Val-cons and Lib-cons

Jonathan Rauch's piece on Santorum being the Anti-Goldwater is quite perceptive. I'm not sure whether I agree that conclusion, but I think he points to the growing divide between libertarian conservatives and traditional values conservatives. I think most of the latter share libertarian belief in freedom and distrust of government, but they also see that absolute freedom, especially when overseen by the Supreme Court, has the potential to destroy society.

My conservatism is based on the Book of Mormon. King Mosiah, at the end of his reign, and his sons having renounced the throne, recommended that the people adopt a government of judges and laws appointed by the "voice of the people." He recounted the advantages of having a moral monarch, but the disadvantages of having a wicked one. He then made this observation, "[I]t is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the cpeople to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people." Then he warned, "And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land."

A society is like an organism. It can be healthy or decrepit, depending on the kind of values it encourages and whether it produces citizens who are responsible, loyal, and wise, or at least educated. It grows and produces prosperity, culture and provides for the protection not only of the populace, but also for the transmission of sound principles to its young. As Mosiah noted, a republic will provide a just society in that when the majority makes correct, wise and moral choices, the society will be healthy. If, however, they choose iniquity, the society will decline and may eventually collapse. Of course, the ballots do not allow us to vote for "righteousness" or "iniquity." We have to make those judgments wisely.

That, as I see it, is the concern of values conservatives (val-cons), to provide freedom, with specific rights guaranteed, subject to the things requisite to a healthy society. Libertarian conservatives (lib-cons) place the highest value on the liberty of the individual. They trust that freedom of choice in every sphere will maximize the happiness and health of the society. I'm not sure that Goldwater and Reagan could be pigeon-holed according to these definitions. But as I have said before, I think that this distinction will become a fault line, with lib-cons voting with liberals on such things as abortion rights and with the val-cons on matters such as the Second Amendment and national defense.