Houblog

For quite some time now, I’ve had a post that I’ve worked on, off-and-on, trying to articulate my core beliefs within the context of Jacksonian principles. I haven’t succeeded in outlining those beliefs in a fashion that I consider acceptable yet, but Arnold Kling has come along with an article on TCS in which he requests input from other libertarian conservatives, using as his template, the RFC process used by the internet community. Since Jacksonianism is a major strain of libertarian conservatism, this provides me with an opportunity to place these beliefs into the RFC. (Or at least my version of them, since we’re all notoriously stiff-necked independants).

Arnold wrote:

I invite readers to participate in an Ideological Affirmation Task Force (IATF). The first Request for Comment (RFC) is given below. It is a draft document that attempts to articulate a set of principles for contemporary libertarian conservatives. To comment on these principles on your blog, write a post that includes the phrase “IATF RFC.” I will use that phrase to search for comments. Please elaborate on the wording that most appeals to you and the wording that needs the most improvement. There are certain to be revisions, and comments themselves are an important part of the conversation.

Well then, here we are. The format below will be to quote his original proposal, and then to either accept it, elaborate on it, or refute it and propose an alternative. (Of course, since Mr. Kling is the sole authority on what goes into the RFC, in other words, he’s the governing authority in this effort, whether or not we get a result akin to that from a task force is uncertain. But I still regard this as a worthwhile tool for sparking debate.)

Head below the fold for the RFC.

IATF RFC Number 1, version 0.2.houblog: Who We Are - Houblog Response

Economic Principles

1. We weave a thread of self-reliance into a sturdy fabric of interdependence. By respecting the law, we reinforce impersonal justice. By competing intensely and fairly in an impersonal global market, we raise our standard of living through specialization and innovation. By upholding Constitutional principles for limited government, we sustain our individual freedom.

Approved as stated.

2. We are creative and pro-active in helping one another. We do not have the patience to wait for government, nor do we want to be lulled into passivity by the promise of government. Instead, to solve those problems that require collective action, we form voluntary associations, including civic groups, corporations, clubs, standards-setting bodies, consumer information services, and charitable foundations.

Approved as stated.

3. Government must be kept in its place. We hold government officials to high standards of competence, honesty, and fairness. However, we do not confuse government with family. We do not confuse government with religion. We do not confuse government with business. We are conscious that any expansion of government responsibility, however well-intended, crowds out those institutions that are the true bulwark of our society.

Approved as stated.

4. We celebrate the successes of others. We are glad when an entrepreneur becomes wealthy by finding a way to fill a customer need. We are glad when an immigrant family climbs the ladder of success. We are glad when people living in other countries make economic progress and spur us to innovate and improve.

This assumes that the entrepreneur and/or the goverment are “playing fair.” As I have noted before, here in Houston, we have a problem with certain developers who rig the system to ensure their success with our tax money. On the international scale, there are also issues with countries that manipulate financial conditions in order to maximise their own profits at the expense of others. A chief offender in this latter category is the People’s Republic of China. A full accounting of their wrongdoing is beyond the scope of this article, but the two primary problems are their slave labor camps and refusal to let their currency be traded in the open market. They “fix” the price for the yuan, and deliberabely understate it by an estimated 25%. By doing so, they have attacked not only the ability of domestic producers to survive in the marketplace, but the ability of dozens of other developing countries to export their products and obtain economic growth for their own people. There is no “spur to innovate and improve” involved; it is nearly impossible to find a non-big-ticket consumer electronic good that isn’t made in China, and an increasing number of other household goods are dominated by them. Do you think that computer you are working on was made in Japan or Taiwan? Odds are most of it is from Chinese factories. Your Linksys router? Chinese. The sheets on your bed? Probably Chinese. The shredder you put your old bills through? Chinese. They’re not that much more efficient that it’s cheaper to ship those goods across eight thousand miles of ocean. While I feel it is part of a deliberate attack on American economic stability, that is irrelevant to the fact that the “field of battle” is being unfairly tilted through government action, which should be anathema to any libertarian or conservative.

Building upon that thought, an increasing amount of government spending today is driven by lip service to a laudable goal, but functionally, it constitutes government subsidies to key political supporters of the major parties, or individuals. Whether we are discussing ethanol or football stadiums, the principal is the same; people with a vested interest in a project seek to obtain an advantage for them, one which is not in the interests (or at least not neutral to the interests) of the general public. These are in opposition to the beliefs of a libertarian conservative.

Proposed: We celebrate the successes of others in a free, fair, and unsubsidized marketplace. We are glad when an entrepreneur becomes wealthy by finding a way to fill a customer need. We are glad when an immigrant family climbs the ladder of success. We are glad when people living in other countries make economic progress and spur us to innovate and improve.

Ethical Principles

5. Government cannot legislate morality, but it does mess with the incentives. Those incentives should never be tilted against the institution of the family whose mission is to raise children to be fine, upstanding citizens.

