended. Which is why, I imagine, Ahmari has not
presented a plan of any sort.
What could he offer? Does he want more local
control over libraries? If so, he’ll be disappointed when he learns what the
locals in much of California choose to permit. Does he want free-speech zones
imposed, as on college campuses, the better to limit the taking of offense? If
so, he must explain how he differs in principle from his political rivals, and
why he uses the illiberalism of progressive college campuses as an example of
the problem with the status quo. Or does he just want to win —
that is, to ban drag-queen story hours nationwide by any means necessary? If he
does, he has only one option: to stage a coup and to replace the American
system with a new order headed by those who think like him. Given that he
doesn’t mention such a plan, I shall assume he does not want to do this. That
being so, there are only two other ways that Ahmari can win this fight. The
first is to move somewhere else — someplace where this sort of thing does not
happen anywhere within the polity. (It is worth noting, incidentally, that
Ahmari does not actually live in Sacramento.) The second is to win the argument
culturally so that such behavior is marginalized and disdained, even if it is
not illegal.
Despite having no other solution, Ahmari disdains this
final option, which he disparagingly calls “David Frenchism.” He is wrong to do
so even on his own terms. Why? Well, because absent the establishment of
a dictatorship, any non-cultural solution to what ails America will itself be
reliant on the culture. Ultimately, in America, everything falls under
democratic control — yes, even the Bill of Rights, which can be amended by a
supermajority and which relies for its execution on judges who are chosen by
the executive and legislative branches. And that democratic control is the
product of our culture; if the culture is fallen, the democracy will be, too.
Ahmari seems to imply that there is some way of taking over the government in
order to fix the culture while that culture is the “enemy.”
But what, exactly, would that look like? I do not for a
moment believe that Ahmari seeks a sinister alteration to our order. I do
think, however, that he has a duty to explain himself in detail.
I think, too, that he ought to be extremely careful what
he wishes for. The irony here is that if the post-liberals were somehow able to
establish a set of institutions that could direct the culture as they wished,
they would likely be setting themselves up for persecution. It should be
obvious that any organization imbued with sufficient power to win cultural
battles without democratic backing would also be imbued with sufficient power
to crush social and religious conservatives without democratic backing. And
then what would the persecuted do, having agreed to dispense with the
guardrails?
The great thing about the American order is that you have
just as much right to say “But the First Amendment!” as the people who hate you
and believe you want to turn society away from the Highest Good — and vice
versa. To undermine that principle on the grounds that you really do know
what’s best is folly. The best way to fight illiberalism in 2019 America is the
same as it was in 1919 and 1819: not to abandon the system wholesale and seek
some elusive permanent victory, but to insist on its being upheld. It is to
speak, to argue, to persuade, to engage, and, in such cases as the law is being
ignored, to take the buggers to court and remind them that the Constitution is
supreme in this country — and should be. No victories are won in self-imposed
exile.
No comments:
Post a Comment