Religious/Social Conservatism As Socialism?

Mike Brock published an interesting article today in which he endeavoured to draw a link between left-wing government interventionist ideology and religious conservatism. This link, his article seemed to imply, was socialism.

While his argument is for the most part well-reasoned, it isn't socialism that links religious conservatism with welfarism - it's statism.

Mike Brock:

Raise your hand if you think social society should have a strong morality attenuated through law.

Socialism: Yes, socialist principles of collectivism.
Ann Coulter: Yes, based on the teachings of the Bible.
Liberalism: No, morality is not the business of the state.

Raise your hand if you think citizenship should be connected to moral systems?

Socialism: Yes, those who do not accept socialism in a socialist society should not be full members therein.
Ann Coulter: Yes, those who conform to the Christian traditions of society are fuller citizens.
Liberalism: No, plurality of belief is not only acceptable, but healthy.

Raise your hand if you think adherence to moral codes are more important than outcome?

Socialism: Yes. It is preferable to have fairness than some with more and others with less.
Ann Coulter: Yes. Traditions like marriage should be maintained irrespective of any outcome.
Liberalism: Perhaps. In so far as the adherence is to the principle of respect of others equal rights.

Is one of the purposes of policing to enforce social moral codes?

Socialism: Yes. The use of police to quell political dissension and anti-social behaviour is important.
Ann Coulter: Yes. More police! More jails! Arrest people who do drugs, and engage in perverse sexual activities!
Liberalism: Absolutely not.

This evaluation of the respective positions of religious conservatives and socialists is accurate.

Taking these areas of similarity to heart, Mr. Brock reaches the following conclusion:

Social conservatives have appropriated love for liberty, but only so far as economics goes. They want lower taxes and less government services, but they want strong laws, stronger police, more jails, and bigger militaries--which ironically, end up costing as much, if not more than the social services they detest. They support the idea of “big government” while pretended to support “small government”, through a redefining of the term “big government”.

The real thread that ties welfarism to social conservatism is the idea that the government is justified in intervening in private matters for reasons other than the prevention of direct physical harm, to wit, the violation of individual rights.

However, I'm confounded by Mr. Brock's derision for strong laws, a strong police force, good jails, and big militaries since these are precisely the institutions that the government is justified for having.

Strong laws are necessary to protect individual rights. This idea should be considered in contrast to the existence of unjust laws, the extent of a law's 'justness' to be determined by employing the standard of protecting individual freedom. Violations of this standard can be witnessed in the words of opponents of homosexual marriage and the legalization of drugs. Having strong laws simply means effectively guarding the rights of our citizens and, in this way, is perfectly consonant with liberalism and freedom. Moreover, a strong police force is crucial to the defence of rights in the same way that a strong military is essential to the defence of these rights from threats from abroad.

Accordingly, Mr. Brock's comments reveal what I believe to be a particularly harmful streak in the libertarian movement: the identification of any government as bad government. Evidently, this perspective has roots in anarchism. In reality, limited government is necessary for protecting individuals from coercion. There are three legitimate government functions: protection from domestic rights-abusers through a robust police force, protection from rights-abusers abroad through a strong military, and the administration of just laws through a judiciary. Any actions taken by the government which exceed these legitimate roles can be properly identified as statist.

Before we are able to coherently defend liberty, we must identify what constitutes a violation of our rights. Leftism - the partial or complete state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange - is a prime example of illegitimate government control. Social conservatism - the substantial centralized control over social affairs - is guilty of the same violation of liberty for the same reasons.

Mike Brock claims that welfarism and social conservatism are two sides of the same coin and, to a certain extent, this is accurate. However, that coin has not been minted with the material of socialism, which is merely another name for the left-wing ideology of intervention in the marketplace. The two sides are connected by the idea of statism and this should be the real enemy for lovers of liberty on the left and on the right.

Identifying the enemy is the first step to conquering him.

