From the Rubble
When you’re rebuilding something from the rubble, it pays to listen to men who have experience doing just that. Men like Wilhelm Röpke,whose books helped construct a viable centrist Right for post-war Germany, and whose economic advice helped launch its “economic miracle.” The state of conservatism today is nothing like so bright as post war Germany, but the comparison is apt. Let’s go through it point by point, shall we?
Germany had been steeped for over a decade in violent, jingoistic propaganda that devalued rational thought, by a party that viciously punished dissent. Check.
The ruling party in Germany taught citizens to put blind faith in the personal powers of a single leader to interpret the will of “Providence.” Check.
The careful discussion of alternative policies had given way to back-room attempts to curry favor with a single, nearly omnipotent unitary executive, whose decisions were driven not by facts but wishful thinking and utopian fantasies. Check.
The rich intellectual heritage of German political thinking—with many strains, derived from diverse religious traditions and many fractious thinkers—had been hacked away, to empower a coterie of fanatics. Check.
The Nazi movement had, even before the war, overheated the economy and put the country on a course that was unsustainable in peacetime—in the hope of obtaining vital resources for expansion through foreign conquest. Check.
So maybe Röpke is the man to whom we should look today for answers—even though our churches are mercifully unbombed, and the body count racked up by our war of conquest is comparatively low. (I leave aside, of course, the horrors of Nazi genocide because there is mercifully nothing quite like that on our conscience.)
Paul Gottfried, in one of his many thoughtful contributions here, has suggested that any renascent Right in America will likely be libertarian in orientation, rebuilding on the (by now ancient) ruins of the “Old Right” that fought FDR. In this he is largely right. Given the sheer size, economic and intellectual corruption, and crushing fiscal impact of our federal government—in both its militarist and socialist sectors—there is no room anymore for airy fantasies about “compassionate conservatism,” “big government conservatism,” “faith-based initiatives,” or (God help us) “national greatness.”
To test this assertion out, as April 15 rolls around and you see the sheer size of the bite which taxes take from your pay this year, step back to think about what you’ve actually gotten in return for all this money. Let’s take the first, most sacred duty of a government: Are our borders defended against invasion? Well, no. Inadequate or insincere attempts to control illegal immigration allow over 1 million people to walk into our country every year, to await the day when they will receive amnesty… and immediately become eligible for social welfare programs and affirmative action—all at the expense of native born citizens. Meanwhile, our military budgets spin out of control, as we pile up weaponry to re-fight the Cold War against countries that pose no threat to us. (By the way, can anyone give me a reason why we and Russia are still pointing thermonuclear missiles at each other’s cities—some 17 years since the fall of Communism? Just asking.) We continue to keep France safe from German invasion, and West Germany safe from an attack by the German Democratic Republic… even as we try to bomb the Arab world into the Space Age. Mission accomplished! Heckuva job!
In nearly every other sector, federal and state governments continue to foster counter-productive activities that are prone to savage libertarian critique. Here are just a few: Attacks on the rights of home-schoolers in California. Strict regulations that make it impossible for small farmers to make goat cheese in Virginia. Massive federal subsidies to ethanol producers… who grow corn using petrochemical fertilizers made from… guess what—oil! How about that proposed state law in New York (I’ve written about this before) which would close down religious hospitals if they refuse to perform or refer for abortions?
The instinct to promote some abstract vision of “the good” using coercion and taxation has largely displaced the traditional American instincts toward private charity, self-reliance, and voluntary cooperation. This glorification of the State has been enabled by intellectual laziness on the part of our ethical gate-keepers—our churches. Leave aside for a moment the ever-exciting implications of the Reformation. Read the policy papers produced by the leadership of nearly every denomination in America, and you’ll find scarcely a trace of the decentralist and voluntarist impulses of Protestantism, or the “subsidiary” principles enshrined in Catholic social teaching. Instead, churches on both sides of the Tiber have learned to act like other lobbies, fighting for their share of the booty collected at gunpoint by the State. All in “good causes,” of course. Fighting racism. Defending marriage. Providing health care. Resettling immigrants.
There is ample space for a thriving libertarian movement in America, and a desperate need for one. So why not just throw out the label “conservative,” tainted as it now is, and line up behind a strict, small government philosophy that mirrors the decentralized Republic of our Founders? Why not call ourselves libertarians and be done with it?
Because libertarianism (or “liberalism,” in the European term Röpke used) is not enough. Indeed, it never was. While we have every reason to strive against the presumptions of big, intrusive government—particularly in its most distant and bureaucratic form, the federal government—there are both philosophical and practical problems with down-the-line libertarian ideology, some of which helped topple the “liberal” regimes of Europe in the early 20th century, others which are only obvious today. I’ll enumerate them in a minute.
But first, let’s look at the most fundamental objection to unalloyed libertarianism: It has no vision of the Good. The absence of coercion, the removal of burdensome taxes and intrusive regulation, the repeal of meddling laws—all of this is critically important. It’s a vision which can take you part of the way, politically. We can and should build a coalition based on what we don’t want the government to do, or force us to do. However, people crave more than that. They expect of a political philosophy some positive vision of how men should be living their lives. “Don’t tread on me… keep the gummint outa my bizness” is fine as far as it goes, but what about the day after that happens? What shape do you want society to take? What moral codes should govern people’s private, uncoerced choices? How should they spend that money which the feds are no longer stealing from them? Answers to all these questions ought to be implicit—and probably explicit—in the essays and books that emerge as part of a rejuvenated conservative movement. I know that the “paleolibertarians,” particularly those with solid Christian convictions, sometimes address these questions—albeit in an often unsatisfying way. They are hobbled in part by their dogmatic devotion to thinkers whose explorations of moral questions were rather… unsatisfying. For instance, (the mostly brilliant) Murray Rothbard, whose vision of “freedom” was so extreme that it included the “right” of a woman to abort her child for any reason, since it constituted an “intruder” in her body—akin to a trespasser who can justly be shot. According to John Walker of Libertarians for Life, Rothbard also held that parents had no moral obligation to raise their own children—and could abandon them if they wished. It’s hard to imagine many Christians lining up behind such a vision of liberty. For most Christians, the family—and not the individual—is the basic unit of society. If libertarians want our votes, they’re going to have to come up with a more wholesome theory of family life than that.
On other issues with moral implications, it’s essential that any attack on burdensome bureaucracy be accompanied by a strong commitment to offering private sector solutions—or else partisans of liberty will rightly be seen as callous and amoral. Poverty programs, for instance, and racial discrimination. If you’re going to make the entirely reasonable case that the State should not maintain a massive, coercive bureaucracy to prevent people exercising their freedom of contract and association in ways that harm minorities, you’d damn well better accompany that argument with another solution. Such as boycotts. “Let some dumbass company refuse to hire qualified Catholics if they like,” would run such an argument. “And Catholics won’t buy their products. Neither will other fair-minded people. Instead of federal bureaucrats enforcing laws against that kind of behavior, let Internet site police which companies act unfairly. Those companies will pay the price.” And so on.
There are also practical issues which libertarians do a poor job of addressing—such as pollution. As fervent as I have been in my support for Ron Paul, and as much as I admire that good and courageous man, I couldn’t help being simply embarrassed by his position on ecology. As a solidly orthodox libertarian, he advocated dealing with pollution, global warming, and every other “externality” which one individual imposes through his activities on innocent third parties through… tort law. That’s right, law suits. Just what Americans instinctively know they need—an explosion of litigation. If there’s one group of people who are rightly less beloved than federal bureaucrats, it is plaintiff lawyers. What is more, how exactly would it work? If it is true that all of us through our use of fossil fuels are gradually raising the global temperature and making large parts of the earth uninhabitable or vastly poorer, whom exactly are we going to sue? Ourselves? Or should the populations of regions badly effected by climate change sue everyone who drives a car? If there’s any issue other than protecting the border that seems to scream for a solution by sane and prudent government, it’s this one. How do libertarians typically address this issue? The same way Creationists deal with fossils, as Russell Seitz rightly points out. In doing so, they squander their credibility on a wide range of other issues about which they are 100% correct.
