Silence Dogood Wire

Even a cursory look at modern society reveals a distinct lack of cultural conservatism. Traditional moral norms once seen as essential are now viewed as impediments to individual self-expression. The stereotypical nuclear family no longer exists for many Americans. For example, as of 2010 every state legalized no-fault divorce. Relatedly, the CDC found that nearly 40 percent of children were born out of wedlock in 2022. Such a radical alteration in the body politic signals a similar shift in values. Thus, coupled with the decline of social conservatism is an absence of cultural conservation. Cities around the country make a habit of removing monuments of famous American heroes. In 2021, New York City removed a statue of Thomas Jefferson from city hall. Two years later, Revolutionary War hero Philip Schuyler met a similar fate in Albany. Sadly, many consider our historical inheritance a burden rather than a blessing. Our lack of cultural conservation is disturbing because culture is inherently conservative. Successive generations accumulate knowledge in order to distill enduring wisdom. Dissociating from the past leads to a disintegration rather than a renewal of culture. 

While the dislocation of family life and the removal of statues may seem to have little in common, they both serve a common purpose: liberating the individual. Discarding history frees us from the burdens of the past and erasing familial norms frees the individual will. By contrast, traditional mores restrain individual action and encourage gratitude towards those who make our lives possible. Thus, the rejuvenation of individual responsibility and American history both require the restoration of a traditional moral outlook. 

It is quite common for conservatives to remark on the necessity of a moral reawakening but their rhetoric is occasionally uninspired. It often contains prohibitions rather than affirmations. Hence the stereotype of the religious person as a boring teetotaler. While this generalization is unfair it points to the lack of success that has followed attempts to restore cultural norms. No one wants to give up a life of adventure for what is viewed as a dull existence. The image of the ascetic Chrsitian whom Edward Gibbon described as “embrace[ing] a life of misery, as the price of eternal happines[s]” probably comes to mind for many people. Thus, any rejuvenation of a Christian ethics requires a healthy dose of humanism. Proponents of  a God-given moral order must also affirm the capacity of individuals to effect change and attain a sense of meaning. 

At this point in our history, the study of Greek and Roman heroes is a necessary antidote to our moral malaise. Plutarch’s Parallel Lives are a great place to start. These short biographies examine the lives of Greek and Roman statesmen in pairs. At the beginning of his Life of Aemilius Paullus, Plutarch describes the ethical purpose of his work; “I treat the narratives as a kind of mirror and try to find a way to arrange my life and assimilate it to the virtues of my subjects.” Plutarch recognized that reading about great men is not only entertaining, it forces us to reflect on our own conduct. Moreover, Plutarch did not conduct his inquiry with the cynicism of the modern historian. Although his heroes were flawed, he claimed that their examples “equip me…to repel and keep at bay anything pernicious or malicious or contemptible my association which those I deal with may bring, because I calmly and composedly turn my thoughts away from such aspects towards exemplars of unparalleled worth.” Examples of human greatness encourage us to emulate virtue and illustrate the adventures associated with upright conduct. While the romance of Cleopatra and Antony is often romanticized, the reader of Plutarch recognizes that Antony’s lust was his least interesting trait. Only when he inspires his troops like a man does he command admiration.

Even Suetonius’ salacious biographies of the Caesars provide moral instruction to the attentive reader. His writings show that the unfettered desires of a prince can lead to incredibly dark places. On the positive side, however, the example of Augustus reinforces the value of studying history. After restoring the statues of great Romans he stated that “[t]his has been done to make my fellow citizens insist that both I (while I live) and the leaders of following ages shall not fall below the standard set by those great men of old.” Thus, both Plutarch the philosopher and Augustus the political leader recognized the need to study great actions. 

Rediscovering classical heroes helps imbue individuals with a sense that their lives have meaning. Plutarch’s vivid descriptions of moral virtue show that far from leading to boredom, personal restraint leads to adventure. His heroes changed the course of history through patriotic service and a willingness to accept the burdens of responsible citizenship. Thus, nearly two millennia later, they can still serve as a mirror for our souls.