"A Culture War Has Been Launched Against Free Markets"

The Telegraph:

Iain Martin's observation - "A culture war has been launched against free markets and so far the hostilities have been astonishingly one-sided" - unfortunately applies just as much to America as to Britain. Our capitalists, from think-tank intellectuals to businessmen, are unforgivably timid in the face of an anti-capitalist onslaught of bailouts, handouts, deficit spending, and central planning. Why?

I find myself confounded by this state of affairs as well. It applies just as suitably to Canada as it does to Britain and the United States. Certainly, capitalists ought to be aware of the very real dangers posed by Keynesian economics and yet a popular and principled opposition to government intervention is nowhere to be found. What's more, this conspicuous silence is transpiring in the context of the passing of a stimulus package worth nearly a trillion dollars (once interest is accounted for) in the United States and while Canada's culture of corporate welfare continues to thrive.

Case in point: the Prime Minister of Canada, who has been derided by his political opponents for years as an hard-nosed laissez-faire capitalist, capitulates to the left in the 2009 budget without even so much as a nod of apology to his alienated supporters.

Where is the outcry? Sure, there are those who dissent but their efforts appear to be mostly half-hearted and they tend to steer clear of condemning all efforts to 'stimulate' the economy.

The author's explanation for this silence is as follows:

Because most accept the central argument behind the onslaught: that today's crisis is the result of overly free markets, that laissez-faire philosophy and economics have been discredited, and that the mess they left can only be cleaned up by government intervention.

I think that Martin's observation that a culture war has been launched against free markets is quite accurate. Unfortunately, the battles so far have been rather one-sided. If capitalism is going to survive to see the other side of this financial crisis, advocates need to ramp up their support in a big way and that means not just defending free markets but pointing out the central role that government has played in distorting market forces and in generating our current state of crisis.

So consider this a call to arms to Canadian capitalists:

"Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms. Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Practical Budgetary Advice For Stephen Harper's Pragmatists & The Stimulus Crowd

In response to my rejection of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's disaster of a budget, certain bloggers on the right - the ones who have been persuaded that the private property of a country's citizenry is fair ammunition for the political games of its rulers - have requested that I include a few practical suggestions regarding the changes that the PM should have signed off on to accompany my criticism.

To aid me in this task, I will recruit the wonderful Diana Hsieh who is currently facing similarly short-sighted Keynes-inspired stimulus measures in the United States. Reacting to the proposed stimulus package, Diana has drafted a quick letter to Senator Udall outlining the road map to a healthier and freer economy.

Dear Senator Udall,

Please vote NO on the stimulus package. The economy doesn't need to be stimulated by government handouts and pork. Instead, congress and the president should:

* Cut the corporate tax rate. The US has one of the highest in the world; it damages our economy by enticing businesses to move overseas.

* Cut the personal income tax rate for everyone who actually pays taxes. Stop vilifying and punishing financial success. Stop discouraging people from using their own creativity, skills, and effort to succeed in business.

* Cut capital gains tax rate. It's unjust double taxation that distorts the market.

* Eliminate all tariffs and protectionism. Any barriers to trade hurt America.

* Massively cut government spending on welfare and health programs, eliminate corporate welfare, and eliminate the regulations that make doing business a mess of inane red tape.

Freedom -- not more government spending -- is the recipe for a speedy economic recovery.

Adapting these suggestions to the Canadian context did not take much imagination. The stumbling blocks that we are currently facing north of the border are quite similar to - and in many ways are directly tied to - the problems facing the US.

And, so, The Canadian Republic presents:

Five *Actually* Practical Steps That The Tories Should Have Taken In The Budget

(1) Corporate Tax: The American corporate tax rate is appallingly high at 40%. However, Canada is not too far behind with a rate of 36.1%, although this is a marked improvement over just one decade ago when it was as high as 44.6%. If Harper was truly interested in 'stimulating' the economy quickly, he would continue the last decade's trend of freeing up industry by focusing his efforts on reducing the burden of government. Majors cuts to the corporate tax rate is a great way to accomplish this.