I am not convinced that some alternate definitions of “family” are inherently wrong and evil, nor am I convinced that they are anyone’s inherent “right.” The goal of a family should be to produce and raise the next generation, imparting to them knowledge, skills, ethics, and financial assets that will benefit them and society as a whole in the future. This is a point that needs to be articulated with greater emphasis; the original statement assumes that “family=good” while at the same time apparently making the underlying assumption that “family = 1 man + 1 woman + children.” Again, I am unconvinced that this is the sole truth. However, the near-universal truth is that family stability is a key. So-called family units that engage in serial temporary cohabitation and/or long-term single-parent status tend to produce poor citizens at a rate so far above “nuclear family units” as to make it obvious that stable families are a necessity to create a stable society. Thus the goal of the family must be focused on the needs of the next generation, not the desires of the current one, and the government must support, not oppose that focus. This needs to be explicitly incorporated in any statement of beliefs. Note that together with item #6 below, this represents a secularization of the RFC.

Proposed:
5.a. Families are the primary tool through which society produces and raises the next generation, imparting to them knowledge, skills, ethics, and financial assets that will benefit them and society as a whole in the future. Families should never be organized primarily to express or obtain the desires of the current generation.

5.b. Government cannot legislate morality, but it does mess with the incentives through granting or withholding those desires. Therefore, incentives should never be tilted against the institution of the family.

6. We maintain an ongoing conversation about morality and ethics. This conversation is informed by the Ten Commandments and Biblical scripture. It is informed by the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. It is vital to continue the conversation, even when consensus is difficult.

I hold the above to be tied too closely to the Christian faith, especially in the second sentence. A minimum ecumenical standard is necessary; while western government and the principles of the Enlightenment were driven by the faith of Christ and no other, a political theory closely tied to any one religious belief is either a theocracy in the making, or a schism waiting to happen. A “balancing act” of singular religious incorporation without dominance cannot continue indefinitely; it will slide into one or the other. In the long run, no other outcome is possible. Indeed this very lesson, taught by the endless wars in Europe, drove the Founding Fathers to establish freedom of religion in the new-born United States.

Yet openness must itself be limited; religions which preach hatred, harm, and death have no place in a modern society. Nor can there be any discussion of morality and ethics without God or something in His place, serving His function. Divine inspiration, by any other name is still divine inspiration; it is the placing of a moral structure over man; a structure that is created to stand apart from man’s base desires and guide him towards personal growth and the greater good of all. No form of humanism can supply this guidance; humanism by its nature, places man at the center of the universe and creates him as god; having done so, it cannot then expect to contain his baser desires.

Thus I propose the following rewording, inspired by the writings of Robert A. Heinlien:

Proposed: “We maintain an ongoing conversation about morality and ethics. This conversation is informed by principles both divine and secular, and at its core is the principle that sin and evil lie in inflicting harm to another human being. It is informed by the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and Dr. Martin Luther King’s ‘I have a dream’ speech. It is vital to continue the conversation, even when consensus is difficult.”

7. Like new businesses, new moral ideals can revitalize our society, even though many of them fail. For example, we recognize that we are a better people without racial segregation or barriers to the education and career opportunities for women. However, we judge some social experiments to be failures, including eugenics, Communism, and nihilistic cultural relativism.

The list of failures is too narrow, and any effort to expand it is both pointless and futile. In the end, whatever the name, the theory falls into one of two categories: either all people should be forced to be absolutely equal (somehow it never works out that way, does it?), or certain groups of people are inherently unequal and should be treated accordingly.

Proposed: change the last sentence to read, “including any theory which purports to create an equality of result as opposed to equality of opportunity, or any theory that an inequality of result is the inevitable or deserved consequence of a group’s genetic heritage.”

International Principles

8. Our ideology does not have to be sustained by military suppression. Although it can inspire people to fight against tyranny, ultimately our ideology allows us to live in peace.

Hogwash. Our ideology allows us to live in peace only if it includes the understanding that the world is a dangerous place and both the possession and willingness to use the tools of war will ensure that peace. While I understand the intent is to say that we prefer peace to war, the phrasing is dangerously open to interpretation as a pacifist philosophy.

Proposed: Our ideology does not have to be sustained by military suppression. Peace is generally preferable to war, but war is preferable to submission. Our ideology can inspire people to fight against tyranny, but our ultimate goal is to live freely and in peace.

9. We believe that people all over the world yearn for liberty, and for them we stand as a beacon and a champion. But we recognize that freedom is not ours to give when community leaders are not ready to seize the opportunity that it offers.

Too passive: again, this is open to interpretation as a pacifist philosophy. A champion who stands by and does nothing in the face of evil is not a champion. I don’t know what he is, but he’s not a champion. On the other hand, stating the case too militantly invites military adventurism of the sort that led to Beirut and Mogadishu; both half-measures with little long-term benefit.

Proposed: Add “When they are ready, it is our duty as champion to stand by them in their struggle for freedom and self-determination.”

