Right Virtues

The Atlantic is a subscription-only site now, as far as I can tell, and so it's been a while since I've read anything there. Realizing that, I went to the bookstore to pick up a physical copy of the January issue, so I could see what they were up to (other than those stories they released as podcasts) these days.

On page 18 was a column by David Brooks: Bring Back the Neocons. I suspected I knew what I was going to find, but I still like Mr. Brooks' writing, so I dove in.

According to Mr. Brooks, the second lesson of neoconservatisim is: "The most important values in a democratic society are the pedestrian bourgeois virtues. Aristocratic societies may do better at inspiring heroism, genius, love of honor. But democratic societies rely on showing up on time, working hard, being there for your neighbor, listening with curiosity, respecting traditions." Okay, let's say for a moment that I buy into that. My question for Mr. Brooks (and a variation on the question I nearly always have for Mr. Brooks) became: If democratic societies rely on these "pedestrian bourgeois virtues," why aren't they worth rewarding?

Many cultural commentators seem to be allergic to economics, if for no other reason than economics says that it's not enough to simply make something into some sort of moral imperative. If you want more of something, pay for it. I know I've said this before, but I find it bears repeating: If people are no longer doing something that one finds it's important for people to be doing, ask: "why." People stopped "showing up on time, working hard, being there for your neighbor, listening with curiosity [and] respecting traditions," because those things stopped being reliable ways to take care of oneself and one's family. For the person for whom showing up on time and working hard simply made them a chump, or the person for whom listening with curiosity simply made them confused, or the person for whom respecting traditions simply lead to a feeling of going through empty motions, it makes sense for them to find other ways to interact with the world.

The end of a widespread embrace of "the common bourgeois virtues: hard work, thrift, self-reliance, self-discipline, respect for tradition, and an intense focus on education," can be laid at the feet of one or both of two factors: they didn't pay off, and people could get by without them. Accordingly, bringing them back isn't simply going to be a matter of telling people that they're in a moral and spiritual crisis, and so they need to rededicate themselves to the values of the same people who brought us the Iraq War. They're going to have to be clear and direct solutions to people's problems. And in modern society, they aren't.

Mr. Brooks notes that Donald Trump "is a genius at cultural warfare." I'm not sure I agree with that, if for no other reason than it doesn't take a genius to go to people who are hurting and resentful and saying to them "if you allow me to mistreat the people who you feel are responsible for your problems, I will fix your problems." It's not like that's some sort of political innovation. It's a well-worn playbook by this point.

Mr. Brooks relates that the neconservatives were the children of immigrants who escaped poverty by apply themselves to the "common bourgeois virtues." But many, many, more people than the parents of Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz and Jeane Kirkpatrick were industrious and traditional, and many of their children watched them fail. Virtue by itself has never been enough; if a society isn't ready, willing or able to reward people for the virtues it claims to honor, people will gravitate towards the ones that honor is shown.