(2) Personal Income Tax: Harper's offering to Canadian citizens regarding personal income tax cuts was a joke, especially coming from an allegedly free-market economist. The income tax in Canada was initially supposed to be 'temporary' (ha!) but, like all state programs that arrogate to the government more power than it ought to possess, the income tax regime was soon normalized and then expanded. Cutting personal income tax rates would have been the greatest and most profound change that Harper could have enacted with his recent budget. Instead, he insulted Canadians as well as his own integrity with half-way solutions and useless gestures.

(3) Capital Gains Tax: Diana's comment applies perfectly to Canada as well. Cut the tax rates on realized capital gains and we're beginning to make some progress.

(4) Tariffs & Protectionism: The only fair trade is free trade. Canada must maintain its support for liberalizing trade measures and pressure the United States to abandon its recent bout of protectionist fever. In times of economic contraction, the US tends to clam up and Canada tends to look outwards. The government must maintain its strong opposition to the current 'Buy American' pressure that is troubling Canadians and focus on eliminating any and all barriers to trade for our country.

(5) Welfare & Health Care: Yet another crucial area in which the budget could have made a difference. Substantial cuts to major programs like EI and the reintegration of the private sphere into the Canadian health industry would place more money in the pockets of productive Canadians while reducing government spending and the tax burden.

Harper's 'Stimulus' Budget Will Not Stimulate The Canadian Economy

There is nothing even remotely pragmatic about a 'stimulus package' that will fail to stimulate the economy.

So, ask yourselves: which camp in the Canadian conservative movement is truly practical?

The Western Standard:

Whether or not we can agree that the disaster that is the 2009 Canadian budget is necessary politically is up for discussion. More to the point is whether or not the budget will be anywhere near successful in achieving its stated goal of cushioning Canadians in the face of recession and coaxing the economy into recovery.

Tasha Kheirridin, with whom I've disagreed often over the past few years, has a great article over at the National Post's Full Comment.

One line in particular, which appears at the top of the article, is important to understanding what a disaster this budget will be for Canada:

The government cannot put money into the economy without taking it out of the economy first. Thus activity does not increase overall - it is simply redirected.

I can never get over the fact that people don't seem to get this. The government does not create wealth. It can take wealth from Canadians and direct it towards goals that Canadians wouldn't have pursued otherwise (though doesn't that seem odd?) or it can borrow against the taxes of future Canadians (thanks, kids!) to do the same thing.

Essentially, what any "bailout"-themed budget or bill is going to do is take money from the parts of the Canadian economy that have been productive and will continue to grow, or at least recover quickly, in the face of this recession and move that money to parts of the Canadian economy that have been failing or will not recover quickly. Further, intelligent, persuasive, and productive people will become lobbyists as the pot of government handouts becomes larger and work at redirecting wealth and economic activity rather than creating it -- deepening the effects of this redistribution.

How will increasing the proportion of the economy that isn't self-sustaining help us recover from a recession quickly? You've got me. But at least some conservatives and libertarian Conservatives are shaken enough by the budget to start bringing these questions to Canadians' attention.

This article points to one of the most basic flaws in the Keynesian economic scheme. Wealth is produced by private citizens and not by the government. Accordingly, when the state confiscates money from these producers and distributes it to failing industries that couldn't have survived independently of government hand-outs, we are, in fact, doing a great deal of infrastructural damage to the economy in the long-term.

Practical? Try self-destructive and immoral.


ALSO:

Conservative Party Policy: 20 Minutes Fresh -- Always



I can't claim to like Rick Mercer but this video certainly rings true post-budget 2009.

Do We Have Your Attention Yet, Mr. Prime Minister?

