• Comment (2)

George Will Torches His Own Body of Work

September 8, 2011 RSS Feed Print

Whoosh.

That was the sound of a conservative icon's body of work going up in flames.

In his latest column, a positive notice of a book about a key 1905 Supreme Court case on economic rights, George F. Will writes this: "Since the New Deal, courts have stopped defending liberty of contract and other unenumerated rights grounded in America's natural rights tradition."

"What's the big deal?" you may ask. Isn't this just a standard conservative defense of individual rights in the economic sphere?

It is—and that's the problem.

Pardon the tediousness of this subject matter, but I think it's deeply relevant to what I consider the degraded state of our politics right now. It is the fault line of the most pressing questions of political economy. [Read Rick Newman: 5 Economically Illiterate Campaign Themes]

The thing is, George Will didn't used to talk this way. Indeed, he pretty much defined his philosophical identity, his brand of Burkean conservatism, as distinct from and much older than post-Hobbes modernism. The central divide, for the young Will, was not that between "liberal" and "conservative;" it was between ancient and modern.

And by "modern," Will meant not just what we today call "liberalism," that is, left-of-center progressivism; he meant "classical" or "market" liberalism, which wrongheadedly elevated the economic rights of the individual just as destructively (meaning at civil society's expense) as those who championed moral and social permissiveness.

In his 1983 book Statecraft and Soulcraft, Will devoted a chapter to the roots of modernism, which he characterized gravely as "The Defect." The defect was the negative definition of politics: "an enterprise for drawing a protective circle around the individual's sphere of self-interested action."

The defect, Will suggested, permeated even our quasi-sacred constitutional text. Natural law theory, which profoundly influenced the Founders, reduced statecraft to the management of barbarian appetites. It severed political philosophy from its highest Aristotetalian aim, which was to improve the soul and guide the pursuit the public good.

The genius of Madisonian checks and balances, in Will's clever phraseology, was to "use the problem to resolve the problem." It works, but at the long-term price of social cohesion.

Modern liberals reduced politics to the mere relief of pain. In the process, they teach citizens to "blame all social shortcomings on the agency of collective considerations, the government." [Read: Obama Jobs Plan Unlikely to Create Many]

No better were the party Will called "ideological capitalists." "[A] capitalistic economic system, with all the institutions, laws, regulations, dispositions, habits, and skills that make it work, is not part of the constitution of the universe," he wrote. "It does not spring up from the social soil unbidden, like prairie grass. It requires an educational system, banking and currency systems, highly developed laws of commerce and much more."

Provocatively, Will asserted that the doctrine of laissez-faire is an imposition of values; it is no more "neutral" than the pro-abortion activism that led to the jurisprudential monstrosity Roe v. Wade. Will mocked John D. Rockefeller's statement before Congress that "the good Lord gave me my money." Government is a "major investor" in social competence and human capital; it has an undeniable role in the "generation of wealth." And conservatives would betray their roots if they shrank from the social consequences of capitalist dynamism, as it was "two conservatives (Disraeli and Bismarck)" who "pioneered the welfare state, and did so for impeccably conservative reasons: to reconcile the masses to the vicissitudes and hazards of a dynamic and hierarchical industrial economy." [See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

Why should we care what George Will wrote some 30 years ago?

The answer is, he's a highly influential and widely-read public intellectual. It seems clear to me that, over the course of years, he's changed his mind on these matters. But he neglected to explain why to his readers.

It's about time he did.

Tags:
capitalism,
George Will,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (2)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

George will is a pompous arse. Who cares ? His writing is horrible. It's painful to read his articles, not to mention boring. His pretentiousness is off-putting. How has he been able to get away such unimpressive writing for so long.

muckraker of CO 12:42AM September 09, 2011

Galupo,

What I find particularly troubling is Galupo's assertion: "Government is a "major investor" in social competence and human capital; it has an undeniable role in the "generation of wealth."

A truer statement is "Government is a "major investor" in social incompetence and disregards human capital; it has an undeniable role in the "degeneration of wealth."

Tell us, Galupo, how does amoral government suddenly gain the morality to become "THE" investor in social competence and human capital? Every dollar of government spending came directly from taxes collected from the private sector. It doesn't take a degree in finaces to realize that this results in fewer dollars left for the private sector to invest.

"Invest" is a "this for that" equation. A good "investment" gives something good for something better. A poor "investment" gives something good for something bad.

Typically, in business, an investement in plant, property, equipment trades resources today for a better return tomorrow. Essentially, government, the so called "major investor" fails it's obligation to wisely invest. Taking good, hard earned tax dollars and investing those dollars into societal malingerers or questionable pursuits with no return is not a "good" investment. Consequently, our "investor" fails in its feduciary responsibility to social consequence and human capital.

In my estimation, government is NOT the investor in social consequence or human capital. The private sector is.

david of ID 7:24PM September 08, 2011

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo

Scott Galupo is a Washington-based freelance writer. He formerly worked for House Republican Leader John Boehner, and was a staff writer for The Washington Times.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement