Why Carson and Trump Aren’t Fading Away

It looks as if the Republicans are stuck with the strange truth that, now more than ever, their leading candidates are Ben Carson and Donald Trump.

The perception of the members of a key focus group was that Carson is “wise” and a “gentleman.” He might be more immune than Jeb to the Trump allegation that he’s “low energy.” While he did seem nervously lacking in assertiveness during the first two debates, his tone is inspirational on the stump and at times on the talk shows. He excels at quietly but firmly articulating American exceptionalism as a mixture of economic liberty and Biblical faith. For better and worse, Ben Carson isn’t much like Jeb Bush.

Now Carson isn’t wise in the sense of being a philosopher or a public policy wonk. He can’t even be credited with the Socratic insight that he knows that he knows nothing in such areas as foreign policy and taxation and regulation.

His wisdom would seem to be in knowing how to live, having his priorities straight, loving God, country, and family, and in having had the confidence and determination to have achieved a deeply impressive record of personal accomplishment. And he’s sold a significant part of the electorate  on his claim that there are ways of life better than the life of politics, and that he’s seeking the presidency out of duty, not personal ambition. He might also be called wise in the sense of knowing himself well enough to stay in character and stick with his authentic convictions, even when they are imprudent and/or misinformed.

And there’s no denying Carson has conducted himself as a gentleman throughout his career; he’s been humble and generous, and he now genuinely believes it’s his time to be magnanimous.

I could go on to list a dozen reasons why Carson’s real ignorance and lack of relevant experience disqualify him from serious consideration for the presidency. He’s surely less prepared to be President than any other candidate of either party (including Trump). But that doesn’t mean his campaign lacks passion or purpose. It certainly has an almost uncanny while not uncalculated capacity to resonate with the longings of a growing number of Republican voters. For now, we have to agree with Henry Olsen that Carson knows what he is doing.

(Well, one more thing, if there were a separate ballot for First Spouse, I might well vote for Candy Carson.)

Let me say one more time that the only way the Republicans can stop Carson (and Trump) is to actually learn from why these political beginners are doing so well.

The wise lady Julie Ponzi has tried to explain to her Facebook audience that the key to their success isn’t their “outsider status.” They both “very clearly (through different modes of expression) love their country.”

An oversimplified way of looking at the situation would be to call Trump the candidate of the Republican blue-collar voters and Carson the candidate of the evangelical Christians. To oversimplify even more: Those who identify with those two groups vote Republican not mainly because they have confidence in a pro-growth agenda that cuts taxes and deregulates for the benefit of “job creators.” Neither is it that they, as Ilya Somin assumes, suffer from ignorance concerning economic issues (for example the counterproductivity of the minimum wage, or the effects of loosening or tightening immigration policies).

They certainly love the American idea of liberty. When they think of liberty, however, they don’t think first of the autonomous individual, defined as the worker, the producer, or the consumer. They think more in terms of the republican freedom of citizens and the equal freedom that all creatures have under God. They also think of themselves as gratefully bound by their loving responsibilities as husbands and wives, parents and children.

Trump and Carson (again, in their particular ways) think in terms of the American nation. That doesn’t mean they’re nationalistic in some fascist sense, although they might seem so to those cosmopolitan enough to believe that citizenship is just another form of rent-seeking. I’m saying this not to endorse their schemes on immigration—as G. K. Chesterton so astutely observed, the American “romance of the citizen” is about a nation that can be “a home for the homeless,” for displaced people from everywhere. Rather, these candidates deserve credit for hitting, or at least getting near, the singularly American theme: that ours is the nation, as the British philosopher Roger Scruton reminds us, that most effectively provides a home for the protection of rights, through law but also through civic habituation.

And I’m grateful to the proud and loving new parent John McGinnis for reminding us that even a country devoted to the rights of free individuals needs children. People can’t live well or perform even the minimal duties of citizenship that every country requires without a loving limit to individual self-interest or utility maximization or preference satisfaction. Of course, simply to have a future as a people or a species, we need children, and it’s not clear how a society could remain technologically innovative if it ages beyond a certain point. (Well, if the Singularity kicks in—if we simply free ourselves from biological necessity—all bets are off. But most Americans are far too sensible to go in for transhumanism. And certainly no wise lady or gentleman would do so.)