“All these 100,000-plus donors are writing their little cheques because they believe in a cause and – I don't know what's going to happen – but when Stockwell Day got into trouble that was the first really big sign. The money stopped coming in.”(*)

You are a realpolitik kung-fu master, Mr. Harper, and don't think that Canadians don't appreciate a man with a Machiavellian mind. For three years we have amused ourselves with watching you walk the tight-rope so deftly, compromising with your ideological enemies with one side of your mouth while promising the world to your supporters with the other side.

However, a word of caution: we'll only wait so long before we begin to take a hard look at your record and demand that you make good on a promise or two.

Remember upon whom you depend for funding and passionate advocacy come election time, Mr. Harper. Please start delivering on some of those beautiful words that you've spoken over the years lest you find the money well runs dry and you become (*shudder*) the Stockwell Day of 2009.

Do we have your attention yet, Mr. Prime Minister?

A Word To The Pragmatists From A "So-Called Conservative"

The right-wing blogosphere has witnessed a massive polarization over the question of the proper assessment of Stephen Harper's recent budget. In response to the dissent that many tories have shown over the complete capitulation of the right to the demands of the socialists, many bloggers are meeting dissent with condemnation.

The following entry, found at the Conservative Reporter's blog, provides an excellent example of this trend:

I don’t know about everyone else but I am getting very disgusted with all the so called conservatives who are giving the PM and this budget a hard time. It doesn’t have this, it has too much of that.

Wake up and smell the facts.

What do you think the coalition would have done. The media was on their side, they love iggy, he can do no wrong.

Give this budget a chance to get some results. It is a use it or lose it budget. There are strings attached.

As sorry as I am to 'disgust' you, I cannot help but take issue with the alleged factiness of your position.

The welfare state is built on the assumption of a constantly expanding population, a model which is currently in the process of breaking down in a big way. This means that, within the next however many years, the Baby Boomers will begin to retire and expect the next generation to pay off their debts. But the population has stopped expanding. Add to this the measly little $85 billion deficit that Harper has so bravely incurred to keep himself in the seat of power and we have what is referred to in crass circles as a 'serious fucking problem'.

We are condemning ourselves to financial crisis on a large scale with the short-term thinking that is evident in Harper's 'pragmatic' approach. The Prime Minister has the luxury to do this because he doesn't expect to remain in power long enough to catch the brunt of the long-term consequences. It is, in fact, the citizens of Canada at large who will have to deal with the implications of this budget. And those implications will be profoundly unpleasant.

The global economy's current state of crisis was caused by similar short-term thinking and left-wing economics. "Government intervention in the economy," exclaimed defenders of Bill Clinton who supported increases in subprime lending in the late 1990s, "is the safest bet. Capitalism is fine but it needs a little help from the government to stay on track." Today's defenders of the budget and the bailout economics that it represents assume, even if only implicitly, a similar kind of reasoning.

The root of this problem seems to be the way that many conservatives look at the very purpose of politics. We are told to stand by our Prime Minister while he sells us down the river because it's only temporary. Allow me to remind you that nothing about the government is ever 'just temporary'. Most programs that are touted as nonpermanent stick around for years after their intended sunset and those that do expire on time leave trails of consequences that reverberate for decades down the road. This is especially true of deficits.

Harper is playing clever politics with money that doesn't belong to him. I don't recognize Harper's right - nor anybody else's right - to a minute of my life or a cent of my money. I have supported the Prime Minister in the past because I believed that he had the good sense to fight for economic freedom. This was not an unreasonable belief to hold given the statements that he had made before becoming Prime Minister, particularly regarding the importance of property rights in a free society, the limited role of the government, and the deleterious effects of welfarism on the economy and the state's citizens. But, instead of living by his words, Harper has confirmed the old bromide that politics attracts the power-luster and repels the man of principle.