Here is where Röpke comes in. Throughout his major works, he explores the many social and economic “externalities” generated by the free exercise of a market economy—ranging from the corrosive effects of competition to the centralization of economic power and the disappearance of family farms and small businesses. Instead of trying to explain these problems away, he addresses them honestly—and tries to offer solutions that entail the minimal use of coercive force by the State. A firm defender of the classical liberal tradition, and its vision of free men in a free society, he enriches his discussion of politics and culture with the insights of conservatives such as Burke and Christians like Chesterton. Röpke’s work was deeply infused by the Christian vision of man as noble but fallen, neither a god nor a beast, a creature as much of the family and of history as of individual initiative. An altogether more attractive and realistic picture than the monsters who populate the novels of Ayn Rand—and one that can form the basis of a serious, lasting political movement.
Comments
A few general observations about Takimag’s writing over the past two weeks:
These are not dark but bright times for Burkean conservatism and Taki Magazine. First, by showing the door to Judeophobes, Taki Magazine a fortiori has shown the door to all extremist nationalists. By showing the door to antisemitism – a racialist concept – Taki Magazine shown the the door to all racialism. This is more than just a good first start; it is a new turn with good prospects. We have a few other temptations avoid. Paul Gottfried has warned us of “Romantic conservatism”, perhaps an echo of Schmitt’s Politische Romantik from 1919, and his observations are worth considering. Adriana, in the past, with reference to Argentina, has reminded us of the dangers of thugish regimes pretending to be Catholic, what I have called “Clerical Fascism”. Other temptations need to be avoided. Yet we have taken a good step onto the via negativa, letting folks know who we are not.
Now Paul Gottfried and John Zmirak lead the way on the via positiva, charting a new course for us. Röpke in particular and the principles of Christian Democracy in general are an excellent source of good ideas. I wish John Ball would write again, and write about another movement that we should take over and make our own: environmentalism, denominated the “conservatism of the Left”. It need not be Left (keeping in mind that “Left” and “Right” are obsolete categories anyway). Dr. Zmirak now also takes up the ecology banner. Good for him!
Purged of the Browns, we can also once again open the door to the Austrian School. And at our core should be Burke. Let’s keep up the good work!
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Mr. Zmirak’s complaint that libertarianism lacks a “vision of the Good” is odd coming from a conservative. That’s a liberal argument - imposing a vision on the populace along with the attendant management required to oversee its fruition (and enforce conformity to it). Communists have the ultimate vision of the good, of course. In reality, societies don’t have visions, they subvert them. Leave the people alone, give them their greatest freedom, and the good will surface naturally on its own - or not. That’s the only place it can come from, in any case.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I’ll repeat a question someone asked on your earlier post: So where are all of Ropke’s followers in unified Germany? Where is all the liberty and traditionalism?
Our position is nothing like post-war Allied occupied Germany, its much closer to some German occupied nation of a few years before. We’re not suffering from the excesses of capitalism (except to the degree that its success has led to decadence) or the need to rebuild a war ravaged economy. We’re suffering from an elite that makes no bones about the fact that it loathes us and is working day and night for our cultural and physical destruction, and are well on the way to achieving them, and from leaders on “our side” who are willing to collaborate for profit in the process. There is at least one thing conservatives commentators can take from Ropke though, courage - they can aspire to write things that their enemies would ban if they could, that’s how you know you’re on the right track. Just keep poking the pig till it squeals, that’s where you jam in the knife.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I echo Kari Konkola’s comments: Takimag may have attempted to gain more control by inhibiting the invasion of outright and abusive Nazi-types, but discussion of the reality of race and racial differences is certainly not “outlawed” (as per the response of Paul Gottfried to me regarding whether Jared Taylor and Philippe Rushton might write for this site: the answer was “yes"). Also, a discussion of Jewish influence, whether in the form or
neo-conservatism, or as seen as a element involved in revolutionary movements (again, Paul
Gottfried answered that a Kevin Macdonald’s contribution would be valuable). I would also venture
to suggest that a discussion of theology dealing with Judaism would certainly be permitted.
