In Memory of Frank Meyer

As a self described conservative Catholic libertarian, I owe an immense debt to Frank Meyer. Meyer was a collaborator of William F. Buckley. He was born into a Jewish family and was a communist as a young man. On seeing the horrors of Stalinism, he turned away from communism and embraced liberty. Before his death, he converted to Catholicism.

Meyer developed the philosophy of "fusionism" -- the combination of traditional conservatism and libertarianism that has become this thing we know as "American Conservatism." The other day it was the 36th anniversary of his death and in his memory, an acquaintance sent me this -- to the turn of "Oh MY Darling Clementine". Apparently, Meyer used to like to teach young conservatives this song to mock totalitarianism.

In the Kremlin
Up in Moscow
In the Fall of '39
Sat a Russian
And a Prussian
Drawing up the Party-line.

[Chorus]
O! my darling
O! my darling
O! my darling Party-Line
Oh, I never
Will forsake you
For I love this
Life of mine.

Leon Trotsky
Was a Nazi
Oh, we knew it for a fact
Pravda said it
We all read it
Before the Stalin-Hitler Pact.

[Chorus]

Once a Nazi
Would be shot, see?
That was then the party line.
Now a Nazi's
Hotsy-totsy.
Trotsky's laying British mines.

[Chorus]

Once the Russians
Would kill Prussians
That was then the Party-Line
Now the Russians
Love the Prussians
Volga boatmen sail the Rhine.

[Chorus].

As a side note, the song actually came from a Fourth International conference in 1940 -- so viva Trotsky! (NOT!)

William F Buckley

William F. Buckley, the father of the conservative movement in America died today. I never met him, but I owe much of my political beliefs to him. For not only did he create a conservative movement purged of the paranoid anti-Semitic ranting of the Old Right, he help create the fusionism between traditional conservatives and libertarians that created the unique philosophy which is American conservatism (as I consider myself a conservative AND a Catholic libertarian, he showed the way).

He was not perfect. It took National Review too long to accept color blindness as the way to address race in America. That tardiness clearly harmed conservatism's appeal to minorities. And at times, his intelligence could be confused for elitism or arrogance. But he bequeathed to America an intellectual conservatism that, while clearly in trouble today has gone from a fringe movement to one of the mainsprings of American politics.

In college, reading National Review was like engaging in some sort of subversive activity. We would get the new issue, hide in some obscure corner of the library, and read it while we took turns as look outs, or so it seems in hindsight. Of course, it was never quite that way. By the time I entered college, Ronald Reagan had twice been elected president, the second time in a landslide. Conservatives had gone from being marginal figures to running the country, though of course, on campus, we were something of an oddity. But it is fun to remember it as such.

He was known for his speech and boy how he spoke. Here he is on election night, 1968.

(HT Ann Althouse)

Granted, a few months earlier Vidal and Buckley got into a shouting match on live t.v. during the 1968 Democratic Convention (Vidal called Buckley a "crypto Nazi" to which Buckley responded by threatening to punch Vidal in his "God damned face!"). That probably explains why they were in different locations.

Why can't we get political coverage like this today? Instead, today we get talking points and shouting and Ann Coulter. Ultimately, the problem with Coulter is a problem with my fellow conservatives more and more these days. We USED to seek out the intellectual high ground. Now, it seems we are in a race to the bottom with the Michael Moores and Ted Ralls. Who can be more outrageous? Who can sell more books?

Where is the William Buckley or George Will for the next generation? Instead of Russell Kirk or Irving Kristol we are getting mediocrities dressed up in drag. In the spirit of Mencken we have Steyn and O'Rourke to be sure, but where will the intellectual foundation for the next 20 years come from?

I see the same happening on the other side. The great social critics on both sides are either gone (Buckley, Mailer, Hunter S. Thompson) or old (Chomsky, Buchanan). And yes, most of them are annoying (Mailer was a psycho and Thompson probably insane). But they were intelligent and thought provoking. In their place we have mediocrities.

Farewell WFB.

Libertarians and Public Morals

Despite the old fusionism between conservatives and libertarians, one major point on contention between the two groups is partly how to deal with public morals. Jonah Goldberg raises the issue today on NRO -- namely, how should one deal with Madonna or Pamela Anderson? Goldberg, who is not usually considered a traditional or social conservative, is worried, rightly, about how society looks to people whose actions are not exactly up to norms.

I am a self described Catholic Libertarian. While that seems contradictory, I agree with 90% of what social conservatives worry about.

The difference is how to answer. I am all for ME complaining about Madonna's behavior. I am against the GOVERNMENT doing something about it. My belief is that the decline of civil society and standards is not because of government inaction but rather a result of government action (economic and moral) that takes away individual responsibility. If you ignore celebrities, they eventually will act decent or otherwise go away.

So let's address the decline of public morals and civil society by addressing ourselves first.

What Libertarians Want

There has always been a tension within the conservative movement between libertarians and traditional (and now social) conservatives. Libertarians tend to be against government "interference" in personal affairs, while conservatives are willing to allow government intervention to protect societal values. This tension has been around since the early days of the modern conservative movement, and was played out initially with in the pages of "National Review". This tension continues today, as noted on the pages of Instapundit and Classical Values.

I think the problem is one of perception. I generally worry about the same things that social and traditional conservatives worry about. I do worry that our culture is degrading. While I self describe myself as a libertarian, I am also Catholic. I have one wife and view that as a permanent arrangement (one woman in my life is tough enough, why do some people want more?). Other than the glass of wine with dinner, I am not running around trying to score substances. I avoid most t.v. as it is a sewer.

But I believe that much of the cause is the increased role of government in our lives. Increasing government's role will exacerbate, not solve the problem. When people began to see government as the be all and end all, personal responsibility disappears. And if you try and regulate your way to virtue, you send up with hypocrisy and depravity.

"Conservative Libertarianism"

When asked to describe my politics, I say I am a "conservative libertarian." So what does that mean? My usual explanation is that while I think marijuana should be legal, I do not think you should enjoy smoking it.

Generally, I consider myself a "fusionist." I share many of the concerns of traditional conservatives. I worry that civil society is failing and that traditional values are under attack.

Where I differ from traditional conservatives is in the cause and solution. Traditional conservatives, especially in the Bush years, have begun to believe that the way to protect traditional values is through government action. I, however, believe that much of the reason for the decline in values is government intervention itself. When the government promises much, people can walk away from their individual responsibilities. And the more government promises, the more government tries to socially engineer results. And as government usually lacks flexibility, as programs become centralized in Washington, we see one size fits all solutions.

Hence, I believe that the best way is to generally let people find their own way. Government should be limited and any government action (such as what we probably will see on health care in the next administration) should provide the maximum flexibility and choices to individuals. To stick with the health care example, we should see a system that retains most of the elements of the current system, but is tailored to provide choices to those earning too much for Medicaid but not receiving employer health insurance. Single payor, under which every person in America is insured by a federal government program, would be a disaster.

(Of course, if I were a pure libertarian I would say government should have no role in health care, but if the democratic process wants it, at least I can try and push for what I believe is the best system).

Trads and Rads

The American conservative movement since World War Two has been described as a fusion between traditional conservatives and libertarians. In the 1950s that made real sense -- liberty was seen as under threat at home by the growing welfare state and abroad by communism. The marriage was an imperfect one but despite skeptics (such as Ayn Rand or Russel Kirk), the coalition lasted. With the destruction of the old liberal consensus by Ronald Reagan and the fall of the Soviet Union, those old ties began to loosen, though the 1994 Republican takeover of Congress temporarily stopped the break. But under the weight of Iraq, increasing spending, and government intervention, the old fissures are showing.

An exchange between my old neighbor Rod Dreher and Andrew Sullivan show the fissure. Dreher is an ex-Catholic self described "crunchy con" -- a real traditional conservative. Andrews Sullivan is a self described libertarian. The two have little in common -- Dreher is very concerned about public morality while Sullivan (though Catholic) tends to call anyone more concerned with public morality than he is a "Christianist." Yet they both consider themselves "conservatives."

Dreher notes that both libertarians and traditional conservatives fear excessive concentration of power in the state. To him, the difference is that libertarians want maximum liberty while traditionalists want "free people living virtuously". Sullivan counters that he wants free people living virtuously too, he just does not want to control them (or more precisely, control their sex lives -- with Sullivan, it usually comes down to sex).

I believe that they both somewhat miss the point. I ask, can someone be virtuous if virtue is enforced? Inherent in Sullivan's beliefs (I believe) is that if you enforce sexual mores, it simply pushes the immoral stuff underground, where it gets really nasty and really immoral. And if I understand Sullivan correctly, I think he has a point there.

But suppose that is wrong. Suppose you could enforce perfect virtue. If the virtue police could go around and really force people to not engage in immoral activities, are those people virtuous or simply scared of the law? Or is virtue really a function of freedom -- that you have the freedom to do something legal but immoral BUT CHOOSE not to do it. For me, that is the measure of virtue.