Some Thoughts on Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income Proposal

Earlier this month I was listening to a Freakonomics podcast interviewing Andrew Yang, a wealthy entrepreneur who—much like every other registered Democrat these days—is running for president in 2020.

Yang’s story caught my attention as he relayed how his successful career as an entrepreneur working to better automate labor had the unintended consequence of destroying small communities. Yang had a change of heart and now wants to forestall what he believes to be a coming work crisis in which large swaths of the country will be unemployed. “New technologies—robots, software, artificial intelligence—have already destroyed more than 4 million US jobs, and in the next 5-10 years, they will eliminate millions more,” Yang warns. “A third of all American workers are at risk of permanent unemployment. And this time, the jobs will not come back.”

I believe the coming crisis Yang fears is real. And, while it hasn’t received nearly enough attention in a world where the media seems obsessed over the latest scandal or where politicians behave as if they were elected to pose as ad hoc celebrities, it is being discussed by serious adults on both the Right and on the Left.

Yang’s warning is remarkably similar to another politician on the other side of the aisle. Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse has made the coming disruption from technological advancements a centerpiece of his political career and the subject of his books. In both The Vanishing American Adult and Them Sasse lays out a compelling case for how automation will replace tasks ordinary American workers perform, and the devastating consequences that may follow. Sasse insists that this is an issue we should be thinking through and debating sooner rather than later.

That raises the interesting and slightly alarming question of what exactly should we be doing to prepare? And that’s where—unfortunately—the commonalities tend to end and we’re naturally drawn back into our ideological pre-programming. The policy proposals Yang makes in his Freakonomics interview have a distinctive progressive tinge. Yang is commendably gregarious and seems eager to paint his solutions in bipartisan we’re in this together rhetoric, but it’s doubtful his efforts will be well received in our highly polarized nation.

Chief among Yang’s suggestions is a universal basic income—what Yang calls a Freedom Dividend. Universal basic income (or UBI) is a no-questions-asked, one-size-fits-all cash entitlement provided to the citizens of a nation. If the United States were to institute UBI it would mean every citizen of a certain age would get a set amount—say, $1,000 monthly—to do with as they wished without having to meet requirements like completing daunting forms, falling below the poverty line, or being in poor health. Some Native American tribes already practice a form of UBI among tribal citizens—this would essentially expand such a model to the nation as a whole.

As the reader is probably well aware, UBI is so hot right now. Even some ostensibly conservative thinkers have suggested it would be ideal, arguing—for one thing—that it would be far more efficient to have one universal entitlement and get rid of the rest. I suspect this is probably quite true. And probably quite impossible (as I’ll explain in a moment).

It would not surprise me if UBI becomes a much more mainstream policy debate in the years ahead—particularly if we’re struggling with how to deal with legions of Americans out of work. And, while both the coming work crisis and UBI are deserving of a much more in-depth and lengthy analysis—I’ll leave that for another day and offer instead a brief critique of UBI for now. Discussions of entitlements usually get bogged down in the economics; which is appropriate but also—to be blunt—boring. Here are two non-economic points I’d hope you’ll ponder:

Point One: Political Willpower

While I can understand the allure UBI poses for a conservative—that of reducing all entitlements to one basic, simple system in need of only a fraction of the army of bureaucrats it currently takes to run our entitlement system—I don’t believe this dream is realistic. The first obvious hurdle would be getting enough politicians and people on board the idea of eliminating all other entitlements. And there are a lot of UBI advocates who are just as eager to keep the existing entitlement system we have now and simply add to it.

But suppose we did eliminate all entitlements other than sending every American over a certain age a check for $1,000 a month. Is it not plausible that some—even many—of those Americans who might have otherwise been receiving food stamps or subsidized housing or healthcare are going to spend that money on something other than food, shelter, and health? What happens when they run out of the necessities for survival? Do we simply say “sorry, we gave you $1,000 a month to make ends meet. Now you’re on your own”? If a recipient has—say—a gambling or drug addiction and squanders the entire $1,000, do we sit idly by and watch them starve to death?

That seems doubtful. We don’t do that now, why would we do that then? We make provisions for those who don’t have the means to support themselves—whether or not it could be argued they were responsible for getting themselves in their situation in the first place. My point isn’t whether or not we should be administering more tough love, but that we don’t currently have the willpower to do so. Why would that be any different once we’ve officially “decided” we’re doing away with all entitlements except UBI?