Whether or not Donald Trump wins the 2024 election, he will undoubtedly be remembered for his major impact on the Republican Party. He broke with the establishment on issues ranging from tariffs to Middle East policy to the need for welfare reform. Moreover, his populist rhetoric is a far cry from the more polished manners of both George Bush Jr. and Sr, the two previous Republican presidents. For this reason many conservatives reacted with indignation when Trump was nominated in 2016. After all, what could a poorly spoken political outsider have to offer? The success of President Trump’s first term silenced many of these doubters. His tax cuts stimulated the economy and his aggressive instincts cowed our enemies. Moreover, despite questions about his social conservatism, he delivered a staunchly originalist Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade. All considered, even his critics were forced to admit that he succeeded.

Nevertheless, some still cling to the idea that Trump is a deep threat to our republic. He ruffled many powerful feathers and dashed the ambitions of well-connected people. Despite being supposedly “low energy,” Jeb Bush is still an important member of a powerful American family. President Trump’s insults probably factored into George Bush’s decision not to endorse a candidate in this election. The one time influential Congresswoman Liz Cheney also saw her political career go up in smoke in response to Donald Trump’s tirades. For better or worse, her vote to impeach President Trump and her work on the politicized January 6 committee angered Trump and his allies. Apparently it angered the voters too. She lost her 2022 House primary by a nearly 30 point margin. Now she is actively campaigning against Donald Trump in support of Kamala Harris.

When Cheney initially lost her seat much of the conservative intelligentsia lamented the fact that a courageous stateswoman had been railroaded by Donald Trump’s antics. Implicit in their critique was the idea that the voters had been fooled. Apparently, Cheney was a principled conservative, unwilling to bend to the whims of a deranged president. 

Cheney’s most recent actions reveal the falsehood of this view. Far from being a principled conservative, she is willing to sell out her ideals in a quest for revenge. Cheney recently endorsed Colin Allred in his race against Senator Ted Cruz. Before his senate run, Allred was a far left Congressman. His lifetime Heritage Action score is 2 percent, meaning that he almost never votes with conservatives. By contrast, Senator Cruz has a 92 percent score. In the past, Allred criticized President Trump’s immigration plans as “racist” and promised to tear down the border wall. Furthermore, in 2023 he voted no on the “Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act.” The Act was designed to prevent men from competing in girls’ sports. In short, Allred’s ideas are antithetical to everything Liz Cheney did in the past. 

Indeed, Cheney’s support of Allred demonstrates that she is not a staunch defender of conservatism. Rather, she is willing to sell-out all Republicans in pursuance of a personal vendetta. If she truly wanted to revitalize conservatism she would not attempt to replace Senator Cruz with a radical leftist. Ultimately, Cheney’s recent actions reveal an important truth: Wyoming’s voters were right.

Anyone who pays attention to politics can agree that the story of Kamala Harris is truly inspiring. Her family came from Kentucky, where she spent much of her childhood, and she grew up in a small town in Ohio. At an early age her father and mother separated, and she was legally adopted by her stepfather. She never had a stable father-figure, however, because her mother constantly contracted dysfunctional and abusive relationships. Indeed, Harris’ mother became abusive and addicted to drugs. Without the support of her Mamaw and Papaw, Harris might never have survived childhood. Nonetheless, she went on to join the Marines, graduated from Ohio State University in two years, and then attended Yale Law School. Despite her insular upbringing, she married an Indian man, thereby crossing cultural boundaries in a typically American fashion. Her story is an example of how hard work allows people from even the most dire circumstances to achieve the American dream.

