Welcome friends!
I read an article recently I think really illustrates the differences between the two main types of conservatives in the US: social conservatives and economic conservatives. As I’ve argued before (see my introductory posts for example), these different types of conservatives have very different philosophies and agendas. Indeed, I suppose it only makes sense to talk of them as both representing forms of “conservatism” because they share a common enemy: liberalism. Of course, the two types of conservatives are at war with liberalism for different reasons.
Social conservatives despise liberalism because most liberals, regardless of their personal views on religion, are committed to a sphere of personal liberty (that would be when one’s actions don’t have a significant effect on the welfare of other people) and support the associated notion of the separation of church and state. In contrast, social conservatism is all about using state power to force other people to follow one’s own religious beliefs and merging religion and government to help bring that about.
Economic conservatives, on the other hand, despise liberalism because most liberals don’t buy their argument that market systems are infallible, and liberals are therefore willing to consider regulation and oversight in some cases to address such issues as market stability, distributional concerns, and social welfare issues. Economic conservatives believe if you can just get the surrounding legal institutions perfectly right (yes, that involves government, politics, and law, but that doesn’t count as “regulation” in the world view of economic conservatives, in case you were wondering), then private markets will always lead to optimal outcomes. Thus, they don’t see any valid reason to concern themselves with distributional or social welfare issues. For economic conservatives, whatever outcome falls out of this sort of perfected market system is by definition the ethically optimal one.
Anyway, the article I was reading the other day was about two of the guiding spirits of these two very different groups of conservatives: 1) Jesus Christ in the case of many social conservatives and 2) Ayn Rand in the case of many economic conservatives. (The article notes conservative leaders Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, and Rush Limbaugh have all said they admire Rand.) Now, as the article points out, these two people / spiritual entities didn’t exactly see eye to eye on a number of issues. Jesus Christ famously taught people should love one another, have compassion for those less fortunate than themselves, etc. Ayn Rand was an old time Russian emigre who was clearly traumatized by the communist revolution in that country, in which her father apparently lost his business, and went on to write novels and develop a sort of amateur social philosophy that was all about the importance of egotism and self interest as the great motivating force for mankind and was highly critical of any talk revolving around concern for others. Eric Sapp, the executive director of a group named The American Values Network, a group of political activists and pastors, noted recently that “Rand said religion was ‘evil,’ called the message of John 3:16 ‘monstrous,’ argued the weak are beyond love and undeserving of it, that loving your neighbor was immoral and impossible…”
Now I think I can see where Ms. Rand was coming from. Even those of us who were not caught up in the violent excesses of the Russian Revolution can think of examples of do-gooders who end up doing rather more harm than good. And we can probably all think of examples in which people behaved like selfish jerks but it all worked out for the best. However, I’m afraid I can’t really take her overall social philosophy very seriously. After all, some do-gooders end up doing good. And sometimes when people behave like selfish jerks everything goes to hell in a hand basket. So, you know, I think there’a a certain amount of conservative hyperbole in the entire project.
I suppose the Randian view on social ethics becomes superficially more attractive if you combine it with a rather simple-minded interpretation of the neoclassical economic theory of perfectly competitive markets because (in the popular mind at least) that theory is also based on people acting like selfish jerks and that theory also suggests such behavior leads to socially optimal outcomes. (I think you’ll find if you talk to someone with somewhat greater knowledge of economic theory that statement doesn’t necessarily hold. First, the theoretical actors that stand in for people in economic models typically have preferences that aren’t really restricted to their own self-interest narrowly defined, so there’s generally no theoretical restriction with respect to altruism v egotism. Of course, it is admittedly a bit confusing to talk about someone pursuing their own self-interest by satisfying their preferences for helping others, but there you have it. Second, if you set aside that issue, then you’re probably going to get involved in a very long and complicated discussion about whether economic theory is meant to be an objective description of how people really are, a theoretical simplification that one can use to try to predict how people act, or a normative ethical theory about how people ought to behave in order to bring about socially optimal results. That is to say, if you get stuck in this particular side alley, get ready to go round and round and round yet again about whether economic theory says people are selfish jerks, behave roughly as though they were selfish jerks, or ought to be selfish jerks. Third, and most significantly, you have the entire issue of what economic theory really says, and is really capable of saying, about socially optimal outcomes in the first place, which is something I’ve discussed many times before and will no doubt discuss many times again.) Of course, I can certainly understand why the selfish jerks of the world are attracted to Rand’s writings. I suppose that’s why her novels are perpetual best sellers here in the US. Let’s face it, there’s a lot of it about.
