Restraint And Autonomy
Posted on December 3rd, 2008
by Daniel Larison |
|
A host of people have responded negatively to Rod’s latest column, particularly this part:
Today, the greatest threats to conservative interests come not from the Soviet Union or high taxes, but from too much individual freedom. Look around you: Americans have been poor stewards of our economic liberty, owing to cultural values that celebrate unfettered materialism. Our families and communities have fragmented, in part because we have embraced an ethic of extreme individualism. Climate change and a peak in oil production threaten our future because we have been irresponsible caretakers of the natural world and its resources. At best, the religious right stood ineffectively against these trends. At worst, we preached them, mistaking consumerism for conservatism.
All political problems, traditional conservatism teaches, are ultimately religious problems because they result from disordered souls. In the era now dawning, Americans will learn again to live within limits — and together.
It is remarkable how vehemently some conservatives have reacted against this passage. Do any of them really disagree that “Americans have been poor stewards of our economic liberty, owing to cultural values that celebrate unfettered materialism”? Would they really deny that we have a culture that celebrates unfettered materialism? They might reasonably deny that they personally celebrate unfettered materialism, but Rod was speaking generally. Instead of taking seriously an exhortation to self-criticism and reflection, Rod’s critics have, as usual, resorted to whining.
Andrew Stuttaford recited some standard libertarian lines and observed that Tory patricians from the 19th century would have had a good laugh at this. Yes, when I want reliable advice on moral reasoning Victorian Tories are certainly among my first choices for role models. In a post dubbing the first paragraph above to be the worst of the day, Robert Stacy McCain declared that he was not to blame for any of the problems in question, so apparently there’s no problem. Our secular friends were predictably mortified and invoked Jeffrey Hart, but no doubt they will object strenuously to any suggestion that they take moral and cultural problems less seriously than their religious counterparts.
Let’s imagine for a moment that Rod did not use the word soul here, but said instead that “all political problems are ultimately ethical problems because they result from disordered wills.” As far as religious conservatives are concerned, that is what he said, because how one’s will is directed is a matter of the soul’s health and its orientation toward or away from the Good, which is to say God. Consider next that since antiquity the right-ordering of the soul was taken as essential for rightly ordering the polis, and for the entire history of Christianity it has been a fundamental spiritual teaching of the Church that a well-ordered soul keeps its passions and appetites in check. Apparently all of this is supposed to count for nothing, because it intrudes on individual autonomy. That autonomy is really what Rod is critiquing, and the freedom of this autonomy is mainly the freedom of appetite and preference, which individualists mistake for genuine freedom.
I am going to assume that Rod’s critics all believe that men should avoid excess, practice moderation and cultivate restraint–unless, of course, that is all together too “Buddhist” for McCain–and that failure to do so will lead to the formation of vicious, self-destructive habits and actions not in accordance with natural law. This will in turn have deleterious effects on social and political order, and will ultimately work to the detriment of political liberty as appetites that are not held in check from within will be restrained from without. If self-control weakens or fails and natural institutions, such as the family and community, splinter, public authority will take up the slack and increase its power. When a culture of acquisition and consumption financed by vast sums of debt begins to implode, public authority intervenes again to impose regulation (or, in many cases, over-regulation) where license previously prevailed.
We have been living in a culture that encourages the deferral of responsibility, and to one degree or another most of us have participated in it, and this is inconsistent with sustaining ordered liberty. Those who have not participated in this culture, or have done so only a little, should be the least offended by what Rod is saying, because his words are not directed at them. To the extent that we are all paying the price for an era of profligacy, what he says is relevant for all of us.
I’d even agree with the passage from Rod’s piece that you quote above, though would disagree vehemently with other aspects of his USA Today piece – especially this line:
Besides, was it the religious right that conceived and executed the disastrous Iraq war?
No, but the religious right legitimized that war. Conservative evangelicals supported it en masse – which, you might argue, was a major reason it happened.
But beyond the minor quibbles, while I take the message that Americans now need to live within limits, Rod comes pretty close to Rick Santorum’s line a few years back that the “pursuit of happiness harms America.”
So at what point does the pursuit of happiness harm America? For conservative evangelicals – and Dreher grasps this – the focus has been almost entirely on abortion and homosexuality. But these might be among the least harmful “excesses” of the past few decades. And there, I think, is the key to why a growing number of Americans have turned from the religious right, and why many in the GOP are counseling that the party should do the same: In its narrow focus on these two premier issues, the religious right – and the party of the religious right – have failed to address the issues that really matter to a broader range of individuals.
Had cultural conservatism been equally about living within your means; had it been preaching as loudly against materialism as it has been preaching against the dreaded gay; it’s appeal would necessarily be broader.
Fair enough. I don’t think we disagree. As I have said before, the sort of cultural conservatism that is acceptable to the mainstream right, where it is limited to matters related to sexuality, has an impoverished understanding of both politics and culture. When you begin to talk to them about excessive consumption or concentrated wealth, the shields go up and suddenly everything is “private” and non-political again. Religion in the public square is fine…as long as it doesn’t apply to food, money or work. Then it might have a significant impact on how we live, and that would be distressing.
Indeed, if we can’t have a culture without feasting in a religious context, as Anthony Esolen argued at Yale last month, and we cannot feast without the related period of discipline and restraint, a cultural conservatism that cannot address problems of acquisition and consumption isn’t conserving much of anything in the end.
Mr Larison,
I’m not sure I understand this line:
‘…since antiquity the right-ordering of the soul was taken as essential for rightly ordering the polis…’
Could you flesh this out or give some examples of the ancients’ remarks?
I think Stuttaford’s stronger point is not where he invokes Victorian Tories (VicTories?), but where he says that “to the extent there is a problem it is not a matter of too much individual freedom, but the uses to which that freedom is put. Freedom and responsibility are not mutually exclusive. In fact they ought to reinforce each other.”
Don’t you feel there’s something amiss in stating that the greatest threats facing us come from too much individual freedom, rather from the harmful actions of properly free people?
Also, if Rod could equally have said “all political problems are ultimately ethical problems because they result from disordered wills,†he should have done so, if his intention was to communicate and persuade the greatest number of people (and those most likely to disagree with him otherwise).
I would love for “the religious right”, broadly understood, to expand their list of issues rather significantly. Human life is important, marriage is important, and social conservatives are perfectly justified in taking on those issues, but nothing is stopping social conservatives and their institutions from inveighing against disordered hedonism, whether it is in the sexual sphere or at the local Wal-Mart/shopping mall, but the latter would have conservative leaders, leading, pastors/priests/rabbis/imams making their congregations uncomfortable, challenging people to examine their own lives.
The only reason Rod is catching flak is because he is right over the target.
“Could you flesh this out or give some examples of the ancients’ remarks?”
As a start, I would refer you to one of my earliest posts.
Don’t you feel there’s something amiss in stating that the greatest threats facing us come from too much individual freedom, rather from the harmful actions of properly free people?
Absolutely, but there’s long been this idea that without restraints, there can be no freedom, as appetites/self-interest take over. There’s something to that; it all comes down on controlling the appetites.
You might control them by restricting freedom – sodomy laws, for instance. Or regulation of Wall Street.
Or, you might seek to control them via the church/religious faith – permitting people to control themselves to a greater extent than they otherwise would. Does this actually work? We like to think so; but maybe not.
Personally, I would not have said “too much individual freedom.” I would have said “too much individualism.”
But the strong rection does indicate that most modern conservative have no idea what conservatism means historically. To them it is classical liberalism with a little respect for tradition thrown in if you are lucky.
gsmart,
I hear you. With respect to your first paragraph, then, the question shifts to whether Rod could persuade me that we currently have “too much” individual freedom, i.e., that that’s the culprit. I don’t believe it is, but as you say, it’s indeed a valid argument in which to engage.
I don’t believe it is, but as you say, it’s indeed a valid argument in which to engage.
In theory, at least, I’m always going to want to err on the side of more personal freedom. But a lack of restraint – be it moral, be it governmental or what have you – is indeed a major factor in our current economic environment.
And for me personally, that’s a problem. When it comes to personal behavior – sexual behavior, let’s say – I absolutely believe the state should not be interfering in individuals’ decisions. But where the market is concerned… I tend to think there must be some restriction of “freedoms,” specifically because a lack of restraint there can lead to major ramifications for many. Which is exactly what’s happening now.
So there’s a disconnect there. And we say, well, faith might tie up both ends, right? If faith can teach restraint then – ostensibly – you don’t need governmental restraints. But again, as per the New Yorker link – I just don’t see where it actually works that way. And I think we have this overinflated sense that things used to be so much better. I just don’t know that they were.
Freedom, as in to kill one’s unborn offspring, or borrow 125% of your house’s bubble value?
Freedom is best measured by responsibility and therefore justice, not abstract “rights”.
Sexual freedom? And as soon as the woman is pregnant or the Man has AIDS? And does not arguing for a lack of restraint discriminate against the BDSM community?
The market is merely an extension of this. Bankruptcy and Divorce – why is the latter easier?
But “restrictions” in both spheres are merely the recognition that individual acts have wider consequences.
There is the father of lies, and I don’t think it is mere coincidence that “the cheque is in the mail” and “I’ll respect you in the morning” are both at the top of the list.
Are not both lust and greed both cardinal sins?
Are not both lust and greed both cardinal sins?
But again, you’re speaking in explicit religious terms. Which, I think, was Dreher’s original point: Why does the argument against these things, sinful though we/you may believe them to be, always have to be made on religious grounds? Is there not a rational basis for arguing against these things – a basis that may, in the long run, be more inclusive, convincing?
In our public discourse one cannot judge the first person plural deeply disordered or significantly evil. Failings are allowed, but we must always remain essentially good people. Only third parties are pathological. Dreher crossed the line and should know what to expect.
Ah I see — in GReader I get the day’s posts backwards. You could have put a little note in ‘Radical Change’ post to refer back here.
Thanks.
Adam01 writes: “nothing is stopping social conservatives and their institutions from inveighing against disordered hedonism, whether it is in the sexual sphere or at the local Wal-Mart/shopping mall, but the latter would have conservative leaders, leading, pastors/priests/rabbis/imams making their congregations uncomfortable, challenging people to examine their own lives. ”
I hope you’re not suggesting that this phenomenon isn’t happening now. With the possible exception of Prosperity Gospel televangelists, clergy make anti-consumerist remarks all the time, especially at Christmas, but that does not get media coverage unless environmentalism or some other gimmick is involved.
kevinjjones,
I have heard it from my own pastor, so I can’t claim that it is not happening at all, but can we honestly say that exhortations to prudence, temperance, etc. are given anything like equal time with other, more hot-button social issues?
[...] Daniel Larison comes to Rod’s defense because the usual suspects read the column and though they were reading Jimmy Carter’s [...]