A 2022 New Year’s Resolution for America: Less Politics

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – December 31, 2021

 

Here’s a suggestion: Americans need to come together to make a joint New Year’s Resolution. What should that resolution be? Less politics in 2022 – a lot less.

Nearly everything touched by politics gets corrupted. It’s not really a question of “if” but only of “when.” That is, how long will it take for the corruption to become manifest? Make no mistake, the ills of politics long have been spreading throughout our society, undermining institutions, and making daily life far less joyful. But the descent seems to have accelerated in recent years, with fewer Americans recognizing the corruption.

 

To paraphrase William F. Buckley, Jr.’s declaration in 1955 that his new magazine, National Review, “stands athwart history yelling stop,” it’s time in 2022, to stand athwart politics yelling stop.

 

And it must be understood that “politics” and “government” cannot be separated in any coherent manner. Politics merely is the control over government, the exercise of authority, or the art, if you will, of governing. Quite frankly, more government means more politics.

 

Of course, history is laden with warnings about politics and politicians. The psalmist had good reason to exhort: “Put not your trust in princes…” (Psalm 146:3) And in Common Sense (1776), Thomas Paine bluntly declared: “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

 

James Madison, often referred to as the Father of the U.S. Constitution, noted: 

 

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” 

 

Madison very much understood the need for checks and balances in government given his concerns regarding the abuse of power.

 

None of this should be news to Americans, but it seems to be for many these days.

 

The political Left long has been at the forefront politicizing society. After all, the Left views government action not only as a cure-all for any and all real or perceived ills in life, but politics as the path to progress and improvement. Hence, the label “progressives.” So, to say the least, the Left has not been on board with Psalm 146, with Thomas Paine’s take on government, nor quite frankly, with Madison and much of the Constitution. On that last point, if doubted, understand that the predominate view of constitutional interpretation on the Left is judicial activism, which amounts to the Constitution saying whatever at least five members of the U.S. Supreme Court say it says, never mind what is actually written in the document itself.

 

However, new to this particular march of politicization have been many on the Right. Though they usually call themselves conservatives, those now embracing the expansion of politics, and therefore government, rank as populists, who also are supported or fueled by political panderers and opportunists. Like those on the Left, these populists see themselves as victims. It’s about being a victim of political enemies; big business, especially “Big Tech”; immigrants; international trade; and of course, elites. The list goes on.

 

So, the primary thrust of our politics these days is between progressives and populists each seeking to use government. The agendas differ (though not always), but the goal stands the same, i.e., seize and use the power of government. This has led to an intensely divisive political battle being engaged far beyond the typical realms of politics.

 

The Christian Church

 

Christianity, for example, has been anything but immune. The Left long has been playing politics within the Church. Mainline Protestant churches and parts of the Catholic Church have been in the business of tossing aside the truths of Holy Scripture – to varying degrees from the Ten Commandments to Jesus’ incarnation, death and atonement for the sins of all, and resurrection – in favor of taking up assorted political causes in the name of the Church. Political activism by many leaders in the Church not only takes place in areas where Christians have the freedom to disagree, such as where Scripture is silent, but even where Scripture points in the opposite direction.

 

More traditional or conservative Christian churches and movements have pushed back against such efforts for decades. But now, large swathes of evangelicals and “conservative” Christians have moved beyond a defense of more traditional Christianity to an ends-justify-the-means politicization. That has included, for example, a see-no-evil, character-does-not-matter embrace of President Donald Trump because he was perceived as being “on our side” on various issues, like abortion, but interestingly not on marriage.

 

Perhaps even more troubling, however, is how a Trumpian divisiveness has reached into the Church to create a scenario whereby Christians, including assorted clergy, view their political opponents as evil and unreachable. That flies in the face of what Jesus teaches. In fact, some movements within Christianity argue for a general retreat from society itself due to assorted political and cultural developments – a turn inward. You know, let’s just preach to the choir. Again, that’s not what Jesus calls for, and it flies in the face of the Great Commission: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matthew 28:19-20)

 

These developments are about politics trumping God’s Word. They are about greater confidence in politics than in the Church and its mission. They are about the corrupting nature of politics. And we see it flourishing now among both the Left and Right within the Church.