If UBI replaced all other entitlements it might be beneficial, but it would hardly be a panacea. Sooner or later, we’ll be right back in the same predicament with demands for more and expanding entitlements to overlap the “simplified” entitlement. What’s need is a change in culture, not more clever entitlement schemes.

Point Two: Does UBI Address the Most Pressing Need?

A call for UBI to address the coming disruption assumes that the antidote to the coming crisis is chiefly (or exclusively) economic. Is it reasonable to assume that legions of Americans—men in particular—are going to be happy as a clam to have another $1,000 in their pockets every month with no meaningful work to do? Are we suffering primarily from a crisis of work or a crisis of purpose? I contend the latter is a more pressing threat than the former.

I do not mean the economics is unimportant—just that it’s not the only ingredient, nor the most important. A nation composed of strong and resilient communities rooted in a deep sense of purpose and meaning can weather an economic crisis. A nation composed of weak and devasted communities that don’t have an answer to the basic question why am I here and what’s my purpose in life? cannot manage a lemonade stand.

The real challenge is how do we restore that sense of drive, purpose, meaning, responsibility, and unity that once held so many communities together. And if we’re going to try an audacious and enormously expensive “fix” such as UBI, we’re going to need more than fine feelings to ensure it’ll get the job done. Otherwise we end up with a half-addressed crisis on top of another debt bomb.

The focus of Ben Sasse’s work has always put the brokenness of our communities, institutions, families, government, churches, and the like at the center. Social capital can be just as important as economic capital when things get tough and we cannot risk our leaders reaching for something that seems easiest while leaving the other unaddressed. There are no quick fixes. The key is to focus is on broken communities, not empty wallets. Heal the communities, and the wealth will follow as people with a renewed sense of purpose and meaning find the strength to make the changes in their own lives to meet the demands of tomorrow’s economy.

I do want to give Yang credit for talking about the problem. And more talk—not the mindless shouting that’s so prevalent on social media—is precisely what we need in we’re ever going to successfully address the challenges ahead. The coming work crisis and universal basic income are HUGE topics and—I suspect—will only grow in intensity as technologies begin to disrupt more and more of our lives. Let us pray that we will have the courage, wisdom, and civility to know what to do.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

How does a Conservative differ from a Nationalist? – Part 4 (How We’re Different)

Let’s review where we’ve come thus far: In Part 1 we defined nationalism as patriotism in its agitated state and determined that nationalistic tendencies must be judged in the circumstance (an idea borrowed from Michael Brendan Dougherty). We then turned to the benefits of nationalism done right; namely, protection from threats from without (Part 2) and threats from within (Part 3). Now let’s turn to the dangers of nationalism done wrong.

Poisons and Wildfires

Jonah Goldberg, host of The Remnant podcast, is fond of stressing that the desirability of nationalism is determined by just how much nationalism we’re talking about. “If a little nationalism is healthy, too much of it is poisonous,” Jonah wrote in his book Suicide of the West, “Indeed, all poisons are determined by the dose. In other words, nationalism…is a passion, like lust. Sexual attraction is important for every marriage, but no healthy marriage is based on lust.”

Not to stretch the use of metaphors too far, but we might also compare nationalism to fire. To the extent nationalism is patriotism in its agitated state it’s easy to see how an uncontrolled and unpredictable “outbreak” could be devastating while a “controlled burn” could be beneficial. From time to time the overgrowth of apathy or the entrenchment of the established order can sap a free society of its vigor. A controlled burn can set things right again, but a society of ordered liberty cannot exist amidst mob mentality. And few things have the potential to whip a people into an uncontrolled outrage than a severe outbreak of nationalism. Anger can be a powerful force for change, but it must be coupled with more than just anger.

We have to get past shouting I’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore before we could expect things to change for the better. Nor should we presume that anger or mob outrage is the most powerful or desirable catalyst for change. Gratitude, strengthening the bonds of marriage, family, and societal institutions, and a good deal of personal character development and spiritual renewal are far more likely to yield positive results than just whipping a crowd of people into an angry mob.

Nationalism’s Greatest Danger

I believe it’s important to keep in mind that we’re not just talking here about the benefits of keeping a level head. The dangers of nationalism are not simply the synergistic effect of far too many people losing their cool. The real danger is that those who are given to a nationalistic mindset might soon find their particular brand of nationalism overwhelming not just their better judgment, but their sense of purpose. Sir Roger Scruton pointed out that the danger in nationalism is that it “occupies the space vacated by religion, and in doing so excites the true believer both to worship the national idea and to seek in it for what it cannot provide—the ultimate purpose of life, the way to redemption, and the consolation for all our woes.”

For those readers who live in the United States, you have been blessed with an incalculable gift of liberty, prosperity, and opportunity that only an infinitesimal percentage of humans throughout history have ever realized. You live in a country whose founding principles are the crowning achievement of Western political thought. America, for all her sins and sorrows, has fought valiantly and courageously for freedom everywhere against the evils of tyranny and subjugators. For all of this and more, an enormous sense of pride and admiration beats in the hearts of many Americans for the place they call home.

But much like the poison measured by the dose, or the fire burning uncontrollably, this nationalistic pride can provide us a sense of ultimate purpose that should only be reserved for belief systems. “Racial essentialism, tribal superiority, the elevation of passion and myth—nationalism is not only powerless against these things, it is the medium by which these passions grow like bacteria in a petri dish,” Jonah warns. “Nationalism works on the assumption that the search for meaning and spiritual redemption is a collective enterprise.”

Reagan’s Shining City Upon a Hill

President Ronald Reagan was known as the Great Communicator, in part, because of his uncanny ability to tug on the patriotic spirit of your average American. Just read (or watch) his farewell address to the American people:

The past few days when I've been at that window upstairs, I've thought a bit of the ‘shining city upon a hill.’ The phrase comes from John Winthrop, who wrote it to describe the America he imagined. What he imagined was important because he was an early Pilgrim, an early freedom man. He journeyed here on what today we'd call a little wooden boat; and like the other Pilgrims, he was looking for a home that would be free. I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.

After 200 years, two centuries, she still stands strong and true on the granite ridge, and her glow has held steady no matter what storm. And she's still a beacon, still a magnet for all who must have freedom, for all the pilgrims from all the lost places who are hurtling through the darkness, toward home. We've done our part. And as I walk off into the city streets, a final word to the men and women of the Reagan revolution, the men and women across America who for 8 years did the work that brought America back. My friends: We did it. We weren't just marking time. We made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all.

Are Reagan’s words nationalistic? Of course. Are they of the benign sort or do they incite the flames of nationalism run amok? Since nationalism must be judged in the circumstance, it’s important we don’t establish a one-size-fits-all rule here. Reagan’s words may be nationalistic, but they’re also grateful, inclusive, and firmly rooted in a solid foundation of a broader, conservative worldview. These words are not floating aimlessly in a sea of rhetoric that can be interpreted a thousand ways—as is far too often the case today. These words were spoke at the end of a distinguished career of carefully putting the love of country behind the ultimate purpose of life.

Just as there is nothing wrong with taking a sense of pride in a job well done, or in one’s family, words that stir the soul to nationalistic pride can be quite healthy. But they must be rooted in more than pure nationalism. For pure nationalism is at enmity with the idea of limited government.

Look how manifestations of nationalism are expressed today. Are they more likely to express pride in American founding principles of order, unity, and liberty or anger at some perceived injustice? Are they more likely to contain sentiments of gratitude or ingratitude, hope or fear, a call to personal responsibility or a cry that others are not taking responsibility? Is it calling us to our better angels or bringing out the worst in us? I am by no means suggesting all nationalistic manifestations today are unhealthy but, on the whole, how might we assess the overall health of these manifestations? Are we witnessing the soul-stirring pride of a job well done or misguided obsessions over the “other side”?

Pure Nationalism Leads to Statism

“Nationalism shorn of negating qualifiers has no internal checks, no limiting principles that mitigate against giving in to collective passion,” continued Jonah Goldberg, “And that is why nationalism taken to its logical extreme must become statism or some form of socialism…Nationalism uncaged has to become statism, because the state is the only institution that is supposed to represent all of us…Nationalism by definition is concerned with the collective will or spirit. Like arguments about the moral equivalent of war, the fundamental assumptions, and emotional heart of nationalism are the cult of unity. We’re all in it together! Let’s unite around a cause larger than ourselves!” Any unity can be a wonderful thing—depending on what we’re unifying over. And just as the pure pursuit of progress is no progress at all, unity for the sake of unity is inevitable disillusion.

