[Vision2020] A Response to Iverson's Column Today

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

Greetings:

I've appended Iverson's column after my response.

Finally, we have a statement of Ed Iverson's political philosophy and I must say that it is a real piece of work.

Iverson starts out by stating that Hillary Clinton, former member of the Walmart Board of Directors, is a socialist. With such reckless use of terms, we know that we are in for an interesting ride.

When he describes his economic views, Iverson is embracing classical liberalism, or, more accurately, the libertarian view.  (Milton Friedman called himself an economic liberal.) Classical conservatives were mercantalists who believed that the government should do all that it can to protect and regulate the national economy. 

I'm surprised that Iverson has not heeded the call of Eugene Genovese, one of Doug Wilson's intellectual heroes. In his review of Genovese's "The Southern Tradition: The Achievement and Limitations of an American Conservatism," A. J. Bacevich states: "Genuine conservatism, according to Genovese, is not to be confused with slavish devotion to the free market, hostility toward social welfare programs, and undifferentiated antagonism toward governmental authority."  

Bacevich continues: "Cleavage that runs down the middle of the new conservative majority, dividing mostly secular free market libertarians from predominantly religious cultural conservatives."  They are indeed strange bedfellows, who are about to have a messy divorce in the Republican Party.

Iverson calls on two historical figures, Edmund Burke and John Adams, as an anchor for his views.  Burke was indeed a classical conservative, who believed in the divine right of kings, the superiority of Christian culture, and limiting the franchise to propertied males. If one substitutes clerics for kings, it appears and Wilson and Iverson are indeed good Burkeans.  See the documentary "My Town" (http://www.notonthepalouse.com/My_Town.htm), for Wilson's statement on the limited franchise.

With regard to John Adams, I know most about his religious views, and here he is a liberal.  He did not believe in the divinity of Christ nor did he believe in the Trinity.  Contrary to Iverson and Wilson, who are Calvinists and strong creedal conformists, Adams proclaimed that "that all the honest men among you are Christians, in my sense of the word."  Sounds like paganism to me, Ed.

On June 10, 1797, President Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 of which began: "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . . ."  President Washington had introduced it without objection and Senate ratified it without a recorded debate.

I disagree with Iverson's diagnosis of immigrant riots in France.  I believe it was caused by excessive monoculturalism rather than a nuanced multiculturalism.  Whereas the libertarians stress personal liberty too much, the French have always emphasized equality too much.  In both instances the classical liberal value of community (the value I substitute for French fraternite) is sacrificed.  

True multicultural communities are based on both tolerance of differences but also an affirmation of shared traditional values.  For example, I think the banning of headscarves in France is terribly wrong and will cause a strong backlash.  Ironically, Iverson's and Wilson's theocratic ideas would lead to a much more repressive Christian monoculturalism.

Iverson's desire to distinguish democracy from republicanism is straight out of the John Birch playbook.  I'm surprised he did not tell Wilson's joke about democracy: it's just like two coyotes and a lamb deciding on what to have for lunch.  

In the end, Iverson and Wilson are wading in the dank back waters of the French and American Revolutions, essential historical landmarks that checked the intrusion of religion and privilege into government and today challenges us to balance the three great values of classical liberalism: liberty, equality, and community.  

For more on how today's liberals, libertarians, and conservatives find their place in the house of classical liberalism, see my "We Are All Liberals—Well, Almost All" at www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/liberalism.htm.
 
HIS VIEW: No longer holding my nose on Election Day
By Ed Iverson
June 2, 2007
With a couple of exceptions, I have voted with my nose held since 1968. 
My first presidential election was 1964. The franchise was limited to those 21 years of age and older, so I could not vote. 
However, just like my fellow "boomer", Hillary Clinton, I campaigned passionately for Barry Goldwater. Unlike Hillary Clinton, I never surrendered to the siren's persuasive song about the blessings of socialism. Unlike Hillary (who had a political empire to build) I remained conservative. I am a social conservative. I abhor abortion as I abhor murder. I understand embryonic research to be an unwarranted interference with the ongoing life of a human being. I reject the open expression of homosexuality. I have an aversion for easy, "no-fault" divorce. Permissive judges who turn criminals back on the streets with a slap on the wrist drive me crazy. And I am dismayed that my country so little esteems femininity that we send our young women into battle. 
I am an economic conservative. The power to tax and the authority to regulate is the power to destroy. It requires constant vigilance and constraint. Lower taxes result in a stronger economy. Intrusive government regulations such as wage and price controls decrease productivity and result in shortages and unemployment. The graduated income tax penalizes incentive and encourages waste. Social welfare culminates in dependency and the functional enslavement of the citizenry. 
Moreover, I am a societal conservative. This is the conservatism of Edmund Burke and John Adams. Societal conservatives have sometimes been labeled "paleo-conservatives." As a societal conservative, I respect and honor the wisdom of the millennia. We societal conservatives reject the arrogance of the "now" and the callousness of the "attainable." Time-honored customs and long-established institutions must not be discarded simply because they are not progressive. Innovation must not be embraced simply because it is technologically within our grasp. 
Societal conservatives are dismayed by a culture that is obsessively egalitarian. We appreciate gender distinctions and we cheerfully salute distinct gender roles. We have a deep and abiding suspicion for the ever-increasing feminization of our culture. We deplore the disregard for propriety, the disdain for modesty, and the utter lack of social inhibition that is excused as youthful exuberance or free expression. 
Our adversaries label us as xenophobes and racists because we want to limit immigration and we don't enthusiastically support the multicultural nonsense that has America by the throat. We are not xenophobes. We merely see the mayhem in other countries (such as France) where unassimilated immigrants wreak havoc; and we conclude that immigration must happen at a measured and orderly pace. We are not racists. We merely contend that some cultures are superior to others. We believe that those who pretend otherwise often do so for self-serving reasons. 
Paleo-conservatives do not generally support American interference in the affairs of other nations. We see the effort to establish democracy around the globe as little more than a thinly disguised grasp for empire. Indeed, we deplore the manner in which the republican form of government is being displaced in our own country by "democracy." We applaud the warnings of Patrick Henry and other societal conservatives of our founding era. They understood democracy, heartily disliked it, and fought courageously to prevent it from dominating our institutions.
On each and every one of these important issues, the national Republican Party increasingly stinks up the arena. For years we reluctantly agreed with the "hold your nose" argument that is currently finding expression as "anybody but Hillary." Speaking strictly for myself (and meaning no criticism for those who believe differently), I have finished holding my nose. Unless something dramatic changes before the 2008 election, I will vote for a credible third party candidate or not at all. 
I do not say this lightly. I have twice stood for higher office as a Republican, nearly defeating an entrenched Democrat incumbent both times. My people have been Republican for generations. I will continue to support genuinely conservative, local Republicans that I know. But I am done with the national party. I have not left it. It has left me.