By Andy Smarick
Thursday, September 17, 2020
An emerging strand of anti- or post-liberal thought has
set off an important debate on America’s political right. These critics often
charge that classical liberalism, which a number of us have considered
foundational to American conservative thinking, fetishizes individual autonomy.
That leads, the argument goes, to personal atomization, social aimlessness, and
cultural decadence. Many of these critics would prefer a political system that
prioritizes solidarity, stability, and a particular vision of the common good
over individual freedom.
I think the more extreme of these post-liberal arguments
risk undermining the invaluable philosophical progress made over centuries in
elevating citizens above the state. But this debate is more than a seminar-room
dispute about theories and Enlightenment-era figures. It also has a direct
bearing on how American conservatives who are actually engaged in governing
today go about their work.
Post-liberalism and its relatives directly challenge what
I would call the “proceduralism” of American conservative governing. Unlike
other nations, where conservatism aims primarily to preserve a longstanding
religious, cultural, and/or governmental order, America’s conservatism has also
evolved a set of rules for wisely administering the state. These procedures
include liberalism, federalism, localism, traditionalism, prudentialism,
capitalism, volunteerism, originalism, textualism, and democratic-republicanism.
In combination, they help our right-of-center officials translate concepts into
action. They enable governing leaders to navigate the real-world challenges
that confront the state.
American conservatives have generally understood that
these mutually reinforcing processes are essential for producing, adapting, and
conserving the things that are necessary for human flourishing. This includes
everything from customs and norms to family structure and voluntary
associations to democratic deliberation and positive law. So American
conservatism hasn’t just been a way to build a fortress around things that have
been handed down to us. It has also taught us how to assess our patrimony,
pursue needed change, respond to unexpected occurrences, foster the development
of new practices, and judge reform proposals.
To be more specific, when an issue of public significance
arises, American conservatism encourages our leaders to consider whether
authority is being vested in those proximate to the problem, whether the people
and their representatives are driving policy, whether the wisdom found in
diverse practices and traditions is respected, whether nongovernmental bodies
are adequately engaged, whether we are responding to conditions judiciously,
and so on. By focusing attention on key matters of process with questions that
suggest the right answers, American conservatism helps our public officials
govern smartly and consistently. It is important, I think, to recognize how
post-liberalism and several distinct but related ideologies gaining strength on
the right (e.g., nationalism, populism, Catholic integralism) contest such
laudably leading questions.
I do not raise this as a philosophical matter. My point
is that it becomes all but impossible to develop a coherent
American-conservative governing agenda if we jettison the rules of thumb for
American-conservative governing. We’ll be left with vague admonitions (“Protect
American workers,” “Support the family”) that offer little guidance to those
actually participating in the work of public leadership. Should they support a
universal basic income, blue laws, state-run child care, prohibitions on
gambling, federal paid family leave, public housing, free post-secondary
education, a larger administrative state, tariffs, and state aid to nonprofits?
As worrisome, in my view, is that some of the
post-liberal Right’s priorities seem to have gained steam through online
communities instead of through the quotidian, formative work of self-government
(e.g., running for county legislature, forming clubs and organizations). When
these ideas are turned into policy proposals, too often they recommend
increasing the power of central-government bodies. Indeed, abstract thinking
often leads to centralizing tendencies; and ceding power to central authorities
can be a way of dodging the hard work of practical, local self-governing. The
proceduralism of American conservatism, however, cultivates civic virtues that
instill in citizens the rights and duties of individuals and communities.
***
In political
science, “proceduralism” often means that a system generates results that are
legitimate. That is, we see the outcomes of fair elections as legitimate
because they were produced by democratic procedures; we see legal verdicts as
legitimate because of the rules of criminal or civil procedure. The procedures
of American conservatism are different in that they are largely instrumental
instead of legitimizing; they evolved to help us achieve desirable outcomes.
The components of American conservatism are what we might call “civic
heuristics,” general rules for citizens and public officials to follow when
engaged in the public’s business.
They are the
fruits of experience. They aren’t merely a matter of revelation, and they
aren’t the natural products of reason. They are responses to what societies
have learned about human nature and human society, particularly about the
inescapability of human imperfection, the necessity of personal agency, and the
dangers of concentrated power. In that sense, there is something universal
about them. But they are also — as all meaningful conservative approaches are —
particular to a distinct place and history. America is a diverse, continental
nation with anti-authoritarian, pro-self-reliance, and pro-civil-society
sentiments embedded in its DNA. We have learned lessons from the City upon a
Hill and the Founding era, through Tocqueville and Manifest Destiny, through
Lincoln and Reconstruction, through industrialization and isolationism, through
the Great Depression and the New Deal, through World War II and the Cold War,
through Reagan and the Great Recession.