There are so many examples of nationalism gone awry all around us that I could easily expand this series into several more tangents. From questionable border security measures to refusals to denounce racist groups to irrational fear or hatred of foreigners or immigrants to mindlessly defending one’s tribe no matter what they do, our nation is engulfed in an inferno of nationalism untethered from any firm foundation or discernable purpose. The conservative finds much good in the patriotic fervor nationalism brings, just as the conservative recognizes that nationalism run amok is no friend to the nation at all.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 23 - How Valuable are Your Values?

How valuable are your values? And what the heck is a value anyhow? Is it just a means to an end? A way to get what we want? Or is it something more?

If the word “values” carries with it the implication it primarily has some utility or economic benefit, then it’s a sure sign we’re living in an era where our convictions are grounded on the basis of their usefulness. And, indeed, this is precisely what we are seeing in a society that places the “value” of even a person’s life on their relative usefulness to the society. When our language betrays the idea values this way, then it’s likely we’re struggling with believing they’re really all that valuable in the first place. Values hold less value in a society that’s in constant need of being reminded they’re important.

To be fair, all societies at all moments in times have been in constant need of such reminders. C. S. Lewis pointed out that “generally, great moral teachers never introduce complicated new ideas; only quacks do. The business of a moral teacher is to remind people of what they know, deep down, to be true.” So, in one sense, we’re in no different a predicament than those who’ve come before us. But there are moments for some societies when reminders are no longer enough. What’s needed (or lost) is the belief itself that values are valuable. It’s one thing to lose your memory; it’s quite another to lose your convictions.

“You never know how much you really believe anything until its truth or falsehood becomes a matter of life and death to you,” C. S. Lewis said in evaluating his Christian faith after the tragic death of his wife, “Only a real risk tests the reality of a belief.” Once we recognize this we begin to put away such foolish talk as “speaking your truth is the most powerful tool we all have” or living “your best life now.” For once values are no longer something to be pursued because of what they can do for us a lot of surface-level religion and feel-good psychology looks rather silly.

Perhaps it would help to frame things as directly as possible: is the utility of a value the only measurement for the worth of a value? Certainly not. But why not? The utility of a dollar bill may be the only measurement for the worth of the dollar bill. If the dollar bill could no longer be used to buy things it would only be worth the cost of the raw materials that formed it. But the same is not true of a value. The worth of a value doesn’t cease to exist if we can demonstrate that the value is no longer useful.

This then is the essence of a value—that its worth is inherent beyond and even regardless of any benefits it may bring. If your values disappear the moment you perceive they no longer bring you value, they weren’t values to begin with. Therefore, if we want to be the kind of people who live as if values are important to us, we must be willing to pursue our values, even when doing so doesn’t benefit us.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

A Response to the Response to Tucker Carlson's Monologue

Last week Fox News political commentator Tucker Carlson gave his television audience an address that’s being heralded as Tucker Carlson’s Monologue Heard Around the World! What began as a critique of newly elected Senator Mitt Romney quickly turned to a pro-populist analysis of our current political and societal woes. You can watch the bit here or—if you prefer—read the transcript.

The most interesting thing about Tucker’s monologue isn’t anything he said, but the reaction to what he said. While the monologue is worth listening to or reading in its own right, this is hardly the Gettysburg Address. Yet the reaction in the conservative blogosphere is palpable. Whether they’re wholeheartedly endorsing of condemning Tucker’s message, everyone seems to want to get in on the action.

Every conservative podcast I listened to this week weighed in with their thoughts, and the Ordered Liberty podcast devoted the better part of TWO episodes to the matter. National Review writer Kyle Smith referred to Tucker’s monologue as a “great speech” and that, “if an obscure senator gave this speech, he’d be famous overnight.” He went on to suggest many of his colleagues would have “a lot to say about this monologue. I suspect a lot of people are going to have a lot to say about it. This speech is going to reverberate. I think it has the potential to take off the way Rick Santelli’s tea party speech did.”

Indeed, many people have had a lot to say. I haven’t seen such frantic antics since the time we were told the Segway scooter was going to “revolutionize human civilization” and the related fear that Al Qaeda was close to perfecting the Segway scooter technology.

When I read through Tucker’s monologue I was hardly blown away. He makes some good points, makes some questionable assertions with no evidence whatsoever, offers some policy suggestions that are worth debating but hardly a sure bet, and concludes by appealing to populist rhetoric. Let’s look at each of those briefly:

He Makes Some Good Points

Tucker rightly asks us to look beyond the here and now of the Trump administration and instead focus on what the country will look like after Trump, and what we’d want it to look like. He takes issue with the idea that the best measurement for the health of the nation or the success of our leaders is America’s economic prosperity saying, “does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones, or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They haven’t so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide are depopulating large parts of the country.”

He then counters that the goal for America is “happiness”. That’s certainly debatable, but he broadens the definition by stressing, “Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence. Above all, deep relationships with other people.”

Tucker further makes some shrewd observations about the inability to separate economics from other things that matter (family, faith, and culture), and how both rural/Red State and urban/Blue State America seem locked in the same challenges with the traditional Right and Left unable to satisfactorily address their needs. He further points the finger for much of this at declining wages for men and passionately argues his case.

He Makes Some Questionable Assertions with No Evidence Whatsoever

Woven throughout Tucker’s monologue is the curious idea that our leaders could fix all of this if they cared about us. But they don’t, so the problems remain. He insists we are “ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule. They’re day traders. Substitute teachers. They’re just passing through. They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can’t solve our problems. They don’t even bother to understand our problems.”

He further accuses the “rich”—a term he never defines—as people who are “happy to fight malaria in Congo. But working to raise men’s wages in Dayton or Detroit? That’s crazy.” At no point does he offer actual evidence for the idea our rich are somehow more concerned about foreigners than fellow citizens. Which is just as well as it’s unlikely compelling evidence for that assertion even exists.

From mounting personal debts to drug addictions, Tucker seems convinced the “rich” could be doing a lot more but are instead either focused on impoverished people outside of the country or—far worse—profiting from our problems. “When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly,” he continues, “Our leaders don’t even try.”

He Offers Some Policy Suggestions That are Worth Debating but Hardly a Sure Bet

To his credit, beyond just accusing an ill-defined “rich” of not caring or trying, Tucker eventually does get down to some substantive suggestions. Although here, much of what he has to say is a mixed bag of reasonable but hardly a panacea. For instance, he decries payday loans given to the poor that they’ll likely never pay back. On this point he definitely has my sympathy. But he offers no practical solution for how to handle the poor’s very real need to borrow money other than implying someone somewhere is simply being greedy.

The same goes with drugs. While he passionately presents a strong case for why it should matter to us that much of America is addicted to drugs, he doesn’t seem to appreciate the complexities of the drug problem. Or offer any thoughts as to where we should go from here. Here again, he seems to be implying someone, somewhere, just isn’t doing something or caring deeply enough.

He Concludes by Appealing to Populist Rhetoric

“What will it take a get a country like that?” Tucker asks rhetorically, “Leaders who want it.” Throughout the entire monologue is a strong strand of populism—the notion that the right people would be just fine if it wasn’t for the proverbial “they”. In this case, the “rich” and powerful leaders who simply don’t care or want us to do better are to blame.

I take no issue with the idea our leaders have failed us, or with the idea there is much that could be done on their account that likely would absolve some of our problems. But the idea that our lives can only improve when “they” care enough for us is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong. I’ve written a great deal on the dangerous of populism. You can read it here, so I’ll spare you the digression.

And with that, Tucker excited the conservative talking heads from coast to coast. Look, I don’t want to sound critical of Tucker’s monologue overall. I have my disagreements, but it’s a fine speech. However, it’s hardly THAT good. It’s not as if the 24/7 news cycle provides little for political pundits and commentators to pontificate over. I still contend it wouldn’t—ordinarily—be worth all the attention it’s received. But these are not ordinary times. And that, I believe, is precisely why it’s making waves.

As a political commentator who’s—shall we say—comfortable defending Trump and Trumpism, Tucker is in a position to offer to the rest of traditional conservatives something they’ve been practically begging for ever since Trump ran for office: an intellectual defense of Trumpism, or at least national populism. To that end, Tucker has provided us with at least two things in his monologue: 1) an actual argument and, 2) clearly defined fault lines emerging on the Right. Let’s look at each of those things closer:

Tucker Provides an Actual Argument

Many a conservative critic of the Trump movement has bemoaned the fact that they’re more than willing to engage in civil debate if only the other side would offer something that approached an actual argument. Far too often “defense” for what the president is doing or faith in the Make America Great Again! mindset boils down to little more than asserting highly debatable things to be true and name calling. I’m not trying to be meanspirited, but it is exceedingly rare for those who support Trump to respond to critics with coherence or clarity.

Tucker’s monologue might be thought of as an intellectual defense for the sort of nationalist populism Trump seems to represent. Look, I’m not saying it’s a particularly brilliant or insightful argument. But it’s not like there’s much competition. To be honest, the only other time I can recall something that looked anything like an actual argument was way back in 2016 with the anonymous Flight 93 Election Claremont Institute article arguing for support for Trump when he was running.

