I’ve often wondered why we Americans bifurcate liberal or conservative values between economic and social concepts. I submit there should be no distinction. You either favor free love, abortion, embryonic manufacturing and all that they imply, the so-called liberal values or you favor sexual abstinence, marriage between man and woman, traditional families and social groups and all that they imply, the so-called conservative values. Each has inevitable economic consequences.

Let’s look at the natural consequences of each. Liberal first as it is in vogue with our Democratic political classes propelled by the anti-Bush, press-led Obama ascendency. We don’t need to go back that far to encapsulate its roots. The sexual revolution of the sixties accompanied the student anti-war protests, Haight-Ashbury, hippies, drug culture, free love, women’s liberation all followed from an over-indulged, entitlement-minded generation willing to reject history and tradition and break from it, to revolt. The “age of Aquarius” was upon us; there was no right and wrong, no good and bad, everything was relative. Good intentions were relevant; results were not; no one was accountable; mishaps were society’s fault. “It seemed like a good idea at the time,” was an accepted excuse for not thinking clearly as to possible outcomes. The press hailed the newfound freedom and openness. Universities pumped out liberal versions of history, philosophy, economics and every social “science” that could be ginned up with interdepartmental studies.

Consequences followed and time came to “begin the begats” as the Finian’s Rainbow song so well puts it. Unintended consequences naturally followed which begat more unintended consequences. Aids, unwed mothers, back alley abortions, sex education promoting promiscuity, free birth control promoting more promiscuity, druggies, homelessness, abandoned babies, increased crime to support drug habits, increased unemployment, violence, juvenile delinquency, crime, etc. No society could ignore these problems so the liberal society sought statist solutions. The state, the government would always provide the solution. It was to be looked to for all solutions. Social workers multiplied, teachers multiplied, soft courses multiplied, agencies multiplied, welfare roles increased dramatically, and jails and juvenile halls increased. All this had to be paid for, so taxes increased to service the political classes and required social obligations. With the explosion in government, educational and welfare services came the costs of increases in wages and pensions. Everyone understood that these should match the emoluments available to the so-called private sector so increases came in stride. When those increases were not enough, the employees, public employees, formed unions, which demanded more and threatened strikes. To avoid such unthinkable catastrophes elected officials promised more and guaranteed handsome increases in wages and pensions on the credit of the government, on the credit of the taxpayers. In short government grew exponentially as did its costs. It became the first and last resort for all problems, the handoff of all responsibility. New Deal, Great Society, Obama Deal are all examples.

As you would expect, conservative roots go back a lot farther, Adam & Eve, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus and those that followed. The conservatives acknowledged God or at least that men were not gods; they held to a moral law that distinguished right from wrong, good from bad; they admitted to evil in the world and that not all things were relative. Marriage was between a man and a woman whether in Eden, Cana or San Francisco. Man was responsible for himself and his family as well as the consequences of his actions and omissions. The family had value, the clan had value, the synagogue, the church, the mosque had value, and social organizations had value. Solutions to problems were sought at these social levels not at government levels. All these social groups were to be promoted, protected and defended.  In short, there was individual responsibility and social responsibility practiced and taught from generation to generation. Behavior outside the social norms was frowned upon and drew condemnation or eventual shunning. Individual charity and group charity supplied many social needs.

Economically the conservative values resulted in a much more limited government with the province of government confined to protection of borders and enforcement of law both criminal and civil. The rule of law guaranteed individual and social freedom and private property. These values worked to propel our nation to unequaled prosperity in each generation since the Declaration of Independence was signed. Citizens were willing to work hard, save, invest, and take risks; this because they could trust that the products of their work, the returns on their savings and investments would be safeguarded. They knew the rules of the game and were secure in those rules. The also knew that if they failed, no government would be there to bail them out. They were thus encouraged to be prudent in their decisions and risk taking.

True as society grew the role of government naturally expanded, expanded to include logical elements fostering a good society. National banking was established and regulated. Education was funded by taxes and made compulsory. Workplace safety was codified and policed. Antitrust laws were enacted and enforced. Professional licenses were prescribed and standards set. All in all though, government was limited. Interstate commerce, police power, war power and international relations provisions in the Constitution served as a basis and legal justification for this expansion. That same Constitution guaranteed rights of the individuals and reserved residual powers to the states. In short, the Constitution limited the role and power of the federal government.

So back to the original question, how can a person be socially liberal and economically conservative or how can another person be socially conservative and economically liberal? Isn’t either combination a feat of intellectual inconsistency at best or intellectual dishonestly at worst? The former could, for instance, favor sexual promiscuity and oppose aid to dependent children, certainly harsh. The latter could favor the traditional family and support government funding of abortion, embryonic research, cloning or euthanasia, an equally harsh result.  I suspect a survey would find more socially liberal economic conservatives than socially conservative economic liberals. Inherent humanness would seem to promote that finding.

Clear, honest analysis requires, I believe, a consistency in positions: social conservatives should be economic conservatives; social liberals should be economic liberals. But, you protest, what does each do with the current state of our society: failed education, broken families, unwed mothers, swelling welfare roles, drug addiction, homelessness, high crime, swelling prisons, etc. The logical answer for social liberals is to ask the government for mandated solutions, to increase government experiment with solutions, and to increase taxes and mandates to pay for the myriad of attempted solutions. The logical answer for social conservatives is to seek help from families, synagogues, churches and social organizations, to promote reform of the existing governmental solution providers, or to redirect existing revenues to resources more able to provide solutions, in short, to limit government involvement and its concomitant expansion and taxation. 

History tells us that whatever the government does, it does inefficiently, slowly and without intended result.  It seems, though, to accomplish unintended consequences very well and with great dispatch. These unintended consequences create more problems that require more solutions and greater expansion of government, ad nauseam. History on the other hand demonstrates great success and individual freedom with traditional family, clan, religious and social solutions. People will thrive with freedom in the pursuit of happiness.

So I’m just a plain old conservative in every sense of the word. I’m committed to tolerance and I welcome change, the change that comes from society’s progress in the individuals’ collective pursuits of happiness. Like Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof, I’m always willing to argue with myself and say “…on the other hand…” But also like him there are certain issues to which I will ultimately say, “…NO, there is no other hand!”  Hey, call me a throwback!

Tom Motherway, tom@renohayek.com