J.D. Vance, by contrast, is a phony. He touts working-class credentials by pointing to his birth in Oakland, despite spending most of his time in Berkley. After all, his parents are two successful UC Berkley PhDs. Indeed, his father eventually became a professor at Stanford. Then, at the age of twelve, Vance and his mother moved to an affluent neighborhood in Montreal where he spent the rest of his adolescence. After returning to the United States, he graduated from Howard College and UC Hastings law school. As an ambitious young professional he got his start in government after starting an affair with a married woman named Willa Brown, a mover and shaker in California politics. Despite his laziness and incompetence, he continued to rise due to the patronage of his lover. Now, at the age of 60, he is seeking the presidency following his dismal performance as Vice President – a position he only got because he is a white man. While failing to stem the flow of illegal immigration, he also covered up the senility of his boss…

Oops! I wrote the first part of this essay after reading the New York Times and Washington Post. They all said Kamala had good vibes so I just assumed she was the poor kid from Appalachia. Maybe I should start thinking for myself.

A quote that is often falsely attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville says that “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” While the great Frenchman never made such a remark, it is certainly relevant to our current political situation. During the recent Vice Presidential Debate, for example, the moderators poked and prodded the candidates to see who could provide the American people with the most direct benefits. There was little talk of limited government or the fact that our national debt has surpassed thirty-five trillion dollars.

The quote is also insightful, because it points to a peculiar advantage that the left has gained in recent years. The modern political landscape allows them to engage in outright bribery. President Biden’s recent decision to cancel 4.5 billion dollars in student loan debt perfectly illustrates this dynamic. Less than a month before the election, he announced the cancellation of debt for 60,000 public service workers and used the occasion to brag that his administration had forgiven loans for more than 1 million Americans. He also ignored previous Supreme Court rulings that challenged his ability to unilaterally cancel debt without the approval of Congress. To put it mildly, President Biden’s decision to violate Constitutional norms while announcing his plans right before an election raises important questions about the ethical use of presidential power. 

Vice President Harris’ recent “plan for black men” is an even clearer example of using bribery to seek election. The VP claims that she will provide one million fully forgivable $20,000 loans to black men while helping them enter the new industry of legalized marijuana sales. In essence, Harris is telling black men that if they vote for her they will receive weed and cash. Apparently, she is also willing to revive racial discrimination to accomplish these goals. Unfortunately this is the level to which self-government has descended in this country.

In addition to its moral bankruptcy, another problem with the bribery method is that it benefits incumbents. President Joe Biden is able to deploy the resources of the federal government (i.e. the American taxpayer) to influence an election. By contrast, when a citizen uses their own money to support a candidate, they are threatened with potential legal action. This happened to Elon Musk, who just announced that he would randomly give $1 million every day until the election to a random person who signs his America PAC petition. NBC’s Kristen Welker indignantly reported the information to Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro who encouraged law enforcement to “look at” Elon Musk. Such indignation was not present when President Biden took other people’s money to support Kamala Harris.

Throughout American history, many politicians have used unsavory tactics to get elected. Whether they received campaign contributions from shady groups or packed unnecessary pork into spending bills, politicians have never been perfectly  moral creatures. This is the first time in our nation’s history, however, that bribery has been used so openly. Responsible Americans must reject this trend and demand that if politicians are going to spend money for votes, they must use their own.

J.D. Vance. Taken by Gage Skidmore from Surprise, AZ, United States of America, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

In a typical academic setting, debates must revolve around facts. We expect debaters to come prepared with evidence, logical statements, and well-reasoned conclusions. Anything else is unnecessary and distracting. Politics, by contrast, often requires more than straightforward argumentation. In a political setting, even the most compelling logic is typically unsuccessful if it is not accompanied by emotion. 

J.D. Vance clearly understood the emotional aspect of politics during his October 1 Vice Presidential debate with Tim Walz. While Vance clearly knew his facts and made compelling arguments, he also used emotional appeals to accomplish his objective. He put his rhetorical skills on full display in an exchange with Walz about abortion. 

After rebuffing the outlandish accusation that he and Trump want to set up a national pregnancy registry he said “And, you know, I grew up in a working class family in a neighborhood where I knew a lot of young women who had unplanned pregnancies and decided to terminate those pregnancies because they feel like they didn’t have any other options. And, you know, one of them is actually very dear to me. And I know she’s watching tonight, and I love you. And she told me something a couple years ago that she felt like if she hadn’t had that abortion, that it would have destroyed her life because she was in an abusive relationship. And I think that what I take from that, as a Republican who proudly wants to protect innocent life in this country, who proudly wants to protect the vulnerable is that my party, we’ve got to do so much better of a job at earning the American People’s trust back on this issue where they frankly just don’t trust us. And I think that’s one of the things that Donald Trump and I are endeavoring to do.”

While delivering these anecdotal remarks Vance became visibly emotional. He made clear that he cares deeply about the issue and understands the suffering of those who make such heart-wrenching decisions.

Some conservatives were disappointed that Vance seemed so apologetically pro-life. Indeed, his arguments were markedly less pro-life than those of Republican candidates in the past. His goal, however, was not to demonstrate his pro-life bona fides on stage. Rather, he was trying to win over a demographic that is typically hostile to the Trump camp: suburban women. In a close and short election season, this required the use of emotion.

The entire American population, including women, have been fed emotional left wing arguments about the necessity of abortion for decades. These arguments never seek to logically refute pro-life ideas but often point to exceptional cases or resort to name-calling. 

It is for this reason that Vance’s use of emotion was so effective. Rather than engaging with unreasonable people, he sought to counter them by using their own currency. This was effective because, even at an emotional level, the pro-life side is inherently more compelling. Encouraging women to carry their baby to term is much more noble than lauding abortion as a fundamental human right. As little as 30 years ago even Bill Clinton was forced to treat abortion as a necessary evil. 

Although it is irresponsible for politicians to rely solely on emotion, effective rhetoric is necessary in the political arena. Good ideas need to be backed up by pathos. Last week J.D. Vance put on a debate masterclass. He showed his listeners how one can avoid alienating undecided voters while refusing to concede certain principles. Although the election is still a month away Vance’s masterful use of emotion may be enough to put Trump over the finish line.

In modern parlance, when the word natural is used in connection with human beings it tends to refer to our automatic desires. It is natural, for example, for men to desire food, drink, and sex. In our permissive culture, acting on such desires is also considered natural. Eating too much is so natural that we must develop drugs to slim down and casual intercourse is so natural that abortion-on-demand is an indispensable right. Man appears to have been born to satiate his individual desires.

This low and pessimistic view of human nature was put on full display at the opening ceremony of the 2024 Summer Olympics. While mocking the Last Supper, a man painted in blue sang about the glories of nudity. Drag queens then strutted provocatively down a red carpet. The message of the performance was clear: the restraints that civilized society places upon us are unnatural. Only when we reject our civilization can we become our true and natural selves.

This sentiment is not new to the modern age, but has been echoed for centuries by men who would tear down society for their own fulfillment. In a scene from Joseph Addison’s popular 1713 play, Cato: A Tragedy, a general named Syphax tells Prince Juba that the Roman virtues he is attempting to emulate are unnatural:

What are these wondrous civilizing arts,

This Roman polish, and this smooth behaviour,

That render man thus tractable and tame?

Are they not only to disguise our passions,

To set our looks at variance with our thoughts,

To check the starts and sallies of the soul,

And break off all its commerce with the tongue;

In short, to change us into other creatures,

Than what our nature and the gods designed us?

According to Syphax, the mores and manners of society are nothing more than impediments to individual fulfillment. Man is not defined by his calm adherence to virtue but by the passions that rouse his soul. Such a view is common among many members of contemporary society. The entire sexual liberation movement argues that man is defined by his desires and any civilizing restraints are unnatural and oppressive.