Conservatives have been chomping at the bits for opportunities like this. Like an astronomer anticipating the arrival of the a distant comet, conservative pundits long for the chance to engage in debate. It’s what we do. Conservatism is well versed in doing battle in the war of ideas, just as conservatism fails in the war of emotional impulses.

Tucker Identified the Fault Lines

Whether it was intentional or not, Tucker seems to have stumbled around some truths:

The fusionism that held the conservative coalition together in the 1950s appears to be coming to an end.No one really knows how to hold the coalition together now.Namely, new fault lines are emerging, not between the traditional “Right” and “Left”, but between globalists vs nationalists, free trade absolutists vs free market absolutists, and those who view national policies that benefit the nation as a whole worth pursing vs those who are more sensitive to the impact on communities that seem left behind by the new economy.

I believe part of the reason Tucker’s monologue has become such a sensation is precisely because it strikes at ground zero of much of the divide on the Right today. For that he deserves credit. Where we take the conversation from here is on us.

And that presents a challenge. Already many pundits have torn apart Tucker’s monologue, analyzing it bit by bit. You have David French’s rebuttal on how the right should reject Tucker’s version of “victimhood populism”. Earlier this week I heard a conservative commentator take issue with French taking issue with Tucker on the basis that it’s not as if we should just be ignoring the impact the decisions our leaders are likely to have on a macro scale. I believe they’re both right (or both wrong) in a sense, depending on how far you take the arguments. Ben Shapiro weighed in, objecting to Tucker’s apparent attack on the free market. And J. D. Vance responded to Shapiro’s piece, siding with Tucker’s views.

I recognize the irony in my response to the responses to the response—we’re getting into a Russian doll situation—but I do think this endless descent of argument and cross-argument presents a powerful challenge and a powerful opportunity for conservatives. The challenge is that the fault lines are real. The circumstances that held the conservative coalition together for some many years—from a common enemy in the Soviet Union to general agreement on economic policies—have changed so significantly it’s difficult to foresee what might work in the years ahead. And, for that reason, these internal debates pose a potential threat to the entire coalition, potentially shattering it for good.

But, as I said above, conservatives have always held their own in a fight over ideas. When ideas are what’s being debated, conservatism wins. When emotions and base impulses rule the day, conservatism—to say nothing of society at large—is the worse off for it. I hope Tucker and those of his ilk will continue to engage in a debate of ideas. Just as I hope traditional conservatives such as myself will always be able to provide answers that win the hearts and minds of people everywhere.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

How does a Conservative differ from a Nationalist? – Part 3 (Church and State)

In Part 2 we saw how one of the benefits of nationalism is its role in providing defense for the nation/state. Today we’ll talk about how nationalism can provide for tranquility within the nation. In the fourth and final post I’ll turn to how nationalism can go awry.

Religious Wars

Let’s roll the clocks back four centuries or more. Long before the United States came into being, the nations of Europe fought endless wars amongst themselves. While the causes for such conflicts are various and sundry, one prominent cause stands out: religious differences. Centuries of religious wars were endemic on the European continent as people couldn’t find a way to settle their disagreements without violence.

Religious disagreements are hardly vanquished in today’s world. So why is it that the United States and much of modern Europe no longer fights the endless religious wars that were so common in the past? What makes it easier for us to settle our disagreements without resorting to violence?

In a word: Nationalism.

Nationalism gives us something to belong to beyond our religious convictions. Nationalism provides for a unity strong enough to bind the nation/state but—when properly harnessed—loose enough to allow for the toleration of outsiders, and for neighbors of different faiths to live peaceably together. The unity of nationalism certainly may include religious overtones, but it is not limited to them.

As I argued in Part 2, a nation/state doesn’t emerge out of thin air. Nor does it come into being by arbitrarily drawing lines on a map. There must be some commonality that holds the people within the nation/state together. That commonality might be shared laws, culture, history, language, ethnicity, customs, hardships…or religious convictions. From these commonalities emerge a “people” that form a nation/state. The stronger the commonalities, the stronger the bond that holds the nation/state together.

