Principled conservatism

Victor Reppert has peppered me with some questions. I’ll rearrange the sequence of the questions to put them in a more logical order

Do you seriously doubt that many have benefitted from government involvement in the economic life of the public?

That’s a good example of what principled conservatism is not. I’ll make a couple of general points:

i) Notice how Reppert deploys a pragmatic/utilitarian argument to justify the welfare state. But he opposes pragmatic/utilitarian arguments in counterterrorism. He’s a utilitarian pragmatist on domestic policy, but a Kantian deontologist on foreign policy.

Obviously his value theory doesn’t select for any particular position. Rather, his particular position selects for a corresponding value theory.

ii) One of the problems with appealing to the benefits of gov’t intervention to justify gov’t intervention is that his appeal cuts both ways. If gov’t intervention uniformly or generally beneficial, this appeal would be more persuasive.

But gov’t intervention can either be beneficial or maleficial. The same policy can be both beneficial and maleficial. Beneficial at one time, maleficial at another time. Beneficial to some, maleficial to others.

Take gun control. There are some situations in which gun control will save innocent lives. But there are other situations in which gun control will cost innocent lives.

Therefore, appealing to the benefits of gov’t intervention is not a principled appeal. It’s not even a practical appeal. It’s a doubled edged sword.

What, in your view, constitutes principled conservatism? This isn't just a rhetorical attack. I'd really like to see what conservatism is really all about. The "conservative" ideology that has run the Bush administration seems to be an ideology that looks out for big business first and foremost. If that means government involvement, then government gets involved. It that means reducing government, then government is reduced. But I see no commitment to limited government as an overall governing principle. That is why, if you really convinced me that conservative principles were true, I would register, not Republican, but Libertarian.

1. Of course, conservatism isn’t monolithic.

i) To be a principled conservative, one would have to be fairly intellectual. Have a conservative philosophy.

ii) Here are some examples principled conservative theorists: John Frame, Ronald Nash, Rousas Rushdoony, Samuel Rutherford.

iii) We also have conservative pundits. I don’t know the overarching philosophy of all these pundits, assuming they have one. But here are some pundits whom I think are fairly good representatives of a conservative outlook:

Victor Davis Hansen, Mark Levin, Michael Medved, Dennis Prager, John Mark Reynolds, Thomas Sowell, Ben Stein, and Bill Vallicella.

iv) Although it’s a rare combination, some men are both men of ideas and men of action. They theorize, but they put their theories into practice through gov’t service.

Two historic examples would be John Calvin and Abraham Kuyper.

Two contemporary examples would be Robert Bork and Newt Gingrich.

2. What about my own position?

i) Since I’m a Protestant, I begin with the Bible. And the part of the Bible that has the most to say about statecraft is the Torah.

ii) In considering the applicability of OT statecraft to modern statecraft, we have to make allowance for two basic discontinuities:

a) OT law is, to some extent, adapted to the socioeconomic conditions of the ANE. In some cases, it’s inapplicable to our own socioeconomic conditions. In other cases, it needs to be modernized.

b) Israel enjoyed cultic holiness. As a result, a number of laws have their basis in ritual purity or impurity. And that’s a timebound feature of OT law.

iii) In OT statecraft, the law of God is prior to the state. The law authorizes the state.

This stands in contrast to secular statecraft, where the state is prior to the law. In secular statecraft, the state is the lawgiver. The state determines what rights, if any, the citizenry enjoys.

OT statecraft lays a foundation for limited gov’t, while secular statecraft lays a foundation for totalitarian gov’t.

iv) In Biblical anthropology, man is fallen. Man is a sinner. This is another presupposition of limited gov’t. Rulers are not morally superior to the governed. As such, their own power needs to be curbed.

v) Apart from the element of ritual purity, which doesn’t concern us, the Mosaic law is basically an application of the creation mandates to the concrete situation of Israel. The creation mandates boil down to family, labor, dominion, and Sabbath.

That’s another presupposition of limited gov’t. The scope of the state is commensurate with the scope of the law, and the scope of the law is limited to safeguarding the free exercise of the creation mandates.

vi) OT law establishes a least lower threshold for socially acceptable conduct, not an upper threshold for socially acceptable conduct.

OT law isn’t utopian. Rather, it sets a minimal standard of tolerable conduct. And that’s one more presupposition of limited gov’t.

vii) Finally, if we look at OT penology, various case laws are applicable to business ethics and corporate law, viz. theft, debt, bribery, usury, wrongful death or injury, oath-breaking, moving/removing landmarks.

Those are situations where gov’t regulation is warranted.

Do you support scrapping Social Security, either gradually or suddenly?

Gradually.

Do you hold to a general principle of laissez-faire capitalism, that the government ought to stay out of the economy. That principle is equally violated by a corporate bailout as it is by LBJ's War on Poverty.

I reject laissez-faire capitalism (see above).

Was the GI Bill socialism?

It was compensation for compulsory military service.

Do you oppose any and all government assistance to poor people?

i) It should be a last resort. However, you did have charitable loansin the OT, as well as gleaning the fields. So there’s nothing inherently wrong with gov’t assistance to the poor.

ii) At the same time, the OT also distinguishes between those who are poor through no fault of their own, and those who are poor because they are lazy or shortsighted.

Are child labor laws justified? There's government intervention to be sure.

i) In the Bible, children have different abilities and responsibilities than adults.

ii) At the same time, the reason most of our kids don’t work for a living is because we happen to live in a fairly affluent land where we don’t need them to work. Poorer families in poorer countries don’t have that luxury.

And who do you think was last conservative President? If you say GW Bush I'm going to laugh. Ronald Reagan? Give me a break. Herbert Hoover? Maybe.

The leaders who have run the Republican party for years are not principled conservatives. They want government to back big business. Their hearts start bleeding at the sight of a failing multinational corporation.

i) Principled conservatism is grounded in a conservative philosophy. We don’t begin with a party or politician as our role-model.

ii) Moreover, our choices are delimited by the choices of others. We can only vote for those who choose to run. Later primary voters can only vote for candidates who survived the earlier primaries. And general election voters can only vote for candidates who survived the primaries.

So it comes down to voting for the available candidates, or not voting at all.