The budget's conservative defenders have gone out of their way to cite the pragmatic political sense of Harper's decision but they have conspicuously failed to mention or defend the pragmatic financial sense that all budgets should be expected to make. This is because, were they to take their support to its logical extension, they would find themselves defending Keynesianism. As little as many conservatives may know about the economy, they are aware of enough to recognize that this is a bad thing. (Don't believe me? Ask Henry Hazlitt: 'The Failure of the "New Economics": An Analysis of the Keynesian Fallacies' - PDF)

In a recent article, Andrew Coyne pronounced the Canadian conservative movement dead and I disagreed - to a certain extent, anyway. However, the conservative movement truly is dead if we fail to reclaim the principles that we once defended, foremost among them capitalism. Defending man's inalienable rights to life, liberty, and property and, accordingly, defending the only economic system that is consonant with those rights (i.e. capitalism), should be what makes a person 'conservative'; these are, in fact, the very principles that we ought to be focused on 'conserving'.

By cowing to the threats of the coalition, Harper has taken capitalism completely off the table as an option for Canada - there is nobody left in power to defend it. So, before sneeringly labeling all of those who reject Harper's pragmatism as "so-called conservatives", please ask yourself precisely what ideas you are effectively preserving in the process of defending the budget.

The answer to that question may surprise you.

The End of Canadian Conservatism?

Who can save us?

Andrew Coyne paints a rather bleak picture of the prospects for Canadian conservatism moving forward:

With this week’s historic budget, the Conservatives’ already headlong retreat from principle has become a rout — a great final leap into the void. Understand: there will be no going back from this, for the party or for the country.

Mr. Coyne is perfectly correct on one count: Harper's 'retreat from principle' in the recent budget seems to sound the death knell for the Conservative Party's present momentum towards their much-desired majority government. The man who has been branded a tyrant by his political opponents has allowed himself to be bullied into submission by the weakest Liberal Party that we have seen in decades.

If Harper had stood his ground, would Ignatieff have called him on it? Perhaps. From all accounts, he is nowhere near the anorchid bureaucrat that was his predecessor. But, so what? Ignatieff hasn't had the chance to sell himself to Canadians yet. Harper would have come off as strong and unflinching by standing up to the coalition and the LPC's new leader. If the governor general had allowed the coalition to take over (unlikely), the electorate would have punished the Liberals in the following election. If the governor general had called an election, Harper would have been returned to power with a strengthened mandate and a shot at a majority.

The main thrust of Coyne's argument can be found in the following warning:

We are on course toward a massive and permanent increase in the size and scope of government: record spending, sky-high borrowing, and — ultimately, inevitably — higher taxes. And all this before the first of the baby boomers have had a chance to retire.

What is it about twenty-first century 'conservatives' and expanding the size of government?

But what of Coyne's prediction that this budget marks the death of the Canadian conservative movement? Is it truly as dead in the water as he suggests? The answer to that question depends entirely on us: its constituent parts. Many on the right have appropriately chosen to reject Harper's budget. Many have called for a return to economic conservatism - i.e. a return to the capitalism that has allowed the western world to achieve the unprecedented level of wealth and wellbeing that we currently enjoy. This is the key to the future health of our movement. There is nothing to be gained from the compassionate-conservatism of the George Bushes or the pragmatic-conservatism of the Stephen Harpers or the red toryism of the Jim Prentices.

So who does that leave us with in the CPC?

Um.

Rona Ambrose?

Not too many tories seem to fit the bill. If you have any better ideas please put them in the comments.

In Response To Stephen Taylor On The Budget

In light of the conservative base's sense of betrayal over the new more or less Liberal budget, Stephen Taylor has replied thusly:

A political party’s first and last job is to get elected. If you thought that the Conservative Party should have held its ground, flipped off the opposition, delivered $30 billion in tax cuts and went out in a blaze of glory then you have the benefit of layering fantasy on a wholly incongruent political landscape where the pragmatists thrive. A political party, in practice, is not much more than a marketing machine to sell ideas to an electorate looking to buy them. However, elections span a meager 36 days and unless a voter is conditioned to think conservatively, they won’t vote Conservative. If a Conservative party does form government — especially a minority government — the long term goal is the same: keep the upper hand, survive when strategically beneficial, and win elections.

