Rants & Reasons

Victor David Hansen gives us a peak into the soul of conservatism:

When radical leaders over the last 2,500 years have sought to enforce equality of results, their prescriptions were usually predictable: redistribution of property; cancellation of debts; incentives to bring out the vote and increase political participation among the poor; stigmatizing of the wealthy, whether through the extreme measure of ostracism or the more mundane forced liturgies; use of the court system to even the playing field by targeting the more prominent citizens; radical growth in government and government employment; the use of state employees as defenders of the egalitarian faith; bread-and-circus entitlements; inflation of the currency and greater national debt to lessen the power of accumulated capital; and radical sloganeering about reactionary enemies of the new state.

After all is said and done, this is what rankles conservatives—the idea that the advantages of the rich will be curtailed. Charges of socialism today or the hyperbolic diatribes against communism in the past have always been about the deep angst conservatives feel at the prospect of any redistribution of wealth.

As Ed Kilgore writes:

Social Security is redistributive. Medicare is redistributive. Public education is redistributive. Public investments in highways, bridges, dams, and other infrastructure are most definitely redistributive. The land reforms that accompanied the rise of every society, dating back to feudalism, are inherently and overtly redistributive. Even defense spending is redistributive, insofar as the benefits of national security are rarely captured by current taxpayers.

Beyond government and politics, it’s not only “socialists” who have embraced “redistributive” thinking. The Hebrew lawgivers and prophets; Jesus Christ; Mohammad–all were blatant redistributionists. All denied that wealth or status was invariably the product of productivity and virtue, and rejected the idea that redistribution was theft.

The real dilemma for conservatism is that at its heart it is a rejection of hundreds of years of tradition in Western Civilization that seeks to make life better for ordinary people.  Conservatism, as articulated by its intellectual forbears, is supposed to be about conserving traditions, maintaining the continuity of life, and providing people with stable expectations. But to rail against redistribution is to advocate the radical upheaval of much of modern life and the understanding that ordinary, middle-class life can be meaningful and prosperous.

Ed Kilgore again:

…the rage against Barack Obama is really just displaced rage at democracy; at the mild forms of collective social action embraced by most Americans during the last century; at the longstanding policy positions of both major political parties; and at many of the very people they are calling upon to kill Obama’s agenda–including Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries, people with government-protected mortgages, farm-price-support recipients, military veterans, and public employees tout court.