I was hoping that the post “Putting the ‘Next’ Into ‘Next Right’: Retooling vs. Restructuring” would offer a proper defense of capitalism. This is the issue that lost McCain the election and the Right needs to be “retooled” to understand and explain the moral right to free markets. Unfortunately, I found the same consequentialism that is the Right’s default defense for capitalism. Here’s their explanation of the first of the three pillars of conservatism.
Fiscal Conservatism
Philosophical basis: The marketplace is a more efficient allocator of resources than the government; hence when deciding how resources should be allocated, the bias should always be in favor of private-sector decision making. Free markets build wealth, create prosperity, and raises standards of living for all; hence markets should be kept as free as reasonably possible. Moreover capitalism and free markets do a great job at preserving individual liberty [moreover!], as those participating in the marketplace aren’t requied to obey the will of the majority (e.g. if 90% of the population prefers Pepsi but I prefer Coke, I can still buy Coke if I so desire); hence regulations that restrict choices in the marketplace should be kept to a minimum.
Moreover? When defending a free marketplace, individual liberty deserves and demands better than a passing “moreover.” The “philosophical basis” for fiscal conservatism is individual liberty. It’s not a happenstance side benefit. A moral right to the product of one’s labor is the basis for capitalism and fiscal conservatism. The above is a very weak “ends justifies the means” defense of capitalism; it works better for everyone, so it is the moral choice. Weak ideology like this will continue to lose elections and leave a vacuum to be filled by government which assumes the moral authority to fix break things.
And I take issue with this line discussing the second pillar, Social Conservatism.
[I]ndividual liberty is only beneficially meaningful when it is conjoined with a moral people.
Protecting individual liberty is what makes a people moral. The two can’t be conjoined because they can’t be separated in the first place. The first is what defines the second as such.
When the post gets to the third pillar of National Security, I want to agree that we should “[u]napologetically defend the ideals upon which this nation was founded,” but based on what we’ve gone over above, the writer doesn’t understand what the ideals this nation was founded on actually are.
The post finishes with some questions for the audience. The first question shouldn’t even have to be asked, ironically, because the answer is the same as the unknown ideals (that is, unknown in this post) which inspired our founding fathers to create this nation, and is what the “next” right still needs to be retooled to defend.
Q. What is the philosophical basis for the brand of conservatism that you wish to see adopted?
A. Reason and Individual Rights.
I don’t understand why these precious ideas need to be rediscovered and are so hard for some to defend, but that’s why I’m throwing my hat in the ring for the next election.