Mr. Taylor, a political party's first and last job is to do what is right. What benefit is there in the Conservative Party forming government if their primary concern will always be retaining power at the expense of representing the values that they were elected to defend? The good politician takes chances and defends his principles to the bitter end. The good politician never surrenders his values to the mewing of his critics nor does he sacrifice the liberty of his constituents to keep himself politically viable.

A politician's ability to be 'pragmatic' may win a few converts come election time but it will likely cost him the votes of many former faithfuls who decide to stay home rather than vote for a man who will refuse to represent his views when his back is against the wall. Pragmatism does not win elections, Mr. Taylor, principles do.

We must remember that the goal of politics is not, in fact, to permit competing political parties to jockey for power while trampling over the rights of Canadian citizens who, in turn, prefer to dismiss it all as inevitable given the nature of the system. The goal of politics must be to preserve and protect the rights of Canadian citizens. This budget fails to do that. Hell, it isn't even a step in the right direction.

And that is no fantasy, sir, that is principle.

Mr. Taylor continues:

We can lament the budget delivered by our Conservative Party and complain that it goes against our instincts as conservatives. But yesterday, the Conservative government did it’s [sic] job, it presented a survivable budget in the current political climate. However, the conservative movement failed because it was unsuccessful in creating the conditions of ideological survivability for what should have been a sincerely conservative budget.

I see that we're exempting Stephen Harper and his government from the 'conservative movement' now. As appropriate as that may be after this budget, I will admit that it seems like an odd thing to do. We as citizens are responsible for creating a political climate that is conducive to conservatism but the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada is not? We must follow our principles and act according to our standard of the good but the Prime Minister of our country ought to be lauded for represented Liberal principles rather than Conservative ones?

In every walk of life, Mr. Taylor, it is my sincere conviction that one can compromise on price but never on principle. Harper has repeatedly demonstrated that he lives by the very opposite maxim. I will never support a man's actions simply because they are strategically effective.


ALSO:

Searching For Liberty - "... And I always thought the idea of politics was to have an honest plan, and let the voters decide if they approve."

Small Dead Animals - These poll results show where Canadian conservatives stand on the matter.

Catprint In The Mash - Faithful Iggy

Gerry Nicholls - "Coalition Dead But Victorious"

Well, Doncha Know, McCain Aides Are Just Gunnin' For The Barracuda, By Gosh

Since the old man's November 4th election loss, McCain staffers have started speaking out against Sarah Palin, accusing her of confusion over Africa's status as a continent and leaking stories painting her as a "hillbilly". I know, I'm shocked too. It isn't as if they've been subtly suggesting that if McCain lost it would be her fault for the last two weeks.

I'm not of the opinion that Palin is responsible for McCain's electoral defeat. He ran a weak campaign and he is a weak political character (to head off McCain supporters at the pass, that is to say a weak political character - I acknowledge the danger he has faced to defend his country and the quality of character that demonstrates).

Once McCain was nominated to lead the GOP, I essentially turned off the ideological side of my brain. My views were not well represented by either candidate for the American presidency. From a strategic standpoint, however, I was excited by the Palin choice. It was surprising - and who doesn't enjoy a plot twist? - and, more importantly, it seemed consistent with the spirit of the election period: change, change, change.

Now that I've turned on the ideological side of my brain again, however, I'm finding it extremely difficult to muster up an ounce of support for the so-called Barracuda. She represents the now-dominant side of the Republican Party that I evaluate to be the least conducive to pursuing policies with an eye towards liberty. She is socially conservative across the board, she could certainly benefit from purchasing "Economics For Dummies" from her local Indigo, and she fits very comfortably within the evangelical tradition of Republicanism.

If these were the reasons the McCain aides were gunning for Palin in the wake of the Republican election loss, I wouldn't have much problem with it. Unfortunately for them, it just looks bratty. The Republicans lost the election because many conservatives aren't too thrilled about a "maverick" running their divided and enfeebled party. Can you blame them?