Democracy vs Divine Right

As barbaric European tribes of the ancient world gradually became Christianized, they universally held to the Catholic faith and recognized the Pope as the leader of Christendom. This didn’t stop them from killing one another over political or territorial squabbles as ruling families sought opportunities to maximize their power; but things went into overdrive when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, beginning the Protestant Reformation. For more than a century, Europe was divided between Catholic and Protestant faiths and monarchies sought to consolidate their power by playing to whichever side they perceived as most advantageous for their own ambitions.

Kings were seen as ruling by divine right, not popular election. And the priestly class was the authority on what the Almighty had to say in any given situation. The entire system—from church to state—was enshrined in sacred, unchallengeable authority. To question the state was to commit holy sacrilege because the nation was built on the common faith of the people.

Religious beliefs—in most religions anyhow—aren’t malleable. Some religious traditions may tolerate or even encourage skepticism or questions, but the doubt is never aimed at the authority of the faith itself for commanding moral imperatives. An individual who advocates religious pluralism for instances is, at the very least, convinced of the virtue of tolerance.

“Secular law adapts, religious law endures,” observed British philosophy Roger Scruton, “Only when the law derives from national sovereignty can it adapt to the changing conditions of the people.” By placing the law of the nation in the hands of national sovereignty, we have effectively defused some of the inherent tension in nations that define themselves by their religious convictions. It’s one thing to enact a new law that has an adverse impact on the economy. It’s another to enact a law that offends the Almighty.

I don’t mean all religions are equally problematic at grafting into the national identity—a topic a friend and I explore at length in a recent episode of the Saving Elephants podcast. Rather, when religion is what primarily defines a nation, a government of the people, by the people, and for the people cannot endure. The popular will is a secular idea, not a religious idea.

“Here, then, is the truth in nationalism,” Scruton concludes, “When we ask ourselves the question, to what do we belong, and what defines our loyalties and commitments, we do not find the answer in a shared religious obedience, still less in bonds of tribe and kinship. We find the answer in the things that we share with our fellow citizens, and in particular in those things that serve to sustain the rule of law and the consensual forms of politics.”

A Guy Named Joe

How, exactly, does anchoring our sense of national belonging in what we share in common with those who live within the nation/state defuse the tension endemic of the religious states of the past? Let’s take, as a case study, a fictitious guy named Joe.

Joe is an American but, more than that, Joe considers himself to be a follower of Christ. He used to call himself a Christian when he was younger. Back then he was raised by his parents in what he now recognizes to be a terribly judgmental and legalistic Baptist church that taught homosexuality was a sin. The pastor frequently quoted from the Book of Leviticus about how homosexuality was an abomination to the Lord. Joe was horrified when gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts in 2004. He spent much of the following years campaigning for politicians in his home state who said they would support the Biblical definition of marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

But one day Joe learned that Mark, his best friend from high school, was gay. He couldn’t believe it! He had been on several mission trips with Mark and he knew Mark loved Christ. This was the beginning of the end. Little by little, over the next several years, Joe began to rethink his beliefs about homosexuality. Eventually Joe professed a far more tolerant version of the faith. He meets weekly with a group of seekers of truth and love. Joe now sees that the God he worships is a God of love, not the God of jealousy and judgment that he was taught about growing up. Joe celebrated along with Mark when the Supreme Court declared gay marriage legal in 2015. After all, he’d spent most of that spring attending LGBTQ rallies and was in D.C. when the court announced its decision.

The point here isn’t whether Joe’s old views or his new views are the correct views, but that both religious convictions are expressed politically by working within the democratic system in the United States. Using religion as the basis for what holds a nation/state together ups the ante on how seriously we must have to get something right. It’s one thing to say, “I don’t agree with what you’re saying or doing, but I believe it’s in both of our long-term best interests to work out our disagreements within the system and agree to abide by the rules”. It’s quite another thing to say, “I don’t agree with what you’re saying or doing, so I’m going to try to bring down the system to keep you from saying or doing it.”

In our present case the “system” is America’s secular democratic society where we identify ourselves by our allegiance to the ideas of our Founding. “In the American context, patriotism is defined by adherence to a set of principles and ideals that is higher than mere nationalism,” explained Jonah Goldberg in his book The Suicide of the West, “It is also a cultural orientation that is inherent to the idea of American exceptionalism.”

These “principles” contain the idea that individual liberty should be protected against mob rule, and that the “system” is there to ensure that—while we might not all get what we want—we can at least rest easy knowing our rights will be protected. Ideas have formed the core of what it means to be an American. We hold our identity in the things we believe and in the stories we tell ourselves. And, while religion can be just as powerful at holding a nation/state together, it is often far more violent because it cannot adapt as easily as a secular system.

