Capitalist Self-Seeking or Christian Self-Denial?
“FREEDOM OR VIRTUE?”— REVISITED
Recently, I was asked by this magazine to elaborate on a short letter I wrote to National Review (May 15, 1981) on the subject of Mr. George Gilder. I had indicted Gilder, a prominent advocate of unmitigated capitalism, for being something less than Christian: the policies he was promoting would “discourage a conscious effort to achieve the common good — or social justice”; they would “sacramentalize self-interest, even greed.” Moreover, Gilder was making “war against the development of virtue as the goal of the public life.” To the contrary, I suggested, “Christianity’s first rules of social, as well as interior, conduct are self-denial and sacrifice.” It seemed to me that Gilder’s views revealed the difficulty for Catholics — for Christians — of subscribing to conservative economic principles.
Anyhow, I agreed to explore that difficulty further in these pages. Some time went by before a car journey took me from Massachusetts to New Jersey along the New York thruway. I said a rosary en route — with one decade dedicated specifically to seeking the Virgin Mary’s help in figuring out how to begin this article. While that decade was being said, the car zipped by a road sign, signaling the village of “Woodstock,” N.Y., the home in years past of Frank Meyer, my deceased friend and colleague on National Review. Meyer, I then instantly remembered, had been my foe over 20 years before in an exchange which bore directly on the Gilder letter. I had initiated the exchange in an article called “Freedom or Virtue?” (National Review, Sept. 11, 1962), and it now seemed logical, after that signal, that I should summon that article as an introduction to current Catholic reflections on conservative economics.
“Freedom or Virtue?” was written in the summer of 1962. I hoped it would have a formative role in the burgeoning conservative movement then pointing to the presidential candidacy of Barry Goldwater in 1964. I argued, in fine, that the first responsibility of a political order is to help men be good, not to help them be free. I said that the “freedom first” or “libertarian” version of conservatism ignored the truth that “moral freedom is beyond the reach of politics” — that the choice between virtue and sin can be made equally well in civil freedom, in prison, or behind the Iron Curtain. We “traditionalist” conservatives, I went on, would not hesitate to restrict freedom where the restriction would be an inducement to virtue and would nurture the good Christian life. I was beginning to suspect then (as I affirm now) that the first purpose of politics — of the public life, that is, as well as of the interior life — is to help men get into Heaven.
I also had occasion in that article to comment on the newly born Young Americans for Freedom’s founding Statement regarding economics: “‘the market economy [the YAFers announced] is the single economic system compatible with the requirements of personal freedom’ — which means, since personal freedom is the end-all, that the market economy itself, in the words of the Statement’s preamble, is an ‘eternal truth.’” I dissented from this position, asserting that both the free market and the satisfaction of man’s material wants are subordinate to virtue. I said that economic systems, as well as political systems, should be arranged so as to make virtue easier.
Enjoyed reading this?
READ MORE! GET A FREE 7 DAY TRIALSUBSCRIBE TODAY
You May Also Enjoy
The “crisis of modernity” remains unresolved by a “sham conservatism” that merely sanctions the unbridled pursuit of worldly success.
The question remains for us, how do we obey the precept, the commandment to share our superfluous goods with the poor?
Socrates asks, What do you think would happen to a capitalist nation if everyone practiced the greedlessness of Jesus, or Buddha, or even Thoreau?