The procedures of
American conservatism ensure that the people and their associations are
empowered and that authority isn’t centralized in the hands of inevitably
flawed leaders. Said another way, these procedures enable citizens to rule
themselves without the presumptuous intervention of faraway authorities who
always believe they know best. Federalism and localism stop power from
gravitating toward distant, obtuse administrators in Washington.
Democratic-republicanism ensures that the people and their representatives,
instead of pseudo-scientific technocrats, make decisions. Textualism and
originalism prevent elite judges from substituting their sensibilities for
those of the people. Liberalism protects individuals and their associations
from statist diktats. Capitalism relies on private ownership, markets, and the
price system, not economic micromanagers. Volunteerism creates a
nongovernmental sector that prevents the state from dominating our lives.
Traditionalism privileges the knowledge accumulated over time above the vogue
fancies of current “experts.” Prudentialism cautions against sudden, uniform,
wide-ranging change to the existing order by hot-headed pundits and panicked
officials.
When these procedures are respected, an overarching
system results that is differentiated, supple, and transparent. A universe of
institutions emerges — everything from regional customs, faith traditions, and
local ordinances to community associations, governing bodies, and codes of
personal conduct. A variety of communities can define, pursue, and protect
their understandings of the good life. And the consequences of policies and
practices are on full display. We needn’t be neutral or agnostic about the
choices individuals or communities make. We can continually inspect and interrogate
them, correcting mistakes and amplifying successes.
Perhaps most important, though, these procedures enable
conservatives to conserve. Citizens use their liberty to create traditions and
associations that can then be protected and adjusted to match changing
conditions. They use their small-scale democratic powers to codify time-tested
local beliefs and then alter them as necessary. Sturdy but adaptable
traditions, institutions, habits, and practices — the stuff of conservative
life — are the consequence.
***
Two things stand out about the several budding brands or
styles of right-of-center thinking. The first is how each can be seen to be at
odds with a distinct element of American-conservative proceduralism.
Post-liberals contest liberalism. Nationalism can draw attention away from
states and localities and toward Washington. Alarmist, intemperate discourse
thwarts prudentialism. The novel “common-good constitutionalism” takes aim at
originalism and textualism. Those advocating significant state interventions in
the economy are questioning some elements of laissez-faire.
I don’t want to overstate my case. Many critics of
liberalism still believe in some liberal values; plenty of nationalists still
believe in decentralization; many advocates of tariffs or wage subsidies still
believe in capitalism. My point is that, at minimum, bringing into question our
rules of thumb for governing leaves conservative officials in the lurch. When
making real decisions affecting real lives, should our leaders’ starting point
be natural rights, tradition, federalism, localism, incrementalism, a steady
disposition, the text of the Constitution and statutes, and a very limited
government role in the economy? If not, what are the actionable substitutes?
Once today’s heady debates about conservative concepts make their way into
matters of governing, complications abound.
The second issue is that these emerging lines of
conservative thinking share a worrisome level of overconfidence. For
generations, American conservatism could be counted on to stand against elite
know-it-alls. American conservatism opposed socialists who thought they could
centrally manage the economy and Communists who thought they could centrally
manage society. We opposed bossy courts that, believing their virtue and
judgment to be superior to those of the people, overturned democratically
legitimate laws that were based on ages of tradition. We opposed scientism’s
technocrats and social psychology’s nudgers who believed they could fix
citizens’ faulty decision-making.
I worry that elements of the new Right are showing the
same troubling hubris that we see in the progressive Left. Opposing
classical-liberal traditions that foster pluralism and the organic development
of diverse customs implies that you know the proper answer to key
questions. Advocating a bulked-up role for Uncle Sam in the economy suggests
that you know the right outcomes and how to adjust the knobs to get them.
Vesting more power in Washington intimates that we just need the right people in
authority. Dispensing with the will of the people in the name of the “common
good” indicates that you know for sure what the common good is.
American conservatism has historically been based on
greater humility than this. We know humans are flawed, so we resist the
consolidation of power. We know that we and our friends might be wrong, so when
we possess state authority, we move gradually and talk prudently. We know that
the pressure-tested habits, traditions, and norms handed down to us may very
well possess more wisdom than the stylish notions of the day. Our procedures —
designed to distribute power, protect pluralism, respect inheritance, foster
civil society, and so on — weren’t dreamed up on a lark. Experience taught us
that this was the path to maximizing the potential for flourishing in a
diverse, continental nation with a bent for freedom and voluntary association.
