Postliberal Conservatism and Inequality (EQ1)
An Introductory Survey
As I have stated elsewhere, equality is a defining feature of liberal political philosophy. Thinkers as diverse as John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Benjamin Constant, and John Rawls have all made equality of some sort central to their theories. (If, because you’re an idiot, you want your son to be a political philosopher, I guess name him John.) Equality is also a cherished ideal in America—and for good reason. Equality before the law protects people from violence and oppression. Equality of opportunity gives people the chance to succeed. Certain types of equality respect the dignity arising from the common nature that all humans share.
At the same time, equality arguably fails as the guiding principle of a regime. The French Revolution was founded on “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” They had too much equality and too little fraternity, and as a consequence oscillated between unbridled license and horrifying repression—before succumbing to Napoleon Bonaparte’s Caesarist absolutism. In the same way, communist revolutionaries, no matter how sincere, inevitably lead to a cadre of elite “party leaders” ruling over a mass of impoverished “comrades” tasked with burying the corpses of their unlucky brethren.
Postliberal conservativism, then, will need to address its relationship to equality and hierarchy. The end result will have a different cast than classical political philosophy. By building upon centuries moral thought, it is truly “post”-liberal. The classical thinkers were characterized by an openness to citizens playing different roles and enjoying different levels of power. Unfortunately, they also tended to devalue people “on the bottom” by assuming that, for instance, slaves or women were less than fully human or lacked dignity. Presenting a compelling postliberal vision for politics requires accommodating equal human dignity without discarding the idea that everybody doesn’t have to have equal duties or privileges. Republican liberty requires a judicious mix of equality and inequality.
Random Thoughts on Equality for Postliberal Conservatives
In this introductory post, I want to make several broad theses regarding equality, leaving it to future posts to provide them a deeper philosophical grounding.
1. We should pursue human flourishing rather than equality.
Equality should not be the primary goal of political action. The primary goods are things like life, birthing and educating children, performing meaningful work, friendship, knowledge, and religion. While high levels of inequality can hinder many of these goods, equality is neither necessary nor sufficient to enable human flourishing.
Too often, progressives treat inequality as the primary goal of political action. So much activism and anger are expended fighting “privileges” or “power,” some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t. But the fight for equality can obscure larger questions about the good life. I wonder what would happen if the dog caught the car. What would progressives do if we suddenly achieved equality right now? Do they have a substantive vision for human flourishing, or would the newly “liberated” people simply engage in more hedonism and consumerism?
As a corollary, when it comes to “welfare” or poverty relief, conservatives should focus on helping people achieve sufficiency rather than on establishing equality of outcome. People need a certain amount of material possessions to have financial stability, mental peace, and enough leisure to think about something other than surviving. But equality is not necessary for people to live well, and thus it should not be the primary aim of public policies. To cite just one potential application, policies focused on cultivating virtues of character or employable skills are better than policies that simply redistribute money, even if many people abuse or neglect the former and thus remain in poverty.
2. Some inequality is justified because it serves the common good.
Inequalities do not necessarily result from oppression or privilege. Sometimes they are random or arise from personal choices. Nor do just societies necessarily need to correct for inequalities resulting from differential intelligence, skill, or luck. These inequalities are hardwired into the world by divine design for a reason, and as such, ought to be embraced and channeled toward the good of society. You may wonder how inequalities serve the common good, but that’s beyond our scope here.
3. Inequalities are not justified with reference to individual rights.
If inequalities, as I stated, result from divine design and are ordered to the good of society, then the special privileges or advantages that people have are not their birthright. Some conservatives assert a rights-based model in which inequalities of wealth derive from an absolute right to control oneself or one’s labor. This kind of thinking is out of step with postliberal thought. While we do not need to correct all inequalities (and indeed could not if we tried), neither should we treat inequality, especially of wealth, as untouchable because touching them would violate individual rights. Rather, postliberal view rights as derivative of duties, and thereby circumscribed by the common good. Inequality should only be allowed if and when it advances human flourishing.
4. Large inequalities of wealth or power ought to be avoided.
One of the ways in which inequality can harm the public good is by giving the powerful opportunities to exercise tyranny. A key theme in political philosophy is that inequalities of wealth or power threaten republican politics. In ancient Republican Rome, the obscene wealth of early conquests was captured by a few elites, leading to the breakdown of the republic as men like Caesar and Pompey overshadowed the rest of the senatorial class. The medieval nobility obstructed the rise of republican politics in the early modern period. And in our day, postliberals ought to be concerned with the rise of “Big Tech” and the influence of billionaires like George Soros or Elon Musk on our politics. The fact that social media companies are controlled by progressives, for instance, harms our public discourse and leads to potentially life-threatening misinformation (such as the idea that the vaccines were basically harmless and necessary to combat COVID-19). Also, I think postliberals should pay more attention to issues like campaign financing than “old-school” conservatives have done. Republics cannot function when a favored few control what people hear and what politicians do.
As a corollary, the creation of a large middle class serves the public good by producing harmony and stability. Stark differences between rich and poor tend to produce hostility on the part of the latter towards the former. Poverty also obstructs the ability of people to pursue higher goods such as knowledge, virtue, or godliness, inasmuch as poor people necessarily devote themselves more to providing for their physical needs. (Many rich people live lazy and hedonistic lives instead of pursuing higher goods, but they aren’t forced to do so. That’s a different problem.)
5. There are many kinds of equality, and they do not always move together.
Equality can mean many different things: equal resources, equal abilities, equal power, equal civil rights, equal value or worth, and more. It is a tendency of progressivism to assume that all kinds of equality must move together. In other words, if people are equal in worth or dignity, then they must be equal in money or power as well. Or, put another way, they believe we cannot tell whether people (or groups, because identity politics likes groups) are valued equally by “society” until we see “tangible” signs of equality such as money or power.
Postliberalism rejects this view. Aristotle says that justice is giving equal things to equal people and unequal things to unequal people. To the extent that a particular trait is relevant to a legitimate public process, then those who have more of that trait deserve to be treated “better” (i.e. with more access or honor or influence) than people who have less of that trait. Equality in one respect does not imply equality in all respects.
6. We must preserve equality of worth and dignity among humans.
Principles 6 and 7 extend and apply principle 5. Principle 6 states that it is crucial that postliberals retain the modern conception of equal human dignity in the face of attempts to mark out some humans are more worthy than others. The modern conception of equal dignity is Christian, and many of the forces on the Right that are trying to undo this conception are neo-Pagan. Bronze Age Pervert, for instance, articulates a neo-Nietzschean philosophy that champions the dominance of the naturally superior or stronger over the “yeastlife” of the “bugmen.” While such people rightly reject the listless equality of progressivism, which diminishes achievement and seeks to lower human excellence, they go too far in the other direction. For many of the dissident Right—as for the ancients—some people are just better than others in their core, and our social institutions should reflect that inequality.
In my view, this kind of inegalitarianism is neither true nor wise. Christians have always believed that all human possess the “image of God,” even if we don’t know exactly what that is. On a spiritual level, then, all humans are loved by God and can be saved. Even the Christian slaveowners in the antebellum South (reluctantly) admitted this much about their African slaves—although they never let it affect their external conduct towards them. It should be an axiom of postliberal politics that inequalities of intelligence or skill do not negate this inherent worth.
This position should lead to a focus on both the “common man” and on people with special skills. We should attempt to cultivate the conditions under which all people can maximally flourish. This task might involve giving basic resources to those who cannot provide for themselves, or curbing vices (such as pornography or gambling) that hinder people from achieving higher goods. But it will also entail giving highly intelligent or skilled people the platform and training they need to excel. In the name of equality, the Left wants to eliminate programs for “gifted” students along with public recognition for special ability, such as valedictorian status. In the past, some conservatives have ignored those at the bottom. Postliberal conservatism should avoid both of those dangers in the name of our common humanity.
7. Equality of dignity does not imply an equality of function.
Another application of the principle that there are different kinds of equality is the idea that inequality of function or power does not contradict the principle of equal human dignity. It often argued—or, more often, simply assumed—by progressives that all asymmetries of power are unjust and tyrannical. Progressives are way of bosses’ authority over their employees, of teachers’ authority over students, of husbands’ authority over wives, and even of parents’ authority over children. They want to “democratize” everything from politics to education to family life to the market.
Here I don’t have time to discuss or to justify specific modes of authority. But I will say that conservatives ought to insist that equality of dignity does not entail equality of function. In a group or organism, different parts can play different roles, and each role is valuable in its own way. Some things are simply different and cannot be judged on the same scale (I think this is especially true of men and women). Postliberals should favor complementarity over parity. Complementarity respects diversity more than parity, since it allows for variegated differences within a unified whole. Of course, some roles will be more honorable or more visible than others, and many people will be dissatisfied with their lot in life. But dissatisfaction stemming from inequality or difference does not necessarily mean that an unjustified inequality is present. Remember, inequalities are justified if they serve the common good.
8. Power differentials typically should be rewarded by honor.
Differences in social station are inevitable and even good. Yet this does not mean that money should be the primary way to distinguish people of different stations. I hope to do a post about Thomas Aquinas’ view of what “reward” a good king should receive. Ultimately, he argues that only the reward of spiritual blessedness is suitable, rather than money or honor. That’s probably to “high” for most earthly rulers, most of whom will not be very spiritual. But the main reward of people in high positions should be honor given to them for doing their job well. They don’t necessarily need to be fabulously wealthy or enjoy special social privileges. For this reason, nothing prevents postliberal conservatives from attacking inequalities of wealth which serve no public purpose and undermine republican government.
Planned Topics for Posts
The following is a list of possible/planned topics for posts about equality:
Aristotle, Politics, 1.3-8, on hierarchical differences in function.
John Winthrop, A Model of Christian Charity, on the benefits of diversity and inequality.
The Apostle Paul on inequality in the Body of Christ.
Johannes Althusius on how inequality can be beneficial.
A series of posts applying these insights to male/female equality.
Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship, on equality.
Thomas Aquinas, On Kingship, on the proper reward for those in high position.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, on the negative effects of pursuing equality.
Of course, I will surely add more topics later.
Conclusion
The postliberal vision indicated above differs from progressivism, classical liberalism, and pre-liberal classical republicanism. In general, it is more sympathetic to inequalities than progressivism, less sympathetic to certain kinds of inequalities (i.e. wealth) than classical liberalism, and more insistent on certain kinds of equalities than classical republicanism. The eight principles articulated above can be fleshed out to provide a consistent and attractive framework for adjudicating claims of inequality today.