American conservatism often tends toward a Pharisaical kind of morality. As the late Christopher Lasch once noted:
"Conservatives stress the importance of religion, but their religion is the familiar American blend of flag waving and personal morality. It centers on the trivial issues of swearing, neatness, gambling, sportsmanship, sexual hygiene, and school prayers. Adherents of the new religious right correctly reject the separation of politics and religion, but they bring no spiritual insights to politics."Lasch's point about American conservatism lacking spiritual insight is especially important. I have seen very few articles coming from prominent conservatives on the subject of the morality of the Iraq War, asking whether we, as a nation, should be engaging in soul-searching over the fact that we fought a major war that led to tens of thousands of deaths, all over fabrications regarding non-existent weapons of mass destruction and a non-existent alliance between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
But we do get plenty of Bill Bennett and others writing about the bad habits of the unemployed and underemployed. Even if you agree with Bennett, it is obvious that the bad behavior of the poor is given a great deal of attention while the sins of businessmen, politicians, and generals are either ignored or excused by appeal to "reasons of state" or "the requirements of the market." I am all for having a debate about morality and public policy, but let us be fair about it and include the high and mighty along with the lowly and weak.
Thanks for the link, John! Interesting read.
ReplyDeleteI think one point that goes overlooked here is that it is impossible (if one is being intellectually honest) to attribute the economic plight of the working class to these kinds of moral or intellectual 'flaws' (though people have been saying so since Jean Chauvin). The rates of divorce and births out of wedlock for poor people were indeed once nearly at parity with those in the wealthier strata of society - and that took a turn for the worse at the beginning of the 1980's. The causal relationship has to be posited going in the other direction, if one wants to make it in the first place at all!
Also, Mr Urie's comment about virtue being contextual is a very valid one. Making categorical declamations about the character of a person on their employment or marital status would be sloppy moral thinking that Plato and Aristotle would abhor - one must always consider the intended and actual ends and motivations of an action, not just its commission or its consequences.
Looking forward to reading more from you!
All the best,
Matt
Hi Matthew,
ReplyDeleteGreat points. There are so many flaws in Murray's thesis I am not sure where to begin. For example, his use of cultural arguments alongside genetic ones (poor people misbehave because they are genetically inferior) is problematic.
If Murray really thinks that there is a biological divide between the wealthy and the poor and this explains their different behavior patterns, I cannot see how more scolding from the better sort will fix things.
At the end of the day, Murray and others like him are just utilizing the same tired arguments from the bad old days of classical liberalism.