The Secularization of the West

As the European nations gradually became less religious over the centuries, some unified yearning of the human spirit had to be found to hold the nation/states together. Scruton holds that nationalism, “…with its myths and fables, would restore some of the meaning lost to the Age of Reason.” Something primal would step in to provide a sense of belonging. “Nationalism is a pre-rational, emotional, ultimately tribal commitment to one’s home country,” wrote Jonah Goldberg, “This place is mine and I love it not least because it is mine.”

In all this talk of the benefits of nationalism over a religious identity for the nation/state, I should pause here to say that I’m not advocating one’s national identity is greater or more important than their spiritual identity or religious convictions. Rather, I am suggesting that anchoring the defining characteristic of a nation/state in a shared religion is an improper, and dangerous, use of religion.

We don’t define the nation by our shared faith because our faith isn’t important, but precisely because it is most important. Ordering a nation/state around a secular identity means we are giving up the myth that we can run our faith through state collectivism. Our religious identity is so important, it must be left to the individual to pursue and not be entrusted to a central authority.

What I’m attempting to argue here is that nationalism has shown itself to be an effective means of holding a nation together with less violence that the religious glues of the past. The conservative certainly believes there is an important role religion plays in a healthy society—not the least of which is it provides the citizenry a transcendental outlet in a secular society. The precise role of faith in the state and the separation of church and state are much larger topics that we’ll have to save for another day.

Drawing Lines on a Map

Where does your sense of home or belonging come from? It may come from many places, but it is certainly not arbitrary or something simply imposed willfully. “You do not create boundaries by drawing lines on the map,” observed Scruton, “Boundaries arise through the emergence of national identities, which in turn require that religious obedience take second place to the feeling for home, territory, and settlement…democracy will always be jeopardized in places where identities are confessional rather than territorial.”

Here, of course, we’re wandering into dangerous territory (pun very much intended). For if the roles were reversed—if all that held a people together was a powerful sense of territorialism and a complete lack of any guiding moral principles or sound, religious orthodoxy—then we end up with fascism always looking for an opportunity to prey on weaker nations. Nationalism has shown itself to be an auspicious alternative to the religiously organized nation/states of the past. But there is a balance to be struck between purely secular nationalism and the benefits sound religion provides.

As bad as those religious wars in Europe had been, they paled in comparison to what came next. In the twentieth century, when nationalism swept across Europe, two world wars were fought and brought with it the bloodiest century humanity had ever seen. There is a dark side to nationalism. And that is where we’ll pick things up in the fourth and final post next week.

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog

Episode 22 - Stop "Supporting" Trump

I want you to stop supporting Trump. Seriously. Stop it right now.

You can like the president. You can love the president. You can agree with the president’s judicial and cabinet appointments, his handling of the economy, foreign affairs, domestic policies, and the like. Heck, you can even adore his outlandish, brash tweets both before and after becoming president. But, for the love of all that is good and holy, please stop supporting the president!

I suppose I could understand how someone who agrees with what the president is doing would say they “support” him, just as someone who disagrees would say they “oppose” him. But—to be honest—it’s never really crossed my mind to support or oppose Trump. Quite frankly, I believe doing either is a dangerous oversimplification of our civic duty.

Perhaps you’re thinking I’m getting all hung up on some trivial semantic. What difference does it make? Well, there was a time when expressing support of a president would have simply been understood to mean one supported the president’s agenda as it was currently understood and would likely vote for them again. but that does not appear to be a valid option in today’s political climate.

Words and their meanings do evolve over time. We no longer presume that someone described as “gay” refers to their jolly disposition. Calling someone a “liberal” today means something quite different than it did in the early days of the American republic, when “liberal” referred to support for natural rights and government of the people over authoritarian monarchy.

And in the context of our current political climate it is extremely important we discern what being a “Trump supporter” actually means. I don’t mean that it’s meaningless to support the president; but I do mean that the way in which that word is commonly used today carries with some dangerous connotations. Namely, “support” isn’t specific enough and, more and more, it’s coming to mean unquestioning fealty in a manner that was never required of conservatives in the past.

In this episode I take a deep dive into the shallow politics surrounding the support/oppose model of looking at the president and examine why this way of looking at the world is contrary to the conservative worldview.

LISTEN HERE

from savingelephantsblog
via https://www.savingelephantsblog.com/saving-elephants-blog