Harvey Mansfield's sly dig at capitalism

 

Conservatism and the Common Good | National Affairs

PRB response

I am a fiscal conservative and psychological liberal. That means I earn the way of living I want and pay the taxes I owe. It also means, in an American-independence way and a Genesis 1:26-28 NIV way, “Don’t tread on me”. There's experience rather than passion in that statement or posture, because every person may& can choose to earn their way of living and pay their taxes, and the taxes are partially used to help those who can't-earn pursue the ability.

I think the world is comprised of people who divide themselves on whether to take responsibility for their way of living or to try to coerce someone else to pay their cost of living. There must be a referee to resolve situations wherein someone causes harm. If I must submit to adjudication of harm, I don’t want Harvey Mansfield’s influence perceivable let alone present.

He says conservatives tire of losing [the power to rule] to liberal organization (hints of AMO, Alinsky-Marist organization-verb). Mansfield fails to delineate “rule” as “pursue order to fellow-citizens” rather than “bully people who tolerate abuse”. The U.S. Constitution proposes order.

It’s common-good-conservatives, traditionalists like W.F. Buckley, Jr. plus neoconservative Catholics who would democratize the world and hate Trump, against common-good-liberals, who “praise diversity and pluralism”. Mansfield was shockingly overt here, informing me that his essay opposes religious conservatism. I fell prey to his segue to fiscal conservatism and obfuscated attack on capitalism.

Classical liberal: 17^th-century individual rights [and responsibilities]; life and choice; rule via representation; no! rule of law. Example, abortion: common-good conservatives always lose. There is no rule by representation; only the rule of law.

Progress, modifications and improvement since 17^th century goes only in liberal direction -- diversity or alternation of power – “a society of rights in which government represents rather than rules the people”. Necessity rules, and politicians use reason or rationalization to forestall necessity

Common-good-conservatives reject John Locke and Montesquieu, two founders of liberalism” to invoke Aquainas (d. 1274), who reflected Aristotle (d. 322 BC), who thought before Jesus, before Catholicism, and before “Christ”. Aristotle asserted 2 common goods: common good and good in common; endowed good and received good; entitlement and merit. Mansfield fails to note that Locke wrote of English-God-given rights to life, liberty, and property. Perhaps Mansfield’s beef is with the Catholic Church.

Mansfield perceives, first, every person owns equal good and second, persons who increase the-good distribute it equally. How does an equal person increase the-good? And if so, does he remain equal or do beneficiaries appreciate the increase? Mansfield admits the problem of superior intellect in some bodies, "not a point that democratic materialists readily admit”. Moreover, Mansfield egregiously overlooks the cost of applying superior intellect to increase the-good rather than to seek rent or game the system.

Mansfield, using false intentionality or not, expresses superior intellect as soul rather than as psychology. To him, every person benefits in body from the few who possess soul. Mansfield’s example is Louis Armstrong (d. 1971), whose contributions to human being (verb) are globally appreciated. Democrats appreciate such celebrities, make them elite, and surround them with rent seekers. For example, Taylor Swift tickets are on sale for $600. Civic citizens brook the tyranny, and therefore, their lives matter to the materialists.

“But democracy divides us into different nations — different democracies — each of which is likely to think itself superior to others. Patriotism or nationalism — cheering for the home team — is aristocratic democracy, the usual sort of inequality that democracies care for” . . . unequals by doing more and more closely approaching human being (verb).

Philosophically, the first pursues equality in materialism and the second pursues inequality in spiritualism. Democracy develops elites to democracy. The corollary is that conservatives develop elites to discipline. (I prefer responsible reliability, since there’s no subjugation to a ruler other than necessity. If I want to choose my food rather than take from a bureaucrat, I must earn the money to pay for it.) Neither materialism nor spiritualism is reliable.

Liberalism is hostile to “the rule of the Church” due to corruption and Protestant reformation. Generic liberalism encompasses modern liberalism and conservativism, negating Aristotle’s reliance on contemplating the divine (not necessarily the-God, which may be necessity). Liberalism, like all causes, can accept the mysteries, in order to discover the-good response to necessity. Thereby, redirect imposed spirituality to the-good -- discovery& application. Each person applies the-good for living rather than salvation in the afterdeath. Mansfield writes of liberalism rights “by their [natural] Creator” [with a capital “C”] in the present tense and the Church in the past tense. Thus, liberals can’t be ruled so they consent; in other words, accept “freedom from rule”. Yet consent is necessary to restrain man from war on “every man”, quoting Englishman Thomas Hobbes.

Mansfield switches to Englishman John Locke for “to secure these rights” and adds, “While government secures rights, individuals exercise them; government does not impose a way of life on its citizens, but rather enables them to choose how to live”. Then he switches to the American Declaration of Independence to segue from Locke’s protection of property to “pursuit of Happiness”. Liberals escape “life imposed by rule”, using “a government that represents” rather than employs the rule of law. It takes care of bodies but not souls. (I favor persons rather than souls.)

Mansfield thinks the Constitution specifies “government that does not rule”. “Elections and free speech”, for example, prevent standardization of “the common good”. But liberalism cannot deny “the human desire to rule”, so it urges choice in privacy. But choice limits subsequent options, engaging “path dependence” and “stare decisis”. But privacy does no good when harm ensues, for example, with slavery, a global development that was imposed on America by England, other European countries, and African enterprise. In another example, privacy does not save the person who chooses to fly like a bird flies.

Formal choice often demands unintended choices. For example, the choice to civilize the rights of progeny to lifetime care by their parents led to marriage and legislation to support the family. When liberals chose to accommodate same-sex partners in marriage, support for children lessened. The right to marriage lessened support to natural families. With liberal progress, the end is no value in either choice or privacy. However, privacy can be preserved “within the family” that chooses, without civil determination or law.

Mansfield thinks only liberalism takes responsibility to the common good that is deprecated by progressives and ignored by conservatives. They are divided by free speech vs private property. Religious indifference fosters greed to scholars, who flourish more than necessary businessmen. But liberalism is weakened by the “principle of self-preservation”, which is “too selfish and too ignoble”. It may eventually reform to “sacrifice and devotion” or at least modesty. (Could Mansfield consider humility?)

Liberalism dislikes ruling, so considers the option to “accept defeat in an election”. The losing voters expressed “disharmony”. Liberalism yielded to democracy, not necessarily to Democrats. Aristotle held that parties are divided on “inclusiveness” vs contribution to the common good. Contrary to Mansfield’s insinuation, in capitalism, rewards accrue to the contributors. They earn their way of living and pay necessary city, county, state, and federal taxes. Thereby, they lift the opportunities to the common good. The people who demand their right to entitlement are in the conservatives’ inclusiveness. Thus, capitalism serves the whole of included individuals plus the contributors. Mansfield erroneously perceives the contributors feel slighted rather than accept the system and do the work.

Unfortunately, Mansfield presents liberalism as the problem-solver regarding an overblown American divide. He advises “radical progressives”, as partisans to liberalism, to constrain the will to impose on fellow-citizens. He invokes “honesty” when integrity is what people need. He advises conservatives to focus on positives rather than negatives, erroneously imposing “culture” rather than economic viability as the conservative’s goal. He erroneously reverses reality.

Represented by scholars as confused as Mansfield, liberalism has no chance to survive let alone thrive.

End of prb response

Copyright©2023 by Phillip R. Beaver. All rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.