To often there are those, writing on this list, who would like to ban anyone they disagree with.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Ravis, that’s not a liberal argument, it’s an anti-libertarian one. Libertarian and Liberal are not opposites, and politics is not bi-polar.
The real argument in political discourse these days is between those who believe we owe our souls to the government that takes care of us, and those who believe we owe our souls to the market that is the foundation of our prosperity. The statement that we owe our souls to God doesn’t really fit on that axis, does it?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Because I deny the unproven major premise—that neo-conservatism would be a Jewish movement --, the rest of Kari Konkola’s syllogism falls apart.
My own premise, that to reject antisemitism—a racialist concept—is a fortiori to reject race as a determining category, I suppose Boyd Cathey rejects. We’ll see if Takimag starts propagating the views of Arthur de Gobeneau, Houston Steward Chamberlain, and ol’ Al Rosenberg. What a really swell way to advance our movement! A really groovy way to “rise from the rubble”!
To [sic] often there are those, writing on this list, who would like to ban anyone they disagree with. I suppose here is meant the editors of this site with respect to views about Jews with which the editors disagree.
I implore readers to follow Dr. Z and to discuss instead Röpke, the Compendium of of the Social Doctrine of the Church,, the principles of Christian Democracy, and Burke. And I once again urge Boyd Cathey to translate, prepare, and publish The Carlist Reader. Who would be better for this job?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
We can sit around and discuss the details of economic theory of this new movement all day but in the end it will have no impact unless we figure out how to address the real cause of our decline: Power. We have none and it isn’t going to come from a small cadre of sign waving libertarians.
The left took over this country with money, the media and to a lesser extent, control of the universities. You cannot compete with that using grass roots enthusiasm, the so called internet revolution, or by just speaking the plain truth. The power our enemies have is almost beyond comprehension, which is why we so often miss the point. We do however win all the online polls. Hurrah!
The rabble can be made to believe and support anything. The establishment know this. It is done with psychology through technology. It is why the Republican rabble of the 70s and 80s, who lipped all the right stuff about free markets, less government, blah blah blah, now support bigger government, socialism, etc etc. and these dolts don’t even realize the change.
Ideas are no match for power.
Nice post though, Mr. Zmirak, and I agree with you.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
There is ample space for a thriving libertarian movement in America, and a desperate need for one.
Yes and no. On the left, you see libertarianism embraced in the gay rights debate. On the right, you see it embraced with the health care debate. There isn’t a large space for true libertarianism. The Amish are the closest you’ll see to a libertarian society today and the more liberal amongst them are depenedent upon the fruits of modern society.
[T]here are both philosophical and practical problems with down-the-line libertarian ideology, some of which helped topple the “liberal” regimes of Europe in the early 20th century, others which are only obvious today.
Indeed and you outline many of them. Knowing this, I don’t understand why you and others would attempt to build a demi-libertarianism so to speak. I would think perfecting the good - and for all the problems modernism has wrought, there are good things - would enjoy equal privilege over riding the bad. I’ve enjoyed your series on Roepke and hope to read his writings in the future, but how does working with libertarianism help society “address [problems] honestly—and tr[y] to offer solutions that entail the minimal use of coercive force by the State?”
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
The editors of this list made clear what they would attempt to inhibit: abusive and hateful postings from Nazi-types. You really need to stop putting words into peoples’ mouths. To discuss neo-conservatism and the Jewish influence on/in it, something that, among others, Paul Gottfried has done, is not, at least in my opinion and Paul’s opinion, proof of the blanket charge of antisemitism that you are throwing out so loosely. Every time anyone of this list ventures to discuss such things in any way, you immediately jump up and down and scream “Rosenberg” and implicity charge that person with “antisemitism.” I’m sorry, but that dog won’t hunt
and is an insult to many of us who wish to examine calmly and rationally such issues.