But I do have to note that John, in making his case to a libertarian audience, seems to put things backwards. Economic and political freedom—libertarian means—are, in the view of most Republicans, there for the pursuit of non-libertarian ends. They are the means by which we pursue our relational joys and responsibilities that make life worth living. They can’t be reduced to mere preferences. Libertarian means (which I mostly embrace) have to be understood by free and relational persons as conducing to, and dedicated to, non-libertarian ends.

I actually agree with George Will and others who say that part of the soul of the Republican Party is to favor policies that promote economic growth, with the confidence (which becomes misguided only when it turns into a kind of dogmatic overconfidence) that most Americans’ lives will likely be more prosperous and secure as a result. But there has to be more to the American Republican Party if it is to prevail, or to deserve to prevail, at the ballot box.

So the other, more politically experienced GOP candidates need to learn more than a little something, although far from everything, from the unexpectedly enduring appeal of Carson and Trump.

Peter Augustine Lawler

Peter Lawler is Dana Professor of Government and former chair of the department of Government and International Studies at Berry College. Lawler served on President Bush's Council on Bioethics from 2004-09. He writes at National Review Online's Postmodern Conservative blog.

About the Author

Recent Popular Posts

Related Posts

Comments

  1. Kevin R. Hardwick says

    Peter–

    As always, you write from deep erudition , and I profit from reading your thoughts. Here, you offer a comment that I do not fully understand, and while I suspect that unpacking it would require more time than you have to give it, perhaps you can offer sufficient guidance to point me in the right direction.

    You write: “He might also be called wise in the sense of knowing himself well enough to stay in character and stick with his authentic convictions, even when they are imprudent and/or misinformed.”

    That juxtaposition strikes me, on its face, to be paradoxical, since it implies that an imprudent man can be wise, and likewise that one facet of the state of being wise may be to be uninformed. I see the case forward for the second part more clearly than the first. I have tended to associate wisdom with that habituated disposition that hews to the via media, and imprudence with excess or preference for extremes. In that sense, to be wise is to be prudent.

    So clearly I am off base somewhere!

    Many thanks, in advance,
    Kevin

    • Kevin R. Hardwick says

      Peter–

      I am disappointed! I was looking forward to having you push my thoughts in a completely unexpected direction . . .

      Its often the case, at least for me, that I learn most from unexpected juxtapositions . . .

      Its a great essay–I hope my comment did not detract.

      Well wishes,
      Kevin

  2. gabe says

    Peter:

    Why is the pursuit of the “relational joys and responsibilities that make life worth living” non-libertarian?

    It does not appear to me that such pursuits are in any way counter to a libertarian sensibility. Clearly one could argue that such pursuits may not make economic sense – but so what? Is it not my liberty to pursue / cherish and hopefully foster relational joy – or must I consult my checkbook? Do not my choices in these pursuits evidence liberty?

    In a sense these comments tie into Mr. Lynch’s essay above wherein he distinguishes between libertarian concern for economic liberty and the personal liberty and belief (myth?) systems of individual citizens. To my mind, they are both libertarian – means AND ends?

    Or am I just being my usual slow-witted self here?

    gabe

  3. libertarian jerry says

    People should stop putting faith in politicians. It seem that every 4 years the American electorate are yearning for a savior to ride in on a white horse and slay the dragons of government incompetence and somehow make “The System” work. First of all the real power in America is the “Deep State” which owns and controls most of the wealth in America. Most of our Presidents,over the last several decades,were hand picked to do the bidding of the power elites. In essence, making most of our politicians,bureaucrats and judges bought and payed for puppets. In the end,Americans have lost their Republic and instead substituted a mobocracy democracy which then morphed into a fascist system. There is really only one political party and that party is a vulture with 2 wings. The only way to reform the system,short of a 1776 style revolution,is to dismantle the welfare/warfare state plus what enables that state to exist. Abolish the Income Tax and the IRS,abolish the Federal Reserve and its endless inflation using fiat currency and fiat credit,repeal the legal tender laws,close down all the bureaucratic functions that have usurped the Constitution’s original intent plus end all of the unconstitutional wars. Until these and other reforms are put into effect nothing will change. Please don’t hold your breath for the above reforms to happen. Be happy with what you have. Sometimes its good to be sheep on a tax farm,especially if you get to vote for your shepherd.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>