Monday, November 7, 2011
Anderson on conservatives and social justice
Ryan Anderson, criticizing a new book by Peter Wehner and Arthur Brooks, calls out conservatives for not paying more sustained attention to the articulation of sound principles of social justice in a capitalist system. An excerpt:
When the godfather of neoconservatism, Irving Kristol, wrote Two Cheers for Capitalism, he intentionally held back from giving it a resounding three cheers. He knew there were downsides, and that conservatives had to be honest about these in order to address them adequately. But the conservative message about capitalism today glosses over these facts, proposes no principles of justice, and fails to engage—let alone persuade—our fellow citizens who worry about our economic order. Conservatives writing in defense of democratic capitalism need to spend less energy fighting off communism, and more energy developing a conservative vision of social justice, painting a picture of what a better capitalism could look like. If conservatives don’t, the only alternatives will be coming from the Left. And that would be an injustice.
https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/11/anderson-on-conservatives-and-social-justice.html
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the
comment feed
for this post.
I read an excellent discussion of social justice and its origins in the journal "Modern Age", which articulates, though not completely, an alternative vision to the Left. An excerpt:
"Taparelli's aim, however, to which neo- Thomism was meant to contribute, was to develop a conservative and specifically Catholic theory of society that would be an alternative to the liberal and laissezfaire theories of Locke and Adam Smith. In 1833 he was transferred to Palermo and remained there for sixteen years, during which he wrote his principal work in five volumes, Saggio teoretico di dritto naturale appoggiato sul fatto (A Theoretical Treatise on Natural Law Resting on Fact). The phrase "sul fatto" gives perhaps the most distinctive feature of his approach. The Lockean idea that political authority arises out of some kind of contract is absurd, he argues, for such a thing has never actually happened. The facts of history are that the right to govern has been obtained through the "natural superiority" of the ruler and of the ruling class: through their superior valor, knowledge, and wealth. This is the actual system created by divine providence. Whoever brings order into a society has the right to rule it. By "order" I take him to mean peace and the day-to-day administration of justice."
http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=1760