Redstate

By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Fred Thompson | Michael Gerson | Policy | Small-Government | Unheroic Conservatism — Comments (1) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

That most unheroic of conservatives--if he can still be called a conservative--Michael Gerson, gives us yet more evidence for the proposition that he is auditioning to become the Kevin Phillips of the 21st Century. In this column favors us with his insight that because Fred Thompson looks askance on the proposition that government exists to do God's work, he "lack[s] moral seriousness." Specifically, Thompson was asked if "as a Christian, as a conservative," he supported the Bush Administration's global AIDS initiative. Gerson records Thompson's response was as follows:

. . . "Christ didn't tell us to go to the government and pass a bill to get some of these social problems dealt with. He told us to do it," Thompson responded. "The government has its role, but we need to keep firmly in mind the role of the government, and the role of us as individuals and as Christians on the other."

Thompson went on: "I'm not going to go around the state and the country with regards to a serious problem and say that I'm going to prioritize that. With people dying of cancer, and heart disease, and children dying of leukemia still, I got to tell you -- we've got a lot of problems here. . . .

For this comment, Gerson chastises Thompson, stating that the former Senator

. . . clearly is playing to isolationist sentiments. His objection, it seems, is not to government spending on public health but to spending on foreigners. But this is badly shortsighted. America is engaged in a high-stakes ideological struggle in Africa, where radicals and terrorists seek to fill the vacuum of failed and hopeless societies. Fighting disease and promoting development are important foreign policy tools in this struggle, which Thompson apparently does not appreciate or even understand.

This is, of course, fatuous nonsense. Thompson's statements on American foreign policy concerning Africa are anything but isolationist and give isolationists no comfort whatsoever. Take a look at this and let me know whether you see a hint of isolationism in it. I don't; indeed, Thompson gives a lot of thoughtful attention to the issue of American soft power and how it can be employed in Africa. His commentary is sophisticated and he shows a deep appreciation for the subtleties and nuances that go into the formulation of American policy towards Africa.

But of course, Gerson pays no attention to this sort of thing, which could likely be found with a simple Google search (I got the video from the Corner). And I find it hard to believe that he even tried to find evidence of non-isolationist Thompsonian commentary on American foreign policy concerning Africa.

Why do I doubt? Because I don't believe that Gerson has any interest whatsoever in interfering with his now patented commentary schtick:

Thompson's argument reflects an anti-government extremism, which I am sure his defenders would call a belief in limited government. In this case, Thompson is limiting government to a half-full thimble. Its duties apparently do not extend to the treatment of sick people in extreme poverty, which should be "the role of us as individuals and as Christians." One wonders, in his view, if responding to the 2004 tsunami should also have been a private responsibility. Religious groups are essential to fighting AIDS, but they cannot act on a sufficient scale.

This is emblematic of the kind of arguments that Gerson makes in the wake of publishing his book, Heroic Conservatism. And it is an absurd argument supported by the shakiest and most fragile of foundations. You know something? Not only Thompson's "defenders" would call this "a belief in limited government," but intellectually honest people would do so as well. In the event that this actually has to be explained to Gerson, calling Thompson's political views "a belief in limited government" does not connote agreement with that belief. From the mouth of an opponent of the philosophy of limited government, it merely connotes the potential maturity to contend with the specifics of the belief while refraining from damning the idea with a cheap and tawdry pejorative like, oh, say, "anti-government extremism." Gerson can take issue with the "belief in limited government" by actually taking on the foundations and specifics of the small-government philosophy. But if he feels instead that he has to resort to name-calling against the traditions of limited government, it says something about his intellectual inability to contend with the idea without resorting to playground insults.

Gerson's mindscape is a desolate place. We have established that he failed--manifestly, at that--at any effort in trying to actually inform himself regarding the specifics of Thompson's policy towards Africa. And now we see that in trying to make the case for big government conservatism--which is no kind of conservatism at all--Gerson reflexively resorts to the language of smears. Couldn't someone who draws a paycheck from the Washington Post deliver a more impressive intellectual product than this?

