"The idea that government knows best
is anathema to fiscal conservatives, who believe in a limited government
of enumerated powers. How is it that same government can be the ultimate
authority on how we live our lives, whom we can marry, how we raise our
children, where we worship, what we inhale and ingest, and what we do
behind closed doors?"
If Only Conservatives Were
More Like Libertarians
By
Caroline
Baum Aug 15, 2012 6:30 PM ET
Have you ever wondered why conservatives are so opposed to government
interference in the marketplace yet so tolerant, even welcoming, of its
role in our personal lives? You could say the same about liberals, whose
preferences for government involvement run in the opposite direction.
Either way, it strikes me as inconsistent. If you believe in the
principle of live-and-let-live, it should apply to all aspects of your
life. When the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial page invokes
“free markets, free people,” I always wonder, what happened to the
free-people part?
The idea that government knows best is anathema to fiscal conservatives,
who believe in a limited government of enumerated powers. How is it that
same government can be the ultimate authority on how we live our lives,
whom we can marry, how we raise our children, where we worship, what we
inhale and ingest, and what we do behind closed doors?
I ask David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian
Cato Institute in
Washington, to
crawl inside a conservative’s head and explain it to me.
“Sometimes libertarians assume that the questions we ask are the same
questions other people ask,” he says. For example, “a libertarian might
ask: What is the role of government? What are the rights of individuals?
A conservative, on the other hand, might ask: What is good for an orderly
society? Different questions yield different answers.”
Rousseau’s Romanticism
Armed with the necessary fodder, I ask a
conservative the same question and get pretty much the same answer: It’s
all about how you frame the question.
“You have to approach it through a prism of liberty and what are the
conditions for securing and preserving liberty for everyone,” says David
Azerrad, associate director of the Center for Principles and Politics at
the Heritage Foundation, a
conservative think tank in Washington. “We’re not ’legislating morality,’
as libertarians claim, but creating the conditions that allow for
liberty.”
Uh-huh. I understand the words, but I’m having trouble getting my arms
around the concept. I try a specific example.
What about a gay couple I know who adopted two, mixed-race, crack-cocaine
babies? Aren’t these children better off growing up with two loving,
caring parents than as products of the foster-care system? So what if
both parents are “daddy”?
To me, it’s a rhetorical question. To conservatives, judging by their
opposition to gay marriage and gay adoption, it clearly isn’t.
Azerrad tells me I’m assuming “a very Rousseauian approach to politics”
by taking individual examples and appealing to the heart. (I knew cutting
social philosophy in college would catch up with me someday.)
Given conservatism’s inherent suspicion about the state, “when it
recognizes a role for the state, clearly there’s something important at
stake,” he says. And that means “supporting certain institutions and
actively promoting them.”
Take marriage, for example. The only reason the state has an interest in
it is because children are involved, and research has shown the nuclear
family is best for raising kids, Azerrad says. (I wonder if there’s an
exemption for childless couples.)
It would be one thing if Homo sapiens could no longer reproduce; if the
present generation were the last one on Earth. “Then we could all be
libertarians,” he says.
Because they can, and do, reproduce, the state has an interest in those
children being raised in “optimal conditions,” Azerrad says. “The
overarching principles are: How do you structure a community and what
institutional setups are conducive to preserving it.”
Big Job
That sounds like a big assignment for an entity
that can’t make the trains run on time -- and
loses money when they do. What gives the government the moral
authority to tell us how best to live our lives? It almost sounds
presumptuous. All that laissez-faire stuff about a voluntary exchange
between individuals as the basis for a market economy collapses when
applied to choices in our personal lives?
Typically, conservatives line up in support of family values (what if the
family is dysfunctional?), a strong military and national defense, the
right to bear arms, the death penalty and school prayer. They oppose
embryonic stem-cell research, abortion, divorce, gay marriage, gay
adoption and euthanasia. It’s the conservative version of a
cradle-to-grave model, all spelled out in great detail.
Just contrast conservatives’ list of do’s and don’ts with that of
libertarians, who just want to be left alone.
“Conservatives understand that letting people do their own thing builds a
strong economy,” Cato’s Boaz says. “Why can’t a strong society be built
from a few rules you learned in kindergarten? Don’t hit other people,
don’t take their stuff and keep your promises.”
If it were that simple, we could scrap the
82,419-page Federal
Register, the government’s book of rules and regulations. Neither
conservatives nor libertarians -- nor liberals, for that matter -- would
have a problem with that.
(Caroline Baum,
author of “Just What I Said,” is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions
expressed are her own.)
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-15/if-only-conservatives-were-more-like-libertarians.html
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
