Fiscal and social conservatism: related or not?
Recent polling data reveal that twice as many Americans describe themselves as conservative (40 percent) as liberal (20 percent), with most of the remainder falling into the independent category. One explanation is that some independents who see themselves as conservative on fiscal matters are liberal on social issues.
David Brooks has described this schizophrenia beautifully in his work “Bobos in Paradise.” The bourgeois bohemians (“bobos”) are individuals who work hard and save like capitalists but whose tastes are shaped by the Woodstock generation.
Unlike the capitalists of old who lived by Christian virtues themselves and cultivated them in their employees, many of the current breed are not “judgmental.” They raise no objections to abortions, homosexual and lesbian unions, or recreational drugs.
Brooks contends that 40 to 50 year old “counter cultural” movements shaped the viewpoints of many young people, particularly those attending college, and subsequently influenced their children and grandchildren.
Capitalists across the generations are agreed on the virtues necessary for success. They also prefer a government that understands the value of a dollar. They don’t wish to see their earnings taxed needlessly away to support profligate public spending that dampens the enterprise that fuels commerce.
But “social issues,” they say, are another matter. Valuing their own freedom of choice in the marketplace, they find it difficult to condemn others for making their own choices. So if a woman wishes to “terminate” her pregnancy, or if a man or woman wishes to consummate his or her Eros with a person of the same sex, why, who are they to judge? As to dope, that’s a “choice” issue too.
This is a problem for libertarians. The late Milton Friedman, the free market economist whose monetary and fiscal ideas produced sound public policy, entitled his commendable television series, “Freedom to Choose.” But that implied that freedom was all about choosing, rather than being governed by moral principles indispensable to making good choices.
In truth, good or wise people make better choices than others. Whenever anyone violates the law, his or her freedom is made costly or limited or even curtailed for their offense against the rights of others or the common good. The greater the offense, the greater the penalty. Choices that harm others or even ourselves are indefensible.
One way that “social liberals” and libertarians on the right try to confuse the issue is by contending that there are “victimless crimes” which harm the perpetrator but no one else. This wrongly assumes that one’s economic and social (actually moral) choices have nothing to do with each other.
In the case of abortion, there is always a victim, and that is the unborn child, best described as a “life with potential,” rather than a mere “potential life.” The mother, too, suffers lasting emotional and psychological harm for this unnatural and immoral act.
Recently, an article in the Weekly Standard reported on abortion mill employees who, between seeing ultrasound images of human beings in their mothers’ wombs and collecting the babies’ parts after they have been killed, have turned away in horror and joined the pro-life movement in various capacities.
Treating same-sex unions as something akin or even equivalent to marriage may seem harmless to anyone else, but this assumes that the biological differences between men and women, and the physical, emotional and psychological bonds that enable them to live happily together, cease to function when a radically different choice of mate is made. Children raised by same-sex couples inevitably reflect their parents’ influence, which conflict with their own inner needs.
As to recreational drug use, there is far less debate about the harm to the user and his or her loved ones. That’s why we see slogans such as, “This is your brain on drugs.” For millions, drug abuse has ruined their lives and often led to their deaths.
The fact is, children who are killed in their mother’s wombs never live to accomplish anything and are deprived of the joys of living productive lives. People in unstable or unnatural relationships are less likely to assume their responsibilities, or to avoid throwing themselves on the resources of others. Bad habits, such as recreational drug use and abuse of alcohol, render those possessed of them less useful to themselves or others.
In short, fiscal conservatives must also be social conservatives if they value the lives they lead or the society in which their virtues are appreciated and put to good use.
ABOUT THE WRITER
Richard Reeb taught political science, philosophy and journalism at Barstow College from 1970 to 2003. He is the author of “ Taking Journalism Seriously: ‘Objectivity’ as a Partisan Cause” (University Press of America, 1999). He can be contacted at rhreeb@verizon.net.