Secondly, to repeat, when I queried Paul if Jared Taylor or P. Rushton would be excluded from this list, the answer was “no.” Whether you like it or not, “race” is an issue, and the veriable DNA differences
that exist are there. We can choose to pretend they don’t exist, that maybe they will go away (they won’t), or we can deal with them intelligently and humanely. Frankly, I prefer the latter course.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
The paradox, i think, is this.
Conservatism rejects welfare, whereas bottom line profit [Capitalism/exploitation of labor] creates poverty wages.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Race should not be an issue as the religious texts held by the western civilizations denote Noah as the father of current humanity.
I cant understand why human beings today continually deny they are all children of the same creation.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Where, oh, where is our Konrad Adenauer?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sorry to have to go over this again.
Those who wish to discuss race and genetics need to cite their credentials, and cite them in way so that we can confirm them. In other words, they need to tell us
1. their degree in organic chemistry, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
2. their degree in cell biology, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
3. their degree in Mendelian genetics, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
4. their degree in molecular genetics, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
I have no such degree, AND I am not the one claiming that the DNA of skin color determines anything of importance. Boyd Cathey is. Let him tell us his credentials. And the credentials of anyone else making such claims. (don’t hold your breath)
What is more, such people making such claims need to isolate for us in the human gene makeup the “music” gene for Germans, the “painting” gene for Italians, the putative “alcoholic” gene for Celts, the “firearms” gene for the Scots Irish, and the putative “stupid” gene for “Blacks”.
Of course, no such gene exists. Therefore skin color means zero—or about as much as eye color.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Since when do “credentials” confer credibility...or intelligence...or even the possibility of wisdom? I think race and genetics can be discussed with as much credibility as any of the other subjects that can be found here on a weekly basis. I am afraid that skin color will never mean zero. Instead of trying to ignore it as a “factor,” perhaps you should accept it as a necessary consideration in certain issues. I think many of us have encountered the best and the brightest more than once and found them wanting.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Are you saying that the names Taki listed in his article http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/another_milestone_in_iraq/
are not those of the most influential neoconservatives, and that most of the people on Taki’s list are not Jewish? If that’s your argument, then one of us has lost touch of external reality.
Also, note that Taki’s article was one of the few ones on this site to be attacked by trols, who successfully prevented a discussion of the argument. On the basis of logical reasoning, the attacker cannot have been a neo-Nazi. Using the threat from neo-Nazis as a reason to impose limitations on the site thus looks very much like a made-up excuse.
As to race, I offered to takimag an article noting that race cannot have been a significant factor in history, because civilizations have raisen and fallen much faster than any genetic modification can possibly have spread through a population. Indeed, Darwin himself said his theory cannot explain the raise of the West, and within West the raise and decline of Spain and the raise of England. (A century and a half after Darwin wrote, one can add the decline of England to the list of historical event far to rapid to be explained by any known racial theories.) Spencer’s answer was that he is not interested in this kind of an argument. What this tells about takimag’s current attitude toward race, I wonder—Sarto had earlier accepted the article.
I’m still intrigued: whom did you have in mind when you used the expression “we”?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Come on, now. So no one can talk about “race” unless, as you say:
<<they need to tell us
1. their degree in organic chemistry, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
2. their degree in cell biology, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
3. their degree in Mendelian genetics, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of the degree
4. their degree in molecular genetics, the institution that granted the degree, and the year of
the degree>>
Okay, if you wish to play that “game,” and that is what it is:
I have advanced degrees in history, political philosophy, theology…
If YOU have advanced degrees in those subjects, then you MAY discuss them, otherwise, you should
be quiet. Understood?
Lastly, although I do not have degrees in genetics cellular biology, etc., I CAN read and I
do read that increasingly the differences in the races is established fact.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
You state the following:
<<Therefore skin color means zero—or about as much as eye color>>
Unless you have an appropriate degree from a certified degree-granting institution, you cannot make such a statement, at least under the criteria you have erected.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Sid,
Just what in the hell did Mr. Zmirak’s post have to do with your denunciations? Nothing. Rather than
talk about the post, you—in typical troll fashion—brought up a great big distraction. It is
sufficient that the despicable brownshirts have been tossed off this website. There is no need to
bring them up now that they are gone. So for goodness sake *shut up* about it and talk about the
issue at hand! Please! Stop talking about moving on—just move on.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
I would like to get back to John Zmirak’s topic: Wilhelm Ropke. I first read Ropke when I
the assistant to Russell Kirk in Mecosta, Michigan. His views seemed to me to be extremely
reasonable, comprehensive, and adaptable, a means to incorporate the real forces operative
in the economy with humane and ethical concerns. Today, some 25 years later, I am forced
to wonder...the Christian Democratic experiment in Germany, in Italy, and in some other
countries (e.g. Chile) has failed, and failed miserably, and brought down with it, at least
to some degree, the edifice that Chancellors Adenauer and Erhard so carefully erected.
I have questions, dealing largely with systemic conditions or factors within the German
Bundesrepublik that may have caused its transformation into what we see today, a semi-
authoritarian example of P.C. culture and society gone wild, and whether there is a close
link with Ropkian economics. If one unravels, does the other necessarily come undone?
I don’t think this is necessarily the case, but I would like to see more written about
the connection, the weaknesses that we now know for certain existed in the post-war
German state, and what might have been done to inhibit the transformation.
Tomislav Sunic, in his volume HOMO AMERICANUS, has written about post-war Germany
at some length, about the changes in the educational system, about some “time bombs”
within the constitutional system that came back to haunt the Germans. He doesn’t
talk much of economics. I would like to see that topic discussed at length.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
And it also might be true that if you step on a crack, you will break your mother’s back. But until this claim is verified by an osteologist, an orthopedic surgeon, and an
osteopathic physician, and by the consensus of their scientific communities, not only will I not believe the claim, but I’ll consider it quite risible. Nor am I obliged to prove the negative.
Unless you have an appropriate degree from a certified degree-granting institution, you cannot make such a statement, at least under the criteria you have erected. Forget for a minute that Tu Quoque is a fallacy. The truth is that I am not obliged to prove a negative. It is even a greater fallacy to say an unproven negative proves the positive. It is no lesser mortal than Boyd Cathey who has made a positive claim, not me, and a positive claim about skin color. He has offered no evidence for his claim, nor shown any credentials to make such a claim. And until such evidence and such credentials are forthcoming, readers should ignore what he has to say about skin color.
He does indeed have credentials about the Carlist ideology. So why doesn’t he write an article for Takimag, submit it to the editor, and see if it’s published? An article about Carlism I’d take seriously if Boyd Cathey were its author. And such an article would be timely, given the stated goal of rethinking conservatism.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
the Christian Democratic experiment in Germany, in Italy, and in some other
countries (e.g. Chile) has failed, and failed miserably, and brought down with it, at least
to some degree, the edifice that Chancellors Adenauer and Erhard so carefully erected.
Not what happened. The Christian Democrats abandoned Christian Democratic principles for Whig ones, and then the Socialists, the Social Democrats, and the Cultural Marxists came into power and did their damage. The fault is not in Christian Democratic principles as such.
Click to flag this comment as abusive
If YOU have advanced degrees in those subjects, then you MAY discuss them, otherwise, you should
be quiet. Understood? -DRCATHEY
What, Dr, degrees did Jesus hold?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Does it take a degree to see life?
Click to flag this comment as abusive
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give Taki's Magazine permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. Personal attacks, ethnic slurs, the riding of hobby horses and the beating of dead ones will be deleted as soon as they are detected by our small but alert staff. Repeat abusers of this policy will be barred from leaving comments. All comments reflect only the views of those posting them and not necessarily those of this website, its editors, or authors. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
Commenting is not available in this section entry.