We should be hesitant to replace this architecture with one premised on the
belief that greater health and happiness will flow from putting more power in
the hands of certain people who know best.
That replacement project would inevitably lead to the
same types of problems that the procedures of American conservatism were
designed to fix. The enlightened leaders who are promised to us are never as
wise as they think they are. Central plans will fail to deliver the results
envisioned while producing all sorts of unintended consequences. Consolidated
power and uniform solutions will frustrate America’s varied, independent-minded
citizenry. Imprudent thinking and language will lead to rash action and
radioactive politics. Let us not force today’s and tomorrow’s conservative
governing leaders to relearn — the hard way — the dangers of leaning into state
power.
***
Warranted frustration on the right has energized these
emerging lines of thought. Conservatives who care about the plight of
blue-collar workers, the deterioration of the two-parent family, and the
weakening of mediating bodies should raise questions about the Right’s
political strategies and tactics. Moreover, standing up for procedures can feel
like unilateral disarmament when your opponents simply apply brute force. It’s
not unreasonable to ask why we fight for the concepts of self-government and a
restrained judiciary when the Left happily pursues its priorities through
activist courts and the federal administrative state. “Enough is enough,” one
might say. “If this is just about power, then power it is. If you want to read
your worldview into the Constitution, then we’ll do the same; if you want to
advance your agenda through a muscular central government, then we’ll do the
same.”
But that, I believe, misunderstands the problem. The
Right won’t produce the outcomes it desires — family and community bonds over
atomization; attachments to voluntary associations and local institutions over
obedience to the state; variety over homogeneity; dynamism over sclerosis;
practitioner wisdom and custom over technocracy; ordered liberty over authority
— by playing the game of power. That would only accelerate the trends of
uniformity, statism, and alienation, frustrating our long-range aims.
The Right’s failure to achieve many of its goals is not
because of its faith in procedures but because, too often, we have acted as
though the procedures themselves would automatically generate the political and
social outcomes we wanted. But the rules of the game are different from the
players. Processes are different from inputs. In other words, these procedures
are necessary, but they are not sufficient. To produce the outcomes we desire,
they require conservatives’ concerted civic engagement.
An essential component of citizenship is active participation
in the life of the polity. Those on the right who are concerned about the
direction of the nation would do far more good by personally engaging in the
affairs of the state than by undermining the procedures of American
conservatism. Our republic demands a great deal of its people — not just
voting, but also running for office, serving in public capacities,
participating in charitable causes, volunteering. Of course, it would be far
more convenient to dispense with such duties and simply elevate authoritarians
with whom we agree to take care of the public’s business for us. But centuries
of experience across countless societies demonstrate the costs of such
convenience. Not only does it lead to extreme measures and despotic rule, it
also robs the people of the opportunity to develop civic virtue. The practice
of self-government shapes us into better citizens and neighbors.
The participation needed now from conservatives can be
thought of in terms of making our procedures deliver the results we want. Federalism
and localism work only if conservatives run for state and local office, serve
in state and local capacities, and advocate policies at the state and local
levels. The benefits of civil society are realized only if citizens dedicate
themselves to existing voluntary associations and start new local institutions.
Textualism is only as good as the text of the statutes passed by our
legislatures. Prudence in a polity is valuable only to the extent that its
citizens have fostered social and economic conditions that are worthy of
preservation.
If a local board of education adopts objectionable
policies, the recourse is engagement in school-board elections and hearings,
not appeals to higher levels of government to overturn local decisions. If
public opinion is trending away from our preferences, the recourse is stronger,
smarter advocacy, not anti-democratic or illiberal measures. If the faithful
interpretation of a statute leads to disagreeable outcomes, the recourse is
electing better officials who will write better statutes, not a newfangled
interpretive theory that enables us to override the will of the electorate.
The procedures of American conservatism can ward off
statism, empower citizens, facilitate community action, and protect faith
communities. But while civil society is powerful, barns don’t raise themselves.
Freedom of association is invaluable, but citizens have to choose to associate.
Charter-school laws and school-choice programs make space for alternative
education programs, but someone has to create the schools.
The frustration felt by many on the right regarding the
direction of the nation is understandable. But it would be a mistake to respond
with overconfident governing that purports to be for the people when the
time-tested procedures of American conservatism ensure that it is of and by
them, as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment