The final question of the “we’re just three regular guys” session was about whether the GOP would flip the successful Democratic strategy of running socially conservative (“pro-life, pro-gun”) candidates in socially conservative districts. Would Republicans mold their candidates to the district on these issues too? (You can watch the event here; go to the 58 minute mark to catch the final question.)
Cantor did not provide a direct answer (sadly, when does a politician ever do that), but he laid out the “essence” of Republicanism beyond which one presumes candidates would have freedom to roam:
The essence of being a Republican is the belief in free markets, the belief in individual responsibility, the belief in the faith in the individual, the faith in God. These are unifying principles.
I find it instructive that the lead is free markets while God is the afterthought. These are not unifying principles---no, these are contradictory principles when placed in this order. Man and mammon cannot be before the Creator of both.
Representative Cantor might well argue that he was not giving a prioritized list, but listen to the remark and judge for yourself whether the mention of God has any of the enthusiasm associated with the others.
In The Conservative Mind, Russell Kirk provides a different set of priorities. He labels “religious sanction” as “the indispensable basis of any conservative order.” (p. 400)
Kirk’s first canon for conservatism is not one of economics, but of spiritual and intergenerational connections for society:
(1) Belief that a divine intent rules society as well as conscience, forging an eternal chain of right and duty which links great and obscure, living and dead. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. (p. 7)
“Persuasion that property and freedom are inseparably connected, and that economic leveling is not economic progress,” certainly enters Kirk’s list, but at number four. (p. 8)
To the contrary, Cantor and many Republicans, funded by their dollar-con allies like the Club for Growth, apparently view political problems as primarily economic problems.
Kirk instead saw an overreliance on commerce, industrialization, and instant gratification as a poor substitute for a conservative moral foundation.
Materialism, confused with tradition, is turned into a sort of religion, and more and more America inclines toward a universal crusade on behalf of this credo of mechanized production and mass consumption. Americans seldom perceive the terror just underfoot. (p. 394)
In his concluding remarks, he calls on conservatives to swim clear of “the running tide of our prosperity and triviality” and reject vanity for a “new life of humility and charity.” (p. 428)
Kirk is not an island in conservative thought. Richard Weaver, in Ideas Have Consequences, has little good to say for those who posited that “human beings act always out of economic incentives.” He summarizes the impact of this economic Darwinism: “Man created in the divine image, the protagonist of a great drama in which his soul was at stake, was replaced by man the wealth-seeking and -consuming animal.” (p. 6)
In this time of supposed GOP soul searching, little actual soul searching is occurring. Number crunching and poll reading are poor substitutes for contemplation of proper first principles. Kirk and Weaver’s works, though written decades ago, continue to ring with prophetic truth. We would all do well to put down the mouse and take up these books so that our fundamentals are not forgotten as we scramble to cobble together a formula that can win again.
What is the center pole of conservatism? Few are asking that question, and, as our party’s young star has shown over a slice of pepperoni, fewer still are prepared to answer it.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment