There are, in fact, two belief systems contending for the soul of the Republican Party, but one is not liberalism. The two intellectually vital movements within the Republican Party today are libertarianism and Roman Catholic social thought -- a teaching that has influenced many non-Catholics, including me.The difference between these visions is considerable. Various forms of libertarianism and anti-government conservatism share a belief that justice is defined by the imposition of impartial rules -- free markets and the rule of law. If everyone is treated fairly and equally, the state has done its job. But Catholic social thought takes a large step beyond that view. While it affirms the principle of limited government -- asserting the existence of a world of families, congregations and community institutions where government should rarely tread -- it also asserts that the justice of society is measured by its treatment of the helpless and poor. And this creates a positive obligation to order society in a way that protects and benefits the powerless and suffering.
[snip]
A significant portion of the Republican Party and the American public is influenced more by the social teachings of the Jewish and Christian traditions than by the doctrines of Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises. Religious conservatives, broadly defined, prefer free-market methods. But they believe that the goal directing all our methods must be the common good.
Gerson concludes that
No presidential aspirant can win without a message of solidarity, a vision of justice and hope that includes the whole country. A Republican Party that does not offer a robust agenda on health care, education reform, climate change and economic empowerment will fade into irrelevance.
It's a thoughtful column. I think he's right about the major streams of Conservative thought, and I appreciate the acknowledgment of the role of Catholic Social Teaching. I'm with him up to "the hope that includes the whole country." But whenever we start talking about government's larger purposes, federalism (or what we Catholics call "subsidiarity") inexplicably drops out of the conversation.
Gerson repeats the mistake (and it's as if the mid-level folks who push policy at chancery offices never heard the word, even though the Magisterium on the question is clear and strong). Government mustn't neglect social needs, and if private institutions don't do the job, the state may have to step in. But for reasons of freedom, effectiveness, efficiency, respect for the individual, the ability to tailor the solution to the actual problem, and many others, it is state and local governments that have to do this --it is vital that Washington keep its big mitts off.
Mr. W. reminds me that my 3rd favorite President, Calvin Coolidge, had an emphatically laissez-faire approach to government as Chief Executive; but as Governor of Massachusetts he was accused of being a "Bolshevik" because of his expansion of social services --building hospitals, etc.
So, while I agree with Prof. K's reminder (in response to a recent attack on Huckabee)
that what tends to distinguish governors from legislators, at least in some cases, is a certain pragmatism. You work with the legislature you have and you try to solve problems.I fear Huckabee reverses the admirable Coolidge formula. Nothing Huckabee did as Gov. of Arkansas troubles me in itself --those may have been appropriate state measures --it's that he's threatening to do the same for the whole country as President! Ditto Romney and his health care plan.
I would like to see a President who promotes federalism, which is why I have a lingering affection for Fred Thompson, because he talks about federalism every chance he gets. However, I would like to see him promote it on common good grounds (and with some umpf, of course). I'd be really happy if someone would make the case that state and local governments should expand their social outreach --each according to the needs of their own citizens-- and the federal government should get out of their way by dismantling federal programs and repealing taxes, leaving states with resources --and the freedom and creativity-- to find the best solutions for actual citizens. It used to be a no-brainer that the needs of the poor in Alaska were by definition going to be distinct from those in Louisiana. No more, apparently. Not even among "Conservatives."