In contrast to this low view of humanity is a more robust conception of human nature that was promoted by the philosophers of classical antiquity. According to such figures as Aristotle, man was not defined by his desires but by his use of reason. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle seeks out the meaning of happiness by looking into the natural function of man. Indeed, he asks his readers to ponder whether man is “naturally ‘without work’” or whether he has a natural goal (Trans. Bartlett and Collins). Aristotle concludes that mankind is unique in its possession of reason and thus we achieve the human good through “an activity of the soul in accord with virtue” (Trans. Bartlett and Collins). In other words, men achieve happiness by fulfilling their natural function which includes the exercise of reason and the practice of virtue. Thus, it is not only bad for a man to unthinkingly indulge in his passions, it is also unnatural. 

Aristotle’s view of nature provides a standard by which we can judge human actions. This idea was developed even more explicitly by Cicero who lauded the beauty of nature. When examining the laws he wrote that “We must clarify the nature of justice and that has to be deduced from the nature of man” (I.17 Trans. Rudd). In other words, moral injunctions can be determined by examining what a human being is. Cicero also agrees that reason is what makes mankind unique. Indeed, because men participate in reason, by nature, they can also discover laws that are grounded in nature. For Cicero, it is clear that “we are born for justice, and that what is just is based, not on opinion, but on nature” (I.28 Trans. Rudd). Nature is not merely the indulgence of spontaneous desires but the cultivation and perfection of reason. As Cicero continues in his influential work On Duties, “Nature and reason…have thought all the more that beauty, constancy, and orderliness ought to be preserved in decisions and deeds; and they caution lest anything is done improperly or effeminately, or in all opinions and deeds, lest anything is done or reflected upon lustfully” (I.14 Trans. Newton). Human nature guides man to truth, beauty, and goodness, rather than the fulfillment of subjective desires. 

The road to recovering a culture of sanity requires rediscovering this empowering view of human nature. Humans are born into a moral universe that can be discovered through an honest examination of our unique nature. The human experience points towards the naturalness of moral virtue and the unnaturalness of vicious conduct. Furthermore, an honest conception of human nature has important theological implications. If man is a rational creature designed for virtue, then perhaps the universe has a governing principle. If, however, man was born to fulfill his appetites, then the universe is as chaotic as his changing passions. Our entire culture rests on an honest answer to a simple question: what is human nature?

During the first half of the 19th century one of the most perceptive minds pondered the future of democracy. After visiting the United States and examining our political institutions, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote his two volume masterpiece; Democracy in America. The first deals primarily with the particularities of American government and culture. In it, Tocqueville demonstrates that America was profoundly influenced by the religious and democratic spirit of New England townships. The second volume, published five years later, includes Tocqueville’s more sober meditations on the possible fate of democracy. Although he was a supporter of the new regime, especially in America, he also pointed out the potential dangers that come from within democratic societies.  

One of the most striking concepts that Tocqueville developed is called “soft despotism.” In the democratic age, he observed the weakening of social and familial ties coupled with a tendency towards the centralization of state power. The simultaneous impulses to become both more individualistic and more reliant on bureaucracy would lead to a new form of social control in which the government attempted to care for all of society’s needs. This new despotism “would be more expansive and milder, and it would degrade men without tormenting them” (trans. Mansfield and Winthrop). Hence the term “soft.”

Whether or not we have reached the state that Tocqueville described, many indications of soft despotism could be listed. The government, for example, can regulate the amount of food you produce, even if it is only for your personal consumption. Additionally, from 1960 to 2019 the number of pages of federal regulation increased by over 100,000 touching numerous aspects of American life. Furthermore, Mark Zuckerberg, recently revealed that the Biden Administration pressured Meta into censoring content in the name of public safety. 

Indeed, if one surveys modern leftist thought, it appears their main goal is to bring about the nanny state that Tocqueville feared. California, for example, currently coerces retailers into promoting the left-wing narrative surrounding gender. Many want the government to influence every single aspect of an individual’s life. Although they might not intend to use the harsh methods of the Soviet gulag, their actions tend towards a greater centralization and expansion of the scope of government.

