I’ve always believed that what I’ve been trying to convey has been building on the ideas that Reagan, Goldwater, Gingrich, Sowell and others have discussed over the last few decades—mine are not original ideas. Meanwhile, I’ve listened in order to hear if there are others who are embracing these ideas at this moment. Recently, I was heartened when I heard Senator Rubio’s speech at the Reagan Library in which he discussed these concepts; and, a few weeks ago, I ran across a gem of a new book entitled Responsibility Reborn, published by Denali Press.
In that book, John Andrews, who served as President of the Colorado State Senate and as a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, and who now teaches at the university level, provides a strong argument that what makes America unique is its foundation built on qualities derived from individual responsibility: “… self-assertion to defend our liberties against intrusive government; self-restraint to control our baser impulses; self-reliance to survive and thrive in freedom; and civic knowledge to participate wisely in democracy.” He provides a strong argument about the need to restore our commitment to, and exercise of these qualities in order to preserve the uniqueness of our society for our children, and then provides a list of ten steps to help in this process. It is a great and quick read for anyone who is seeking a ideas about how we will address society’s needs if we conservatives successfully re-limit government. His ten steps are consistent with what we will be addressing through Renewing the American Community.
In fact, I agree with at least 98{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of what Andrews has written—right down to the phrasing he uses. As I read the book, I felt I had been talking with him in my living room about the ideas I’ve been writing about on this website. Moreover, I found Andrews to be a kindred spirit in another way—his view of individual freedom and responsibility is informed by his Christian faith, and his understanding of the faith that influenced our Settlers and Founders who established our unique society and government.
However, that 2{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of disagreement is real, and I want to discuss that now—because, though our disagreement is subtle and small, it highlights what I believe to be the source for a real chasm within current conservative thought and politics.
My disagreement with Andrews arises from his view about the primacy of responsibility among the values needed for our society to continue to be unique and thrive. Andrews believes that the duties that comprise individual responsibility are primary to freedom in the hierarchy of values. In support of this view, he cites C.S. Lewis (who I believe is one of the great thinkers of the 20th Century) to argue that man was not born to be free, but was born to adore and obey. I respectfully disagree—since the Crucifixion, man has been born free, but challenged to adore and obey God and serve our neighbors.
Let me digress for just a moment to discuss the word “responsibility”. It first appeared in the English language when Madison wrote about it in the newspaper opinion columns that became The Federalist Papers. In Federalist 63, Madison writes,
I add, as a sixth defect [of the current government under the Articles of Confederation], the want, in some important cases, of a due responsibility in the government to the people, …. …Responsibility, in order to be reasonable, must be limited to the objects within the power of the responsible party, and in order to be effectual, must relate to operations of that power, of which a ready and proper judgment can be formed by the constituents. …It is sufficiently difficult, at any rate, to preserve a personal responsibility in the members of a numerous body [i.e., the House of Representatives], for such acts of the body as have an immediate, detached, and palpable operation on its constituents.
In Federalist 70, Hamilton then uses the term in a discussion of the Executive branch (and continues to discuss it in Federalist 77 and 79):
But one of the weightiest objections to a plurality in the executive, and which lies as much against the last as the first plan is that it tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility.
In modern usage, the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language defines “responsibility” as follows:
1.The state, quality, or fact of being responsible. 2.Something for which one is responsible: a duty, obligation, or burden.
In the context of these definitions, what I believe Andrews is discussing in his book, and what I have been addressing in my posts, is the need to re-establish individual or personal responsibility for specific objects with which we have a relationship—our families, our neighbors, our communities, and our country—those objects that are within our power to reasonably and effectively impact through our daily actions. Then, we both focus on the duties, obligations, and burdens comprising that responsibility, and the character traits needed to develop and nourish that responsibility. As for the latter two points, I think both Andrews and I would both agree with the following statements, the first by Adam Smith in his The Theory of Moral Sentiment:
Nature … has endowed him [man], not only with a desire of being approved of, but with a desire of being what ought to be approved of; or of being what he himself approves of in other men…. The second [desire] was necessary in order to inspire him with the real love of virtue, and with the real abhorrence of vice.
and the second from the Virginia Declaration of Rights of June, 1776, written by George Mason and James Madison:
… no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. …and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.
With all of this agreement with Andrews, I do not agree with him that individual responsibility pre-exists, or is primary to, freedom. Instead, they are symbiotic. Responsibility is the flip-side of freedom, and the ability to exercise liberty can’t long exist without both. You are born free, but with a duty to be responsible—as St. Paul says in Galatians: “Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, …. … For you brethren, have been called to liberty; only do not use liberty as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.” If you don’t choose to be responsible, freedom on earth eventually will be impaired, even though our birthright from God to be free still exists. Responsibility doesn’t pre-date or precede freedom in importance; responsibility must coexist with freedom through our daily choices.
Though this seems like a subtle difference with Andrews, I think it may explain a major reason why there are priority differences when it comes to public policy between conservatives and those who only, or primarily, see themselves as either “social” conservatives or libertarians. If you believe responsibility is a higher value than freedom, you will prioritize and try to shape policies differently than if you see them as of equal value and priority, or if you see freedom as a superior value to responsibility.
I believe American conservative must view freedom and responsibility as co-equal values that must coexist in equilibrium for a society of free people to endure. Responsibility without freedom creates a subservience of one man to another, and we were freed from that subservience by the Crucifixion—our only subservience is to God. Our Settlers established communities based on that freedom from subservience to men, and our Founders created a government to protect that freedom. However, freedom without responsibility destroys the ability to form and sustain the relationships necessary for a society to exist, and creates a vacuum that other men will fill to impose society—and subservience—on the individual. You must have both for our unique society to endure—one is not more or less important to the exercise of liberty than the other.
I agree completely with Andrews that for America’s unique society to continue we must restore and promote individual responsibility, along with the character traits and moral actions need to meet that responsibility. But our goal must be to restore the proper balance to liberty, not to create another form of society that is subservient to man.