Conservative intellectual and commentator Yuval Levin discussed the current predicament of American society and conservative Americans in particular at the Heritage Foundation on June 9. Levin observed that American society today is “drowning … in frustration or anxiety … ours is a country that is deeply frustrated.” This is markedly different from the unparalleled peace and prosperity that might have been expected to reign supreme after the long, protracted Cold War of the twentieth century, from which America emerged as the lone superpower. This frustration has both a cultural and an economic side to it. “Cultural battles … have all been fought at a … fever pitch.” As for the economy, it “has been very sluggish” for most of 21st century; 2004 was the top year of this century with 3.8 percent growth, which itself was modest growth by late twentieth century standards. Additionally, the “worst terrorist attack in our history” occurred at the beginning of the century. Levin said that these “problems are real,” but the “way we talk about problems” is disconnected from reality.
Politics, he maintained, has become dominated by nostalgia, but people are nostalgic for different aspects of the past depending on their viewpoint. Conservatives yearn for the social conservatism that was universally accepted, if not universally practiced, at mid-twentieth century, while 2016 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders wants to recapture the economic collectivism that in some measure had been realized at mid-century, along with the leftist mission of achieving a fully collectivized society.
Levin then asked, “What has happened to our country?” Mid-twentieth century America was “exceptionally unified,” he said, with an “incredibly low degree of cultural diversity.” With the social revolution of the late 1960’s, the mid-century intellectual consensus broke up. The breakup of this consensus indeed has its positive side, Levin maintains. There are gains in individual freedom and personal options but “a loss of faith in institutions, a loss of social order.” Liberals mourn the economic liberalization that has happened since the 1960s, while conservatives mourn the social liberalization that has taken place since the 1960s. Individualism is the “common thread” to both developments, Levin said. Conformity was urged in the first half of the twentieth century. Since then, people have been pushed to become more like themselves. The “stable backdrop for liberalization is really what we miss,” Levin believes, but the nation cannot return to it, because liberalization has destroyed the stable backdrop. “When our politics is finally ready to face reality” we will use diversity and fragmentation to solve problems.
Levin sees the use of diversity and fragmentation as a conservative strategy. We need “bottom up” problem solving. Both modern post-industrial society and American federalism favor such a view, he maintains, and it dovetails with the Christian concept of “subsidiarity.” By contrast, social democracy means centralization. Fragmentation of society means problems for any attempt to build a moral majority. Instead, Levin holds that conservatives should endeavor to “build cohesive and attractive subcultures,” but to do so means religious liberty is needed. It might be noted, however, that we have had a Christian subculture in America for decades; the cultural left is now trying to destroy it with antidiscrimination law and policy. How cohesive or attractive the American Christian subculture was can be debated, but to develop a cohesive subculture especially requires religious liberty to discipline persons who belong to the subculture, and it is exactly this which is now under legal attack.
But in its favor Levin holds that bottom-up politics will lower tensions. It will draw people back into proper balance between the individual and society. First Amendment freedoms give room for moral development, Levin said. They certainly do not, in themselves, provide a basis for a unified and flourishing culture. The First Amendment freedoms are “thin;” ways of life, moral world views and the intermediate social institutions in society that mediate them are “thick,” Levin said. Levin conceded that these freedoms and mediating institutions are under threat, and his proposal for a decentralized revival of American culture depends on them. He therefore believes conservatives should fight “for a free society with a soul.” He believes that currently, the Left is “overreaching.” Universities in particular are “centers of intellectual oppression,” he said.
Our society is experiencing increasing intolerance with the decline of belief in absolute truth, Levin maintained. Nevertheless, the current challenge to traditional morality is not relativism, he suggested, but a competing moral code. Now we have to struggle against a “misguided moral code.” But he believes that acceptance of the ideal of objective morality is an improvement. Conservatives are nostalgic for a time that cannot return and would not enable us to prepare for the future. But to this writer, the second claim needs qualification; while we cannot return to the past, we should learn from the cultural devastation of the 1960s social revolution that its ideas of moral autonomy are toxic.
Economically, there cannot and should not be a return to the mid-twentieth century. There was a unique international demand for American goods after World War II, because other economies had been destroyed. Yet there must be consumers to buy American goods, Levin pointed out, and thus America naturally needed to develop the economies of competing nations. Return to post-World War II American economic dominance is neither possible nor desirable, he claimed. Levin said that the basic character of regulatory state is different now than at mid-twentieth century. Prices were set by the bureaucracy then. Now we have a “case by case” regulatory state, which is less concerned with general management, and more orientated to detail.
Levin noted that according to Alexis de Tocqueville, mediating institutions will be undone by central political powers, but also by excessive individualism. Individualism and centralization, while they seem to be polar opposites, in fact go together. The state has full responsibility to care for individuals, and then requires their undivided loyalty. A conservative solution to this concentration of power in the state is for “authority to flow through” mediating institutions. Levin described his position as that of a “conservative communitarian.” Not only smaller is government needed, but also the right kind of government, with modest objectives.
A questioner asked if the emphasis on localism in answer to the culture war is a “Stephen Douglas” position against Lincoln’s observation that the country cannot be divided on moral issues. Levin responded that society must develop from the family up through mediating institutions to an overall culture. Levin has also maintained that the expressive individualism of the cultural Left is incapable of developing a new culture, because it is too individualistic. Levin holds that he is offering a working out of Lincoln’s moral vision. The questions on which we “can’t just agree to disagree ultimately are anthropological questions, they are questions about what is the human person.” From this observation, it is evident that decentralized development gives a better chance for human nature to prevail against efforts to reengineer it. But again, it has to be noted that for social relations to develop based on divine and/or natural law, there must be religious freedom to prevent state interference in the name of equality. Appeal to conscience may be to some degree still effective in our society, but where it is not effective, Christians and other social conservatives must not conform to requirements that violate religious and moral standards.
In response to another question about how conservative millennials can engage in conversation in the wider society, Levin responded that conservatives should emphasize that they offer bottom-up solutions, with many “options and choices” for disillusioned, post-modern, and fragmented societies. The inability of the state to centrally manage day to day human life, currently exemplified in the shortcomings of health care reform, and faith in the traditional anthropology of human beings as creative image bearers of God, naturally oriented to the family, two sexes, religious communities and civic organizations, offers a way ahead for developing a virtuous and free society in the twenty-first century.
No comments yet