This tendency was recently put on full display when the surgeon general released a “General Advisory on the Mental Health and Well-Being of Parents.” No one doubts that parenting has always been a stressful endeavor. Literature from literally any period in human history that deals with parent-child dynamics will reveal this reality (along with many others). Despite this fact, no government in human history has ever concerned itself with the “mental health” of parents. There have been efforts to improve the economy, or other aspects of society that indirectly reduce stress, but caring about an individual mother’s stress has never been the concern of the government. 

In the past, this was reserved for people like grandparents, husbands (although maybe as likely to increase stress), friends, and the like. Perhaps this expansion in governmental concerns is a result of the decay in social relations and increase in isolation (which Tocqueville also warned about). After all, 43 percent of marriages end in divorce and nearly 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock. As responsible behavior declines, people rely on government to fill the gap and government is eager to grow.

Indeed, one can see the nanny state emerge in the campaign of Vice President Kamala Harris. Aside from her actual policies (which are ambiguous) her campaign has all the features that signal a penchant for paternalism. She is presented as the candidate of “joy” and is fond of telling voters how her step-children refer to her as “Mamala.” Anyone who is moderately well-socialized probably wouldn’t fall for such nonsense. People with strong friends groups and intact families don’t need “joy” or “Mamala.” They need a competent leader who can deliver effective policies. 

In order to avoid the soft-despotism that Tocqueville warned about, there must be a two-pronged approach. In addition to reducing the scope of government, individuals must also take the necessary steps to support the lives they want to lead. Social bonds need to be reawakened in order to promote a fulfilling life that the government can never deliver. It is for this reason that proponents of limited government cannot exist without the help of social conservatives who promote family values. This was recognized by the great 20th century intellectual, Frank Meyer, who promoted Fusionsims; the idea that conservatives must promote both liberty and virtue. His efforts at National Review helped unify various strands of the conservative movement, culminating in the election of Ronald Reagan eight years after his death. In a 1981 speech, Reagan touched upon the profound influence of Meyer who “reminded us that the robust individualism of the American experience was part of the deeper current of Western learning and culture.” The future success of America depends upon reawakening the wisdom of men like Tocqueville who understood that freedom depends on culture just as much as it depends upon political institutions.

Erik Drost, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

When surveying the modern political landscape one thing stands out: the unreasonableness of so many opinions. One can find mainstream figures who believe that men can become women, Hamas protests are totally acceptable, and it is fascist to ban pornographic books in public school libraries. Indeed, the modern leftist attitude is one of skepticism towards our ability to know right from wrong and truth from falsehood. To tell a person that right and wrong exist is to deny their lived experience and foist one’s own conception of the world upon them. Hence the new phrase “my truth.” We must keep an open mind to all perspectives because they are all equally valid. Proponents of this view would do well to follow the advice of G.K. Chesterton: “Do not be so open-minded that your brain falls out.”

Unfortunately, the problem of open-mindedness leading to perverse viewpoints has also infected certain segments of the right. Whereas the left displays skepticism towards our ability to understand objective moral rules, many conservatives have adopted an abiding suspicion of “official” narratives. The regime in power is viewed as being so corrupt that one must be skeptical of everything. Thus, popular commentators like Tucker Carlson frequently claim that they are merely asking questions in order to find the truth. While there is certainly nothing wrong with asking questions, one must do so with a firm moral compass beforehand. If one asks questions without a prior set of values then they will be unable to interpret the answers they receive.

Indeed, this spirit of uncritical open-mindedness was put on full display in a recent interview between Darryl Cooper and Tucker Carlson. Cooper, who hosts a so-called history podcast, attempted to rewrite the history of WWII with Churchill as a villain on par with Hitler. Cooper told Carlson that in order to provoke his podcast partner he “told him that I think — and maybe I’m being a little hyperbolic, maybe — but I told him, maybe trying to provoke him a little bit, that I thought Churchill was the chief villain of the Second World War.” He then portrayed the Nazi death camps as unfortunate accidents that were the result of improper logistics. Despite (or perhaps because of) all this, Carlson called Cooper “the best and most honest popular historian in the United States.”