OK, so in this showdown of the conservative super icons, which one do I personally prefer? The prophet / supernatural entity and champion of love and the little guy Jesus Christ, or the embittered, self-obsessed acolyte of the economic elite Ayn Rand? Hmm. Tough one. I think I’ll have to give the nod to Christ in that contest. Yes, even though I’m actually an atheist, like Rand, when it comes to ethics I think a lot of what Christ had to say actually makes more a little more sense to me than what Rand had to say. (If only I could say the same about some of Christ’s modern day followers.)
By the way, in case it hasn’t been obvious in this post or others, I don’t actually think any of us are really that far apart on these types of issues. I understand many people today are amused by overheated political rhetoric and consider more mature forms of discourse weak and namby-pamby, so I’m willing to play along with that. (Two headed monster indeed.) But just a few comments sotto voce.
Despite being a liberal, and a secular humanist one at that, I don’t really have a problem with most religious folk, including most Christians. Hey, some of my best friends are Christians. (Did I use that one before?) No, the only problem I have with Christians is with the overly aggressive and militant ones who try to foist their beliefs on me in situations in which I think personal liberty should prevail (i.e., situations in which one’s behavior doesn’t really have a significant impact on other people). You know, thanks buddy, but I think I can handle those types of moral issues on my own. I do have a brain you know. Well, a sort of one, anyway. And I’m obviously no expert on the subject, but I’ve never really conceived of Jesus Christ behaving that way anyway, so I’m not exactly sure that bit is really in the Bible. The same goes for people of other religious persuasions. Well, OK, I suppose I might also disagree with whatever the various permutations of religious ethics have to say about issues that are not in the sphere of personal liberty, but I’m willing to get in there and debate those issues on their merits, so I’m fine with that.
Similarly, I don’t really have a big problem with people who see a lot of merit in market systems because I see a lot of merit in market systems myself. Again, the only problem I have is when people start to espouse extreme positions and begin to worship real-world markets as infallible generators and arbiters of social welfare. I just don’t think that’s very realistic. First of all, there are all types of real world markets; they’re not all the perfectly competitive ones I think these people probably have in mind. Some market arrangements don’t actually lead to what economists would characterize as optimal results even on paper. And trying to figure out how close any given real market is to the theoretical model of a perfectly competitive market, or how to modify it so it becomes close enough, or how to keep it there once it’s there, are no small tasks. Second, I think history shows market systems in general are prone to things like cycles, bubbles, collapses, and what not; and those types of things can be pretty darned disruptive. You might wish market systems would just run like clockwork churning out the optimal level of goods and services year in and year out, but I’m afraid history shows that’s not actually the case. Third, I don’t really see any mechanism in even the theory of market systems, let alone reality, that ensures distributional outcomes will be fair, just, or ethically optimal, and to me that’s as big a part of what any economic system is about as the total quantity of goods and services it produces. (I’ve discussed the misleading way some accounts of economic theory pretend it can establish socially optimal economic arrangements without discussing distributional issues in previous posts. For example, see my post on liberals and economic theory. Or just keep reading my blog. I’m sure I’ll get around to discussing it again. And again.)
So philosophically I don’t think we’re really all that far apart. Eliminate the extremism and I suppose we’re all really liberals at heart.
References
Jesus or Ayn Rand - can conservatives claim both? John Blake. CNN, June 29, 2011. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/29/jesus-or-ayn-rand-can-conservatives-claim-both/?hpt=hp_c2