10. When foreign leaders issue threats against us, we take them at their word and act accordingly.

Emphatically. Approved. As. Stated.

The Need for Affirmation

The goal of articulating these principles is to fill what appears to be a need for affirmation. This need arises for a number of reasons.

Since 9/11, we have become aware that we are in an ideological war. We seem to lack tools to fight that war. Anti-Americanism is reportedly high and rising, and we are puzzled, because in our hearts we know that we stand for what is good. To the extent that a set of principles serves to clarify who we are, it can be a tool in the ideological war. Our principles can be used to connect with our friends in other English-speaking countries, but they could also be translated into every language and posted on street corners around the world.

The unsuccessful nation-building exercise in Iraq has debilitated our spirit. It would be wonderful if the new strategy in Iraq succeeds, so that the President’s enemies, foreign and domestic, are confounded. But I question whether the various religious and secular leaders in Iraq have what it takes to live in an open society. In any case, I would like to see this issue raised before we undertake nation-building exercises in the future.

Meanwhile, we have fallen back into a pre-9/11 feckless timidity in the face of threats from Iran and North Korea. We need an ideological affirmation so that we do not lose sight of the need to confront dangerous foreign leaders.

On economic policy, many libertarian conservatives feel that our supposed allies among Republican elected officials went astray over the past six years. They made government larger, more inept, more intrusive, and more corrupt. We need to express the idea of limited government clearly and with moral force.

When it comes to limited government, our political opponents constantly seek to define us by impugning our motives. With an ideological affirmation, we can discuss our principles with open-minded citizens and thereby counteract the demonization tactics.

Within the conservative movement, concerns about immigration or homosexuality can veer into hatred. If Hispanics want to come to our country to earn an honest living, then that is a good thing, even though it is impractical to accomodate all of them. If homosexuals want to attempt to form families in order to raise children to be fine, upstanding citizens, then their intentions are good, even though we may be profoundly skeptical that such arrangements will not backfire on the institution of the family. We need an ideological affirmation in order to make sure that legitimate concerns with immigration or moral issues are expressed in a context of optimism and understanding, not fear.

I’ll be blunt: I don’t understand the purpose of this last section, and believe it should not be a part of the proposal. While dispute and debate based on the principles outlined above is necessary, the particulars of the Iraq conflict, everyone’s feelings on it, and the current debate over troop levels all combine to open the door for importation of arguments not directly relevant to the proposal.

In particular, I do not agree with the third paragraph above.which I will repeat here:

The unsuccessful nation-building exercise in Iraq has debilitated our spirit. It would be wonderful if the new strategy in Iraq succeeds, so that the President’s enemies, foreign and domestic, are confounded. But I question whether the various religious and secular leaders in Iraq have what it takes to live in an open society. In any case, I would like to see this issue raised before we undertake nation-building exercises in the future.

First, it assumes that we have failed, which despite the best efforts of the press to portray it as such, is far from certain. Further, the third sentence verges on a violation of the revised #7. It’s phrased slightly differently, but it strongly echoes the refrain “Arabs are unable to build democracies.” It attempts to buy legitimacy by restricting the observation to the leaders; and so limited, it may be true. However, while I don’t suggest an indefinite committment to support a feckless leadership, I would submit that no “champion” would walk away at this stage. Our fight is not on behalf of the leadership of Iraq; it is on behalf of the people (both theirs and ours). To walk away at this juncture is to abandon the Iraqi people before they have had a chance to affirm or repudiate their current leadership, and the progress thus far. Besides which, the entire argument is thanks to the true failure in the “neocon approach” to the middle east:

The damn fools forgot the first law of warfare: “No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy!”

The neocons all talked about how the real strategy was to turn Iraq into the bastion of freedom in the middle east, and then leverage it against the unstable dictatorships in Syria and Iran. So what did they think those two were going to do — wait around for the headmans axe, USAF special delivery? Hell no, they signed an alliance and counterattacked by supporting an insurgency, along with mouthpieces like Al-Sadr.

See what I mean? It’s all a mess of side issues. The point is to define libertarian conservatism, and such specifics just detract from that task. (Edit: I thought I needed to give an example…I was unaware that TCS allowed comments. Heh. When I noticed, of the 112 comments, a significant number did exactly as I feared: they veered off into all the same old arguments.) We have to build a definition while keeping these real-world examples in mind, but the defininition must necessarily remain abstract, while yeilding a framework to determine the response to such real-world situations. Thus to sum up, my proposal is to reject the last section in toto, although I do not yet have a replacement to propose.

This concludes the RFC. If my beliefs as stated above are in stark contrast to those of libertarian conservatism, then I need to define this entire article as an RFC for Jacksonian conservatism. I’ll be interested to see what kind of answers Mr. Kling gets, and may update my responses in the future, should there be changes to the RFC.

Readers are invited to comment below, although bear in mind that the usual restrictions apply. (Registration and first comment approval from me, in other words.)

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 4th, 2007 at 7:30 pm and is filed under Jacksonian Party, Random Rants. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.