In light of his other statements, Carlson’s willingness to entertain such absurd and immoral ideas is likely a result of his profound skepticism. For example, he recently said that “the fact that these lunatics have used the Churchill myth to bring our country closer to nuclear war than at any moment in history disgusts me.” Apparently he came to the conclusion that because government officials say Churchill is good, he must be bad. Such fallacious reasoning is the mark of an uncritical skeptic who has allowed his brain to fall out and is a prime example of how unbounded skepticism destroys reasoning. Skepticism does not produce affirmative belief and leaves one defenseless against the depredations of the unjust.

The only people who are fit to relentlessly question the regime and the “official” narrative are those who have a deep and abiding moral sense. Without this, the questioner cannot filter out the true from the false and the good from the bad. Skepticism must never be the driving force behind any intellectual movement. Skepticism towards moral truths led the left to embrace moral relativism. On the right, a mere skepticism of the “official” narrative will lead to similarly dark places.

Upon even a cursory glance it is clear that we live in an exceedingly tolerant society. People are free to speak their minds, vote for third-party candidates, and pursue their own unique view of happiness. Indeed, we are heirs to a classically liberal tradition stretching back to John Locke that emphasizes individual rights over unjust state intervention.

This political philosophy produced tremendous benefits, including the prevention of tyranny and the flourishing of a free-market economy that lifted millions of people out of poverty. Liberalism, properly speaking, has been a force for great social good over the last few centuries. It kept politics immune from the theological disputes that wreaked havoc on pre-liberal societies and allowed people to live without fear of tyrannical coercion. Indeed, one could say that we have a politics of tolerance. Two people can have wildly different opinions and they must be tolerated nonetheless.

As liberal societies emerged, however, morality was not similarly tolerant. While people were legally free to say what they wished, it was clear to many that there is a right thing to say and a wrong thing to say, regardless of whether or not such speech is permitted. This attitude was largely informed by a Christian and classical worldview which held that there is an eternal moral law that governs individual and state actions. Children were not blank slates who could manipulate themselves into their own self-creation, but moral agents who needed to be tutored in correct action.

Unfortunately, as religiosity and philosophical literacy have declined the idea of tolerance has also seeped into the realm of morality. To criticize someone’s lifestyle is tantamount to denying their personhood. To tell a child that they cannot choose their own gender is to engage in harmful bigotry that forces some states to intervene.

In our day, moral discourse is almost nonexistent. The only time that moral statements are made is when someone tells another person “Don’t be judgemental!” The fundamental fact about morality, however, is that it is judgemental. Moral rules tell us that there is a right way to live and a wrong way to live. In order to determine what was moral, the Greek philosopher Aristotle examined the natural function of man. He found that because man has reason, it was good for him to perform rational actions in accordance with virtue. To stray from this demand was not to pursue an alternative lifestyle but to violate certain moral principles. 

The recognition of these moral principles is not just important for individuals it is also necessary for the common good. If citizens are not virtuous enough to rule themselves, then how can they rule the commonwealth? A passage from the Federalist is worth quoting at length:

 As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust, so there are other qualities in human nature which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be, that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self-government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another. 

To be a self-governing citizen requires the virtues that have been handed down by our classical and Christian tradition. When tolerant liberal politics becomes tolerant liberal morality it corrodes the social order and paradoxically destroys liberal politics. 

Individual morality allows people to live justly and teaches citizens the correct uses of state power. Liberalism has had many political benefits but it is not a sufficient moral doctrine. In order to return to a saner politics we must recover classical and Christian virtues that inform individual life and reinforce the political order.