What Gerson fails to understand--and one wonders how much more evidence he needs to see and hear about before he does understand--is that however laudable he thinks it may be for government to treat "sick people in extreme poverty," government is exceedingly bad at doing so. Indeed, government is exceedingly bad at a lot of things, which is why our Constitution checks governmental power so formidably. Thompson--a federalist and a Constitutionalist if ever there was one--understands this limitation of government's abilities fully and completely. Gerson does not. One naturally feels compassion for those in Africa who are poor, sick and destitute and few people say that American foreign aid cannot and should not be at least partially geared towards working to alleviate the miseries of the continent. But Thompson's words serve as a useful reminder that there are limits on the ability of the United States government to bring about long term, positive solutions to the problems being endured in Africa. Change has to begin on the continent itself. African states have to make affirmative decisions to move away from civil war, from genocide and towards policies designed to augment the standard of living and to halt and roll back the tide of disease. There is only so much that the United States can do in this regard.

More Gerson:

Thompson also dives headfirst into the shallow pool of his own theological knowledge. In his interpretation, Jesus seems to be a libertarian activist who taught that compassion is an exclusively private virtue. This ignores centuries of reflection on the words of the Bible that have led to a nearly universal Christian conviction that government has obligations to help the weak and pursue social justice. Religious social reformers fought to end child labor and improve public health. It is hard to imagine they would have used the teachings of Christ to justify cutting off lifesaving drugs for tens of thousands of African children -- an argument both novel and obscene.

Um . . . where did Thompson say that we ought to "cut off lifesaving drugs for tens of thousands of African children"? All he said was that (a) there is a difference between the governmental role and the private role when it comes to carrying out the religious teachings of the New Testament and (b) there are plenty of problems here at home that we have to worry about, even as we seek to do what we can in structuring our aid programs to Africa to do the maximum amount of good. Moreover, Thompson is entirely right to point out that the religious teachings of the New Testament are reserved for individuals and that individual efforts to live up to New Testament teachings are what the Bible demands. Did Gerson never hear of that division between the City of Man and the City of God that St. Augustine postulated? The government of the United States has never been under the obligation to act pursuant to a particular religious teaching. Morality in policy is fine and good. But so is reality. Gerson's grasp on the latter is tenuous at best, which is why he spends all of his column building up a strawman and knocking it down instead of taking on Thompson's actual arguments on the issue of policy towards Africa. Nowhere in his comments--either the ones that Gerson quoted or the ones Thompson discusses in the linked video above--does Thompson make any kind of "callous" call to cut off sick Africans and let them die. This is the worst kind of misrepresentation, it is misrepresentation that runs rampant throughout Gerson's article and Gerson ought to be ashamed of himself for putting these "thoughts" to print and pixels.

But of course, he is not. "Heroic conservatism" is the latest doubleplus good thing in our society and Gerson's practice of (a) advocating big government; (b) dressing up his love for big government in conservative garb and (c) seeking to shame libertarians and small-government conservatives who are genuinely and reasonably concerned about the growth of government with invectives of "extremism," "callous" and "shriveled souls" leaves little room for honest and intellectually powerful discourse. You know all those Democrats who respond to calls for smaller government by accusing genuine conservatives and libertarians of being uncaring, meanie "Grinches"? Gerson gives those kinds of people cover and when it comes to slinging around the invective, they could learn a thing or two from him.

But that doesn't make Gerson or the people who make him their tool correct. For all of his fulminating, for all of his self-righteous indignation, for all of his holier-than-thou pose of moral supremacy, Gerson's faith in government to cure most--if not all--social ills is as morally stunted as it is intellectually shabby. If Gerson was really interested in advancing a philosophy of government that is not only intellectually powerful but morally laudable, he would sign on with the very small-government advocates he so sneeringly, ignorantly and dishonestly derides. Not once in his little screed does Gerson pay proper tribute to the power of free markets to change lives for the better. I would write a description of that power, but I could not do better than this:

I admit that my proposed solution for many public-policy problems is to say "Let the market handle it." But this response is neither naive nor lazy. It's realistic. It reflects my understanding that almost any problem you name -- rebuilding the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast, providing excellent education for children, reducing traffic congestion on highways -- is most likely to be dealt with efficiently, fairly and effectively by the market rather than by government.