 

The list continues.

 

Economics or Politics?

 

My own profession overflows with examples of politics corrupting the economics discipline. While considerable disagreement exists among economic schools of thought on an array of issues, how much of that disagreement springs from various economists ignoring fundamental laws of economics due to their own political preferences? 

 

The temptation to dress up political preferences in the garb of economics has been around a long time, especially given how economics and economists get tied to policy analyses and proposals. Arguably, the door was blown open to politics being dressed up as economics when John Maynard Keynes in the 1930s justified massive government action to juice up aggregate demand and the economy. From that point forward, it has been increasingly easy to find economists willing to slap some economics makeup on almost any governmental action. Today, that goes for government spending being an engine of economic growth to justifying protectionist trade policies to advocating for increases in a government-mandated minimum wage to ignoring any possible negatives of raising costs on entrepreneurs, businesses and investors to asserting that immigrants are negatives for the economy. None of this makes economic sense; instead, it’s about the politics of various economists.

 

The corruption of politics is clear.

 

Sports and Politics

 

How about sports? Sure. We’ve seen where a handful of players use their spots as professional athletes to advance political causes. Politicians react, especially in hopes of fueling anger and action among their respective bases. Matters escalate far beyond the simple reality that a few athletes in a particular league have taken a controversial, usually shallow, stand. Sports become politicized. Interestingly, though, with sports, politics tend to be short-lived rather than something more substantive. Causes come and go, as do the reactions. People declare that they’ll never watch a game again because some players disagree with them on this or that political point. But not long after, everyone is gathered back around the television wearing their jerseys. 

 

But another political storm no doubt will emerge, or be manufactured, and divisions will again be accentuated.

 

The Politics of Business?

 

How about business? At one time, American businesses were studiously nonpolitical. After all, why wade into politics and potentially aggravate half of your customers? Of course, there are cases where politicians seek to impose additional burdens on businesses, and it would be irresponsible for companies not to make clear their positions on such matters. But the pressure and willingness to get political beyond those situations have been ramped up in recent times.

 

Many business executives are stuck wondering which issues are actual trends in the marketplace, and which are stirred up by politicians and activists. Other executives seem to lack a fundamental understanding of the role of profits in a business, as well as in the marketplace in terms of allocating resources, and have embraced political causes as guides for running companies. Eventually, though, businesses that make decisions that run counter to what consumers want and need will be punished in the marketplace.

 

There’s more, of course, including in education, in “Hollywood,” in publishing, in news reporting, etc. Heck, largely via political manipulation, we’ve even managed to politicize getting vaccinated to save lives and limit the spread of a pandemic. The list is rather exhausting.

 

Populists, Progressives and No Real Surprises

 

The populist Right seems to be a strange mix of a harsh libertarianism with extreme distrust of everything government is involved in, including running elections; a politically-focused chunk of evangelicalism that seems more Republican than Christian; a paranoia regarding technology, large businesses, immigrants and the international economy; an isolationism regarding foreign policy; and yet, an authoritarian streak if their people (like Donald Trump) were running the government. 

 

This contrasts with a progessive Left that is no longer shy about brandishing its ignorance of economics, its unwavering love of government, and its willingness to call for adopting socialism (though it’s not clear that many of these pro-socialists actually know what socialism is, and the same goes for many of today’s critics of these efforts). These progressives certainly see no ills in imposing higher taxes and increased regulations, but instead view these as minor, preliminary matters in their larger plans. They share with the populists a penchant for isolationism on most international matters, such as trade and U.S. global leadership, that is, unless an international effort advances the Left’s secular religion of environmentalism. For good measure, the Left’s social agenda no longer allows for mere disagreement, discussion or even civil argument with others, but instead, it is a matter of punishing those who fail to get on board. The temptations of Stalinism are never completely lost on the Left.

