In an elegant and erudite speech (see here and here) at Washington University on December 4, 2012, the conservative columnist George Will, in speaking about America’s political philosophy, said this:
And these [natural] rights are the foundation of limited government – government defined by the limited goal of securing those rights so that individuals may flourish in their free and responsible exercise of those rights.
A government thus limited is not in the business of imposing its opinions about what happiness or excellence the citizens should choose to pursue. Having such opinions is the business of other institutions – private and voluntary ones, especially religious ones – that supply the conditions for liberty.
Will went on to postulate this:
A nation such as ours, steeped in and shaped by Biblical religion, cannot comfortably accommodate a politics that takes its bearings from the proposition that human nature is a malleable product of social forces, and that improving human nature, perhaps unto perfection, is a proper purpose of politics… Biblical religion should be wary of the consequences of government untethered from the limiting purpose of securing natural rights.
A conservative, equally elegant and erudite, offered quite a different understanding of things:
A purpose of politics is to facilitate, as much as is prudent, the existence of worthy passions and the achievement of worthy aims. It is to help persons want what they ought to want. Politics should share one purpose with religion: the steady emancipation of the individual through the education of his passion.
This conservative went on to say this:
we need a public philosophy that can rectify the current imbalance between the political order’s meticulous concern for material well-being and its fastidious withdrawal from concern for the inner lives and moral character of citizens… we must rethink today’s constricted notion of the legitimate uses of law.
And this:
The institutions that once were most directly responsible for tempering individualism – family, church, voluntary associations, town governments – with collective concerns have come to seem more peripheral. Using government discriminatingly but energetically to strengthen these institutions is part of the natural program of conservatives… If conservatives do not want to use government power in behalf of their values, why do they waste their time running for office? Have they no value other than hostility to government? … National character is a real thing, molded in part by law and politics, and it is not made of marble.
The conservative who said these words was also George Will. He wrote them in 1983, in a book titled Statecraft As Soulcraft: What Government Does.
My point in juxtaposing George Will then v. George Will now is not to be critical of him. In fact, I admire Will. His writings, especially Statecraft As Soulcraft, had a significant shaping influence on me and on several of my closest friends and colleagues. And the fact that Will’s views have changed over the years may reflect well, not poorly, on him, demonstrating a mind that is open to a new interpretation of things.
What I do hope is that before too long, Mr. Will does what I don’t think he has done, which is to help us understand his journey from what he called “strong government conservatism” to a much more libertarian view of things.
I will admit that my own intellectual sympathies are more with the early Will than the current one. Over the years our laws–on civil rights, drug use, smoking, crime and incarceration, welfare, marriage, abortion, religious liberty, genocide, apartheid, the size of government, and much else–have helped shape the dispositions and habits of the polity. “Much legislation is moral legislation because it conditions the action and the thought of the nation in broad and important spheres in life,” Will wrote 30 years ago. He argued that desegregation explicitly and successfully changed individuals’ moral beliefs by compelling them to change their behavior. “The theory was that if government compelled people to eat and work and study and play together, government would improve the inner lives of those people.” Perhaps a new book or speech by Will, on why statecraft should not be soulcraft, will cause me to reexamine things.
But whether it would or not, I hope Will–one of modern conservatism’s most significant and exceptional conservative writers and thinkers–directly addresses his intellectual evolution. I for one would be fascinated to know why Will today holds views philosophically at odds with Will circa 1983. And I imagine others would as well.
I will hazard to guess that the cause of George Will's evolution is the same as any who have a strong ideological outlook: Reality. Ideals only go so far and when they meet with reality, all sorts of things happen. Ideally, using the power of government to shape people lives to fit the ideology makes a lot of sense. Unfortunately, the reality is that other people who don't share that ideology can get a hold of those same government institutions. Obama and the democrats are a good example. Those of us who identify as libertarian have been saying this for years: While we nominally agree with conservative ideology, we disagree on methods, namely government power since progressives also use that method. To give conservatives power to shape our lives is to give progressives that same power. (I tell democrats the same thing: Obamacare gives a future republican HHS secretary power to determine the rules of healthcare). n nYou can still be in favor of conservative ideology, but in practice the libertarian approach (methodology) might be the best way to achieve it. Its a tough road: conservatives need to strengthen non-government institutions (churches, family, civil government, and broader cultural forces such as hollywood) before picking apart the federal behemoth.
Well written and well argued; However, I'm skeptical. Will has vacillated too much over the years and his current opinions, while laudable, are similar to others he expressed in the past and subsequently veered away from. nI agree that he has a sharp mind and an excellent grasp of the issues but he seems challenged when it comes to forming a coherent consistent philosophy. nAt the risk of snarkiness – perhaps too much time in the company of Ms Roberts and Mr Donaldson created way too much mental static.
One other (perhaps related) point on Will: he has become somewhat more isolationist. This is, perhaps, in step with his trend towards libertarianism as you note. (You can't expect government to do much right – including make war.) nOn the other hand, as a series of columns in the summer of 2010 showed, Will's move towards less foreign policy engagement didn't lead him – as did others – to turning into an anti-Israel zealot. His commitment to Israel is as strong now as it was 30 years ago.
Maybe the reason for his evolution is like most people's towards libertarianism? Active invasive government is GREAT when the people in power share your opinions, but not so hot when they don't. So you finally come to the conclusion that perhaps the best government is one that doesn't push anything at all and just leaves everyone alone.
Vacillation is not necessarily a bad thing. Ideology is often mugged by reality. This is true on the right as well as on the left.
Oh really!? Swaying indecisively from one opinion to another in a circular firing squad fashion does not seem likely to engender much confidence from the targeted audience. nIn Mr Wills case the "ideology… mugged by reality" hasn't seemed to make a lasting impression as he often ignores Santayana's admonition and returns several years later to the same once rejected concepts only to abandon them again later.
Maybe one of the reasons Mr. Will's opinion has changed is the fact that government today is much different than government in 1983. It is much more intrusive, much bigger in size, much bigger in scope. That is perhaps the reason. Also in 1983 there was a strong current that was fighting to reduce government even further. Those were the Reagan days. Nowadays we are still looking for the Reagan of the moment.
Has he really changed? For –make no mistake– 'statecraft is still soulcraft', willy-nilly. Unfortunately, the state's (or the governing class's) innate tendency to over-reach, means that its power is becoming more deformative, since it increasingly works to undermine those institutions that conservatives might otherwise (as Will suggested) employ government to undergird. Now, many in government –notably our deeply ideological President– would supplant the horizontal relationships that unite individuals into natural or voluntary communities, with vertical relationships that bind atomized individuals to the State. It is clients the governing class wants, and it is clients the governed are being persuaded to become. For they would rather have bread and circuses; welfare and cellphones; than than the responsibilities of free men.
Will was reacting to an early sign of the overbearing state with his remark in 1983 about how other institutions seemed more "peripheral." He was testifying to the maxim that as the state grows stronger, religion weakens. n nThat process has continued. George Will saw the symptom in 1983, but prescribed the poison as the cure; today he sees the sickness correctly and prescribes a purgative. n nWake up, Peter.