Saying "Let the market handle it" is to reject a one-size-fits-all, centralized rule of experts. It is to endorse an unfathomably complex arrangement for dealing with the issue at hand. Recommending the market over government intervention is to recognize that neither he who recommends the market nor anyone else possesses sufficient information and knowledge to determine, or even to foresee, what particular methods are best for dealing with the problem.

To recommend the market, in fact, is to recommend letting millions of creative people, each with different perspectives and different bits of knowledge and insights, each voluntarily contribute his own ideas and efforts toward dealing with the problem. It is to recommend not a single solution but, instead, a decentralized process that calls forth many competing experiments and, then, discovers the solutions that work best under the circumstances.

To recommend the market is to understand, or at least to cooperate with, the wisdom of James Buchanan's important insight that "order is defined in the process of its emergence."  It is to understand, at some level, Vernon Smith's awareness that "ecological rationality" is greater than individual or "constructivist" rationality.

This process is flexible and it encourages creativity. It also denies to anyone the power to unilaterally impose his own vision on others.

In brief, to advise "Let the market handle it" is a shorthand way of saying, "I have no simplistic plan for dealing with this problem; indeed, I reject all simplistic plans. Only a competitive, decentralized institution interlaced with dependable feedback loops -- the market -- can be relied upon to discover and implement a sufficiently detailed way to handle the problem in question."

[. . .]

So yes, show me a problem and I'll likely respond "Let the market handle it." I'll respond this way because I know that not only is my own meager knowledge and effort never up to the task of solving big problems but that not even the Einsteins or Krugmans or Bushes amongst us can know the best solution to any social problem.

Solutions to complex social problems require as many creative minds as possible -- and this is precisely what the market delivers.

Quite so. And lest we forget our history of American political philosophy, let it be recalled that a description of not only the incompetence but also the danger of big government were given noble expression by that "shriveled soul," Alexis de Tocqueville:

What does it matter to me, after all, that there should be an authority always on its feet, keeping watch that my pleasures are tranquil, flying ahead of my steps to turn away every danger without my even needing to think about it, if this authority, at the same time that it removes the least thorns in my path, is the absolute master of my freedom and my life, if it monopolizes movement and existence to such a point that everything around it must languish when it languishes, that everything must sleep when it sleeps, that everything must perish if it dies?

And again:

. . . an immense tutelary power us elevated, which alone takes charge of assuring [the] enjoyments [of the people] and watching over their fate. It is absolute, detailed, regular, far-seeing, and mild. It would resemble paternal power if, like that, it had for its object to prepare men for manhood; but on the contrary, it seeks only to keep them fixed irrevocably in childhood; it likes  citizens to enjoy themselves provided that they think only of enjoying themselves. It willingly works for their happiness; but it wants to be the unique agent and sole arbiter of that; it provides for their security, foresees and secures their needs, facilitates their pleasures, conducts their principal affairs, directs their industry, regulates their estates, divides their inheritances; can it not take away from them entirely the trouble of thinking and the pain of living?

Or as that "callous conservative," Fred Thompson, has been known to say on the campaign trail, "A government big enough to give you what you want is also big enough to take it away."

It is indeed a  pity that the phrase "Heroic Conservatism" has been warped and perverted to stand opposite the noble, farsighted and time-tested practice of trusting free markets over government to handle social problems and evincing a healthy skepticism concerning the supposed palliative nature of big government. But when it comes to contending with Michael Gerson, it is clear that what matters most to him is selling books and making bucks. That he does so as a huckster and not as a genuine thinker does not bother him in the slightest. That he poses as a conservative while seeking to consign conservatism to the Political Museum of Extinct Species bothers him not a whit. Michael Gerson's heaven-blessed spirit is apparently untroubled by such dishonesties.

But "what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the world, and lose his soul?" Has our newfound "heroic conservative" even bothered to ask himself that question?

Or does he just not know how to do so?