 

So, in this era where one major political party is immersed in a radical progressivism and the other in a radical populism, no one should be surprised by the spread of politics and divisiveness across society. We can be saddened by it, distressed by it, and worried about where the U.S. might be headed, but being surprised is no longer in the cards. In a real and tragic sense, we have caught up to the descent that’s been going on in parts of Europe for some time now, that is, a rampaging progressivism on the Left and a dark populism on the Right.

 

Another Option?

 

What to do? Is there another option? Yes. Traditional, or American, conservatism offers insights. That is, the conservatism with roots in the American founding, and made clear in much of the thinking and actions of assorted individuals like Abraham Lincoln, Calvin Coolidge, Jack Kemp, William F. Buckley, Jr., George Will, and Ronald Reagan.

 

Regarding politics and its proper role as they relate to this time and topic, the conservative would say that men and women have a right to be free from arbitrary force; that political freedom cannot be separated from economic freedom; and that the purpose of government is to protect freedom by protecting life, limb and property, providing for a national defense, and administering justice. This limited view of government naturally points to a limited view of politics. As conservative historian Lee Edwards put it: “The conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.” 

 

Yes, this description leaves plenty of room for diverse views, disagreement and debate. It always has. But in today’s politics, both Left and Right, Democrats and Republicans, seem to stand against or in ignorance of these basic tenets. And given that Democrats never claimed to be conservatives, this ignorance or opposition is a far more egregious offense for Republicans and others who label themselves as being “conservative.”

 

Think about this traditional view of politics, and compare it to our current affairs, and to both the Democratic and Republican parties. Again, it’s deeply troubling. But is all lost?

 

No. From the traditional Christian to the traditional conservative (for which, by the way, there is a great deal of overlap, with Judeo-Christian values serving as part of the foundation of conservativism – but alas that is a subject to delve more deeply into on another day), while serious reasons for worry exist, this does not, or should not, translate into a loss of confidence in truths and principles. But it does mean that hard work lies ahead in order to teach, persuade and correct, and treat civilly, not denigrate and name call, those with whom we disagree.

 

I think of my favorite quote, which I reference often, from President Reagan: “We’ve made much progress already. So, let us go forth with good cheer and stout hearts – happy warriors out to seize back a country and a world to freedom.”

 

And yes, this all can start with a New Year’s Resolution for less politics in 2022. It’s a conservative resolution that perhaps many Americans, who are sick of the spreading corruption of politics, now stand open to considering and perhaps adopting.

 

_________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

Keating writes the Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries. Vatican Shadows: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel is the 13th book in the series, followed by Past Lives: A Pastor Stephen Grant Short Story and What’s Lost? A Pastor Stephen Grant Short Story. Signed books are available at www.RayKeatingOnline.com.

 

Some of Keating’s best columns and essays are available in Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York. And his other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. Again, signed books at www.RayKeatingOnline.com.

 

In addition, get organized in 2022 with either of Ray Keating’s TO DO List Solution Planners – The Lutheran Planner 2022 or The Disney Planner 2022.

 

Also, check out Ray’s podcasts – the Daily Dose of Disney, Free Enterprise in Three Minutes, and the PRESS CLUB C Podcast.

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

Ray Keating’s 12 Rules for Writing Commentary and Analysis – From Books and Articles to Facebook Posts and Tweets

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – March 19, 2021

 

Whether one writes books and articles, or simply Facebook posts and Tweets, a simple question must be answered: Why? Or, what’s the point? Why do you do this?

Now, if you’re just looking to vent your spleen and attack others, and that somehow that makes you feel better, then don’t bother with this. Get back to your important angry rants.

 

However, if you’re looking to actually persuade others, to try to help them see the truth, then perhaps consider the following “rules” for doing so. I jotted these down initially to help myself. I’ve been in the commentary/economist/analysis business for more than 31 years now, and things have changed, dramatically. 

 

A big part of that change has been technological. The digital/computer/telecommunications/internet revolution has expanded opportunities, allowing more individuals, for example, to have their voices heard on wide-ranging matters. That’s great. 

 

At the same time, the speed and immediacy of the internet, if you will, has meant that some things can be – and have been – lost, such as time for reflection in order to more deeply explore and more articulately express those ideas, as well as the diminished role, to the detriment of both writers and readers, of editors. Also, too many “experts” now possess ankle-deep, talking-points level of knowledge of issues upon which they spout off. That’s not so good.

 

These developments, along with an assortment of others in our culture, have led to an expansion of the us-vs.-them mentality – a return to tribal thinking. In fact, this has reached the point that large swaths of people simply assume that those they disagree with are unreachable – profoundly stupid and/or evil. That’s an unhealthy development, to say the least.

 

So, given that I write for a living – and I profoundly enjoy it – I have been thinking more and more about how to better engage people on ideas and issues. Over the past three decades, I have written some things that I would express in a different way or tone today, especially given the toxic, other-guy-is-just-evil mentality that has deeply infiltrated both the Left and Right today. 

 

The question I asked myself was: What rules do you need reminding of when sitting down at the keyboard?

 

I came up with the following 12, and thought they might be worthwhile to others who work to engage, teach, criticize, and persuade others – from commentators and authors to pastors and priests to elected officials to those who just enjoy discussing policies and ideas, again, via Facebook or Twitter. These should be straightforward and self-evident, not in need of much expanded explanation.

1) No Name Calling. After all, what’s the point?

 

2) Work to Persuade Using Logic, Reason and Facts. Using logic, facts and reasons is always better than just yelling stuff.

 

3) Always Offer a Solution, Remedy or Worthwhile Lesson. I had a longtime editor who emphasized this, and it could be the most important lesson I learned for writing.

 

4) Assume Your Opponent is Mistaken, Not Evil. Assuming that someone who disagrees with you is evil is rarely productive. While there certainly are evil people in life, assuming that all of your opponents are evil ignores the more likely reality that, for a variety of reasons, they simply are mistaken.

 

5) Firmly Criticize When Warranted, But Respect Others. Yes, you can criticize and disagree with someone, and still treat that person with respect. 

 

6) Do Not Assume All Who Agree With Your Position Understand the Issues.Particularly in recent years, I have had to learn this lesson.

 

7) Do Not Assume All Who Agree with Your Position Act in Good Faith and Warrant Your Allegiance and Defense. Watching allies on issues defend the indefensible because the indefensible has been perpetrated by someone on “our side” has been perplexing and discouraging – and it is an expanding plague in recent years.

 

8) Just Because Your Opponent Misbehaves Doesn’t Give You An Excuse To Do the Same. Hey, it’s simple: Don’t stoop down to the same unsavory level as your opponents.

 

9) In Your Pursuit of Truth, Bring Others Along With You. The ultimate point should be to bring light and truth to others.

 

10) Try to Delve Deeper Than the Talking Points. Perhaps it’s wise to refrain from spouting off confidently on something about which one knows little-to-nothing.

 

11) You Can’t Be An Expert on Everything, So Find Reliable, Well-Reasoned Experts.This is increasingly hard, but more essential, it seems, with each passing day.

 

12) Abide by the Golden Rule. As in Matthew 7:12: “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them…”

 

I’m hoping that these rules will help me to be a more thoughtful, persuasive and productive writer, and perhaps you as well.

 

_________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  Keating has two new books out. Vatican Shadows: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel is the 13ththriller/mystery in the Pastor Stephen Grant series. Get the paperback or Kindle edition at Amazon, or signed books at www.raykeatingonline.com. Past Lives: A Pastor Stephen Grant Short Story is the 14th book in the series. Get the paperback or Kindle edition at Amazon, or signed book at www.raykeatingonline.com.

 

The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

You also can order his book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. 

 

One of the best ways to enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

 

Rebuilding Conservatism #1: What is Conservatism?

 by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – December 4, 2020

 

(Editor’s Note: Much damage has been inflicted on conservatism, conservative thought, and the conservative movement in recent years. The effort to heal, rebuild and re-energize conservatism promises to be a difficult, but necessary undertaking. The Keating Files will regularly weigh in to help that process. This is our first “Rebuilding Conservatism” column, and it comes from the opening to my book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York.)

 

To call oneself a “conservative” in recent times – particularly during the era of President Donald Trump – actually requires a not-so-insignificant amount of clarification or qualification. While there always have been differences of assumptions, opinions and policies within the modern-day conservative movement, a shattering of conservative consensus either occurred, was exposed, or was completed during the Trump era.

However, many conservatives, including myself, still subscribe to and believe that the conservative consensus that began to form after the end of World War II, and arguably reached its height during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, still very much matters, and is critical to the future well-being of the United States and the world.

 

So, my brand of conservatism, for lack of a better phrase, is traditional, American and Reagan-esque, firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian values, Western Civilization, the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and some essential ideas and institutions, such as the Christian Church, the intrinsic value of each individual, the role of the family, freedom and individual responsibility, limited government, and free enterprise and free markets.

 

As a first step in exploring this brand of conservatism, following is a brief essay I wrote in response to a request from the office of Michael K. Deaver, who served as President Reagan’s deputy chief of staff from 1981 to 1985. Deaver or his people reached out to me, and many others, in 2005 for essays on how each of us became conservatives. The book was eventually published under the title Why I Am a Reagan Conservative, with the number of essays reduced sharply. My conservative journey, if you will, along with those of many others, failed to make the final cut. Deaver’s book wound up focusing on the “biggies” of conservatism and the Republican Party at the time. But here is what I wrote:

 

A Conservative’s Personal Journey ... as of 2005

 

I’m always fascinated by the stories of people who started out as communists, or some other version of the left-wing radical, only to eventually become rock-solid conservatives.  My own journey to conservatism wasn’t as dramatic. But perhaps there is something valuable in its very commonness. 

  

It was a story that started out as a young man with few convictions, not unlike many young people in recent decades, and generally self-absorbed. Sports really ranked as my sole passion. But that began to change when I actually started to use that education my parents had paid for since first grade. 

 

Of all places and against long odds, I became a conservative while attending classes in academia.  

 

My undergraduate days were during the administration of President Ronald Reagan. As one can imagine, Reagan was not a favorite with my professors. Except one. I was fortunate to have an economics professor who grasped how the economy worked. Trust me, that’s unusual. He explained the success of Reagan’s supply-side economic policies, and how much of a surprise this was to many in the economics profession.  

 

Supply-side economics made sense given its emphasis on the role of each individual and firm in the economy, and the impact incentives have on economic decision-making. From this foundation, policies of low taxes, a light regulatory touch and smaller government made sense. I wound up writing my undergraduate thesis on supply-side economics, and survived as a supply-sider even through graduate school.

 

However, economics was only my opening to conservatism. The learning process continued in the areas of national defense, the culture, and social issues. The conservative philosophy emphasized freedom coupled with individual responsibility, the need to defend the country against enemies both internal and external, a robust respect for human life, and a fundamental understanding that we can benefit from wisdom handed down throughout the ages.

 

All of this made sense to me. But it was when I came back to and was able to more fully understand my Christian faith that I came to see an even deeper wisdom of conservatism. I had grown up in a Roman Catholic household, and every school I attended up through my undergraduate degree had a “Saint” at the beginning of its name. Nonetheless, I wandered from the faith in my teenage years, and while never becoming an atheist or agnostic, I’m ashamed to say that I just did not think about God much at all.  

 

God worked on me, though, including through my wife, and I emerged with a much deeper faith than I could have imagined previously. I became a Lutheran. Unable to stomach the liberal leadership of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), it was the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) for me. And though the LCMS has its problems, such as an isolationist streak among a vocal minority, this is a church committed to traditional, biblical, confessional Christianity.  

 

Lutherans also have a strong sense of the sinful aspects of human nature. As it turns out, so does conservatism.

 

Conservatism is rooted in realism about mankind’s capacity for both good and evil. The main political philosophies that contend with conservatism in the U.S. today – libertarian and modern-day liberalism – fail to fully grasp the evil in human nature. Hard-core libertarians, therefore, see little need for government. Meanwhile, liberals go in the opposite direction, and see no reason to limit the size and reach of government.

 

For those of us who acknowledge the sinful aspects of human nature, conservatism makes sense as a political philosophy. It recognizes the need for checks and limits.  

The state, as a result, should not be allowed to grow large, for if it does, the incentives in government to build up budgets, payrolls and power lead to waste, sloth, corruption, varying evils, and sometimes horrendous atrocities.  

 

When it comes to the economy, conservatism emphasizes that free markets work best, with government focused on protecting property rights, enforcing contracts and guarding against fraud. Why? Because no matter what one’s individual economic motivations might be in the marketplace, true, lasting success only comes if one creates or meets a demand of others. In socialism, the few in government dictate to the masses. In a free enterprise system, entrepreneurs and businesses must work, invent and innovate to please consumers.

 

Given the dark side of human nature, conservatism also places appropriately strong emphasis on government’s role in protecting life, stopping crime on our streets, and in standing up to international dangers, from communism to terrorism over recent decades.

 

I came to conservatism via the route of economics. I remain a conservative because of its fundamental understanding that mankind, as history has shown, can achieve tremendous good, but also can inflict real evil.

 

I might have concluded that essay with a nod to the sixteenth-century Christian reformer Martin Luther by adding his tagline, if you will, “Here I stand. I can do no other.” And I remain largely rooted in the same spot to this very day, with the benefit of having learned more, and thereby further deepened and clarified my thinking.

 

Over the past decade-and-a-half, though, the definition of conservatism has become far more muddled. In particular, conservatism has become infested by or confused with populism. But while people have long gotten sloppy with the use and definition of the term “populism,” when properly understood, it should become clear that conservatism and populism turn out to be two very different things. I say “should” because what should be understood often turns out not to be the case.

 

Indeed, while the Left succeeded in redefining what “marriage” means at least in terms of the law and throughout much of our culture, parts of the Right have been working on redefining “conservatism” as “populism,” or at least to have conservatism include major tenets of populism. And during the era of Trump, they have achieved a significant degree of success, such as via Republican Party politics, cable television, YouTube, and assorted commentators who either didn’t understand conservatism in the first place or simply are trying to make their business models fit with a shifting GOP base. I explained this conservative-populist confusion in an essay (“Doubts About the U.S. Still Being a Right-of-Center Country”) appearing later in this book. Here are key paragraphs:

 

The problem is that the term “conservative” has lost its meaning among many in the Republican Party, particularly during the era of Trump. After all, President Trump has identified himself as a “nationalist.” And his main policy positions and political rhetoric rank as “populist.” And populism is not conservatism.

 

While a slippery term, populism has some common threads over the decades, namely, fear of something or some groups, opposition to a vague group of “elites,” and claims of being victims. So, populists often rail against bankers and big business. Today, key populist targets are free trade, immigration, and once more, sometimes vague “elites.” Like leftist Progressives, populists seek to engage government on their behalf, for their own causes, while vehemently opposing government action for issues they oppose. 

 

The populist outlook stands in stark contrast to what traditional conservatism has stood for and encompassed. A traditional conservative generally understands and subscribes to Judeo-Christian values, free enterprise, free markets, and a strong national defense, with key policy positions being low taxes, smaller government, a light regulatory touch, strength in foreign policy and national security, free trade, and a social policy agenda led by being pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. Conservatism embraces freedom and personal responsibility, as well as compassion and charity. Conservatism views government in Madisonian terms, that is government more or less is a necessary evil that must be limited to basic duties, such as protecting life, limb and property. Conservatism certainly doesn’t accept the populist/Progressive idea that “We’re all victims now,” and government needs to do something about it, whether that be imposing protectionist trade policies, or breaking up large technology companies that populists fear or with which they disagree.

 

In the end, populism has more in common with Progressivism than conservatism, and yet, most populists today identify as conservatives. 

 

Looking back on that 2005 essay regarding my journey to conservatism, if written today, I would have placed greater emphasis on conservatism understanding that government exists not to grant or create rights, nor to “improve” human nature and mankind. That’s the ill-considered and often dangerous work of Progressives. Instead, as the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution made clear, government should protect the liberties and rights – natural rights – enjoyed by men and women that pre-exist government, if you will; and should allow individuals, families and assorted enterprises and institutions – such as the Church and free enterprise – to function, teach, empower, advance, create opportunities, enlighten and serve in an expansive private sphere.

 

Conservatism, in the end, speaks and acts in and to both the public and private sectors, but certainly not in the ways of Progressivism and populism. Progressives and populists occupy the ground of paternalism, each turning to government with different demands. Progressives demand that government control and mold society, culture and individuals, while populists demand that government do something about whatever or whomever they view as undermining them and what they value. And both groups seem incapable of fathoming the damage that this kind of government can, and inevitably does, inflict. 

 

Thanks to conservatism’s respect of and discernment regarding wisdom handed down from the past; its realism regarding human nature and enduring natural rights; its perspective on liberty; and its optimism about today and the future as illustrated most clearly in its Judeo-Christian and free market pillars, the conservative embraces a limited government that protects liberty, once again, as exemplified by the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and favors an expansive sphere for private action. Conservatives should understand that government is not life, rather government should protect life, limb, property and liberty, so that life can truly flourish in that private sphere.

 

By the way, this explains why conservatives and libertarians, while I again would acknowledge have some fundamental differences, often find allegiance in the public square because the libertarian bias clearly is toward greater freedom.

 

Of course, none of this means that individuals in the private sector will necessarily embrace some other conservative ideas, values or policies. Life is anything but neat and tidy, and there always will be challenges and failures. But when conservative values falter, for example, with often grave consequences – such as the legalization of abortion or the relative disintegration of the family – it is not an argument for abandoning foundational aspects of conservatism. 

 

For example, every conservative should be horrified when so-called conservatives dismiss or call for rolling back individual liberty and expanding government in order to advance some other aspect of the conservative agenda. Indeed, when conservative ideas or policies fall out of favor or suffer defeats, the reaction by conservatives should be to find better ways to make their case and persuade, not abandon conservatism’s core principles and ideas. Indeed, it should be the natural response of conservatives to work harder, rather than giving up, when confronted by challenges. 

 

Conservatives should be faithful evangelizers, if you will, not sour-puss, backward-looking, isolationist populists. As President Ronald Reagan declared at the 1985 gathering of the Conservative Political Action Conference: “We’ve made much progress already. So, let us go forth with good cheer and stout hearts – happy warriors out to seize back a country and a world to freedom.”

 

__________

 

Ray Keating is a columnist, novelist, economist, podcaster and entrepreneur.  You can order his new book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York  from Amazon or signed books  at RayKeatingOnline.com. His other recent nonfiction book is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know. The views expressed here are his own – after all, no one else should be held responsible for this stuff, right?

 

Also, choose your 2021 TO DO List planner today, and enjoy the pre-order sale! Perfect for you and as Christmas gifts. Choose between The Lutheran Planner 2021: The TO DO List Solution, The Film Buff’s Planner 2021: The TO DO List Solution, and The Disney Planner 2021: The TO DO List Solution. Get more information at https://raykeatingonline.com/t/todolistsolutionplanners

 

The new book Vatican Shadows: A pastor Stephen Grant Novel is the 13ththriller/mystery in the Pastor Stephen Grant series. One of the best ways to enjoy Ray Keating’s Pastor Stephen Grant thrillers and mysteries is to join the Pastor Stephen Grant Fellowship! For the BEST VALUE, consider the Book of the Month Club.  Check it all out at https://www.patreon.com/pastorstephengrantfellowship

 

Also, tune in to Ray Keating’s podcasts – the PRESS CLUB C Podcast  and the Free Enterprise in Three Minutes Podcast  

 

Check out Ray Keating’s Disney news and entertainment site at www.DisneyBizJournal.com.

 

Conservatives and Free Enterprise: Friends or Foes?

by Ray Keating

The Keating Files – April 1, 2020

Free enterprise, capitalism or free markets – whichever term you prefer – has come under assault by some conservatives who assert that free enterprise doesn’t fit with conservatism, or if it does, it’s an uncomfortable fit. What such claims reveal is a misunderstanding of what conservatism and free markets are about in the end.

The word “conservatism” itself makes clear that conservatives are engaged in the act of conserving. But when it comes to the economy of late (and this has little to do with the coronavirus situation), some on the Right seem to think that this is about conserving or protecting particular industries, and even using government to attack others. 

So, assorted conservatives support trade protectionism supposedly to conserve certain industries and jobs – particularly in the realm of manufacturing – while ignoring the wounds inflicted on other industries and workers, along with consumers. Still other conservatives (or the same bunch) seem to think that conservatism means using government’s reach to regulate, or even break up, large technology firms deemed to not treat conservatives or their issues fairly, or that make these conservatives feel uneasy about technological change.

Additional conservatives view various businesses as being the actual reason that assorted social conservative issues, for example, such as traditional marriage, have lost traction in the larger culture. Hey, why not point the finger at businesses? After all, who wants to take responsibility for failing to adequately teach and communicate conservative values and ideas? It’s easier to blame someone else, and look for a government bailout.

The greatest failing in these assertions is an inability or refusal to grasp that conservatism finds wisdom and benefits in certain institutions, ideas and principles. And one such institution or idea is free enterprise or capitalism (along with others such as, for example, the value in each human life, the role of the family, the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Christian Church, and so on).

Conservatism involves conserving capitalism because of matters that are inherent to free enterprise, and what it produces. Essential to capitalism is freedom, with individuals free to pursue their hopes and dreams absent government coercion and terror. 

And the essential and disciplining aspects of the market – such as profits, losses, prices, competition, cooperation and consumer sovereignty – incentivize people to serve others. That is, in order to succeed, capitalism requires that one must first meet or create the demands of others. This critical, altruistic aspect of capitalism was missed by Ayn Rand at one end of the spectrum, and by misguided conservatives at the other end who seek to establish some kind of bizarre conservative industrial policy, or who like the vague “third way” that assorted Catholics have embraced over the decades.

And of course, anti-capitalists on both the Left and the Right ignore one of the most monumental lessons of history: Free enterprise has proven to be the most powerful force in the entire history of mankind for creating wealth, and lifting people out of poverty.

Finally, beyond freedom and individual responsibility being essential to conservatism, other conservative ideas and values also buttress free enterprise, including the rule of law; virtue and trust; limiting government, and therefore, the ills that government power can wreak; the ability to support a family; and rewarding merit and excellence. Indeed, the list goes on.

Conservatism is not about conserving certain businesses, industries or jobs. Nor is it about using governmental power in other ways, such as trying to force people to believe the same things that a conservative might on certain issues, or using politics to allocate resources. Understanding the evil that government can do makes limited government and an expansive private sphere in life, including the private sector, essential to conservatism. In turn, private institutions that conservatives value are free to flourish – from free enterprise to the individual and the family to assorted faiths, including the Christian Church.

Playing the game that it’s okay for government to engage in industrial policy (where politicians decide that certain industries should be subsidized and protected), and to fail to adequately protect our freedoms, has nothing to do with conservatism. Instead, it’s usually about populism, authoritarianism, and/or nationalism. In fact, these are the waters that Progressives most often swim in, not conservatives. 

The conservative should be wise enough to understand what inevitably happens when government is empowered, and no principled conservatives can be found or they have been corrupted by political power.

Free enterprise, in turn, serves as one of the great checks against the power of government to do evil.

Free markets are not peripheral to or a stepchild of conservatism. Rather, capitalism is essential to conservatism. If one tosses aside free markets, then one is tossing aside a foundational aspect of conservatism – and “conservatism” ceases being conservative.

__________

Ray Keating is a columnist, an economist, a novelist (his latest novels are The Traitor: A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel, which is the 12^th book in the series, and the second edition of Root of All Evil? A Pastor Stephen Grant Novel with a new Author Introduction), a nonfiction author (among his recent works is Free Trade Rocks! 10 Points on International Trade Everyone Should Know), a podcaster, and an entrepreneur. You can also order his forthcoming book Behind Enemy Lines: Conservative Communiques from Left-Wing New York – signed booksor for the Kindle. The views expressed here are his own.