How Social Conservatism and Economic Conservatism are Mutually Reinforcing

One of my students pointed out this excellent article to me. (HT to David Graham) It is by Robert George, who is increasingly being recognized as a major leader of Christian conservatives, as well as a leading scholar in the "new natural law" movement.

The article is entitled "Renewing the Powerful Alliance of Social and Economic Conservatives" and it expresses and defends some convictions that I have come to realize are true over the past few years. Having always been a social conservative, I have come to realize that economic conservatism is integrally related to social conservatism and this article shows why.

Some people seem to think that the alliance of social and economic conservatives is, at best, a marriage of convenience. I couldn’t disagree more. My thesis is straightforward: Basic shared principles should lead serious social conservatives to be economic conservatives as well, and serious economic conservatives to be social conservatives, too. A sound conservatism will, as a matter of principle, honor limited government, restrained spending, honest money, and low taxes, while at the same time upholding the sanctity of human life in all stages and conditions, the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife, and the protection of the innocence of children.

Any healthy society, any decent society, will rest upon three pillars.

The first is respect for the human person—the individual human being and his dignity. . . .

The second pillar of any decent society is the institution of the family. It is indispensable. The family, based on the marital commitment of husband and wife, is the original and best department of health, education, and welfare. Although no family is perfect, no institution excels the healthy family in its capacity to transmit to each new generation the understandings and traits of character — the values and virtues — upon which the success of every other institution of society, from law and government to educational institutions and business firms, vitally depends. . . .

The third pillar of any decent society is a fair and effective system of law and government. . . .

Some will counsel that economic conservatives “have no horse in this race.” They will say that it is a moral, cultural, and religious question about which business people and people concerned with economic freedom need not concern themselves. The reality is that the ideological movements that today seek to redefine marriage and abolish its normativity for romantic relations and the rearing of children are the same movements that seek to undermine the free market system and replace it with statist control of vast areas of economic life. Moreover, the rise of ideologies hostile to marriage and the family has had a measurable social impact, and its costs are counted in ruined relationships, damaged lives, and all that follows in the social sphere from these personal catastrophes. In many poorer places in our nation, families are simply failing to form and marriage is coming to be regarded as an optional “life-style choice,” as it is in much of Europe—one among various optional ways of conducting relationships and having and rearing children. Out of wedlock birthrates are very high, with the negative consequences being borne less by the affluent than by those in the poorest and most vulnerable sectors of society. . . .

As an advocate of dynamic societies, I believe in the market economy and the free enterprise system. I particularly value the social mobility that economic dynamism makes possible. At the same time, I am not a supporter of the laissez-faire doctrine embraced by strict libertarians. I believe that law and government do have important and, indeed, indispensable roles to play in regulating enterprises for the sake of protecting public health, safety, and morals, preventing exploitation and abuse, and promoting fair competitive circumstances of exchange. But these roles are compatible, I would insist, with the ideal of limited government and the principle of subsidiarity according to which government must respect individual initiative to the extent reasonably possible and avoid violating the autonomy and usurping the authority of families, religious communities, and other institutions of civil society that play the primary role in building character and transmitting virtues.

Having said that, I would warn that limited government — considered as an ideal as vital to business as to the family — cannot be maintained where the marriage culture collapses and families fail to form or easily dissolve. Where these things happen, the health, education, and welfare functions of the family will have to be undertaken by someone, or some institution, and that will sooner or later be the government. To deal with pressing social problems, bureaucracies will grow, and with them the tax burden. Moreover, the growth of crime and other pathologies where family breakdown is rampant will result in the need for more extensive policing and incarceration and, again, increased taxes to pay for these government services. If we want limited government, and a level of taxation that is not unduly burdensome, we need healthy institutions of civil society, beginning with a flourishing marriage culture supporting family formation and preservation. . . .

The two greatest institutions ever devised for lifting people out of poverty and enabling them to live in dignity are the market economy and the institution of marriage. These institutions will, in the end, stand or fall together. Contemporary statist ideologues have contempt for both of these institutions, and they fully understand the connection between them. How shocking, then, that some conservatives fail to see that vital connection. Those who do see it, however, know why social conservatives should also be economic conservatives; and why economic conservatives should be social conservatives, too.

Read it all here. What a terrific apology for the kind of conservatism that Christians can rally around and celebrate!