He was opposed in his efforts to make the purchase by Federalists, who, while
they appreciated the expansion of federal power (being Federalists and all),
didn’t like so much money going to a sworn enemy of the English, whom they
liked. So the Federalists made a big stink about Jefferson’s lack of
philosophical consistency, as they themselves showed that they lacked any
philosophical consistency by opposing an expansion of federal power, which,
philosophically, they supported.
Had Jefferson been a stickler for his philosophy, American history would have
taken a dramatically different course. Instead of a sprawling and vibrant
democracy powered by Manifest Destiny in the 19th and 20th
centuries, the United States would have been hemmed in by European powers
France, Spain and Great Britain, where it would have become at best a
second-rate power.
It is important to have philosophic principles in public policy. But as Everett
Dirksen, the illustrious Illinois senator, once said, “I am a man of fixed and
unbending principles, the first of which is to be flexible at all times.”
I thought of all this as I saw Rand Paul grapple with what should be an easy
question about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To be philosophically consistent,
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 presents a challenge. As an abiding principle,
having the government dictate private activity is problematic, especially if
you are a libertarian.
That may all be true in a perfectly philosophical, ideological world, but in
the real world, it makes no sense. Of course the Civil Right Act of 1964 was
the correct course of action. Allowing private businesses, like restaurants,
motels and grocery stores, to discriminate on the basis of race was morally
wrong, and stopping that discrimination required action by the federal
government, because of the widespread racial policies that were enacted in most
Southern states throughout the first half of the 20th century.
Paul bungled the question because his ideological outlook clouded his moral and
political judgment.
That is a common mistake by rookie politicians.
They rely on their ideology rather than their instincts to make judgments about
public policy matters, and they get caught up defending arguments that are
absurd on their face.
Conservative thinkers used to be anti-ideological. They used to understand that
ideology is the antithesis of common sense. They used to believe instinctively
that tradition, experience, character and virtues like temperance, humility,
diligence, charity, patience and thrift would help lead people to make the
right conclusions about public policy.
Ideology came from the far left, in the form of Marxism and then communism, and
from the far right, in the form of rabid nationalism, fascism and racism.
True conservatives, like Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley, building on the
intellectual foundations established by Edmund Burke, distrusted foolish
ideology.
Conservatives today should similarly reject conservative ideologues who put
theory first and leave common sense on the cutting-room floor.
Reductio ad absurdum is a form of
argument in which following implications to their absurd conclusion disproves a
proposition. Both libertarianism and socialism, as ideologies, are vulnerable
to this form of argument, as Rachel Maddow schooled Rand Paul on earlier this
week. Common-sense conservatism, by definition, is invulnerable to this form of
argument, because it explicitly rejects the absurd as a matter of course.
Conservatives are better off when they embrace common sense and reject a
slavish devotion to ideology, no matter how compelling it might be.
Visit www.thefeeherytheory.com.