December 22, 2002
MINIMA CARTA:
Republicans and Tories : A tale of two legacies: Why are the heirs of Ronald Reagan doing so much better than Margaret Thatcher's? (The Economist, Dec 19th 2002)[A]re the Tories really the odd one out? They are not the only rightish party to have fallen out of step with the Republicans. Canada's Conservative Party has imploded. Europe's centre-right parties are neither as vigorous nor as right-wing as the Republicans. The more you think about it, the clearer it seems that the Republicans are the exception.It is not just a matter of political success, but of philosophy. It is hard to think of any European party that would have pushed through a tax cut as large as Mr Bush's, that would have junked the Kyoto Protocol, that would campaign so fiercely for the right to bear arms and the death penalty, that would make such a moral crusade out of abortion, that would declare war on an “axis of evil”, that would support Israel so singlemindedly or that would openly smirk at the United Nations.
Leave aside pensions, (which the Tories are keener to privatise than Mr Bush is), and the Republican Party takes a more radical line on almost every issue than its peers anywhere else in the industrialised world. It is also anchored in a populist movement whose scale has no equivalent in Europe. [...]
[I]t is hard to imagine the Tories ever being able to copy the Republicans. It is hard to make morality a political issue in a secular country. [...]
The Republicans tend to pooh-pooh suggestions that the president is driving too hard to the right. They claim that trends are moving in their direction. They are the party of entrepreneurs rather than government employees, of growing suburbs rather than declining inner-cities, of limited government rather than top-down control, of the expanding south-west rather than the stagnant north-east. Look at their success in the mid-terms.
But the signs are not all so optimistic—as America's most futuristic state shows. Even set beside the Tories' conference in Bournemouth, the California Republican Convention, which took place 10 days earlier in Anaheim, was depressing. The party that spawned Mr Reagan and the tax-cutting movement used to have a lock on the governor's mansion in Sacramento. But this year, despite the blackouts and the Democratic incumbent's consequent unpopularity, the Republican challenger, Bill Simon, still lost by five points. [...]
The Republicans claim that California is an exception. But even in Colorado, Governor Owen, who coasted to re-election this year by 30 points, says that he takes the idea of “The Emerging Democratic Majority” (an interesting new book by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixeira) seriously. “What happened to the Tories and the California Republicans could happen to us if we are perceived to be intolerant,” he says.
That last seems to miss the point that when the Left has no conservative peers it turns places into Europe and California. But, more important, the story seems to miss the big point entirely: all politics is about morality and to the extent that British (and Californian and European) politics is premised on amorality (the absence of morality, of course, represents a moral decision) the society is doomed. Never mind the Tory Party, for the sake of the nation and the culture, British conservatives need to reintroduce a moral/religious component to public life and policy discussions.
Posted by Orrin Judd at December 22, 2002 3:47 PM
Naughty! Naughty! You have overgenerized. Australia is just as irreligious as Britain but not nearly as decadent. We ave had a strongly conservative government for years now and the major opposition party is almost as conservative. I know that Americans hate to believe it but you CAN have a civil and prosperous society without religion. Australia is the proof.
Posted by: John Ray at December 22, 2002 5:43 PMWe've been going strong for 220 years; Australia has been both independent and irreligious for less than a human life span.
Posted by: pj at December 22, 2002 6:24 PMSorry, didn't quite finish that thought. My wife's godmother is from Australia and the day after our wedding she said proudly, "I've been married 45 years. You've been married one day." Over time freedom is sure to be tested, as America's has been; but our trials have largely re-affirmed our faith in freedom -- e.g. the Civil War, which gave us emancipation, the 14th Amendment which completed the Constitution, and Lincoln's re-affirmation of American ideals. Through those trials, religious faith played a big part in supporting America's belief in freedom and giving people the faith and courage to fight, even die, for it.
Only time can tell if an irreligious nation can stand up to great trials. Freedom appears to be a fragile thing, it has rarely been won. Let us pray that Australia's freedom proves as strong and as lasting as America's. Our best wishes to the Aussies!
Australia's also in an interesting position because it's an outpost of Christendom--regardless of whether it's secularized or not--in an Asian sea.
Posted by: oj at December 22, 2002 7:56 PMHmm... I still don't think you have thought that one through.
Australia's traditions go back to King Alfred. We did not have the break with Britain that you did. Our head of State is still the Queen and much loved she still is by many Australians.
We just had a constitutional referendum in which two thirds of Australians voted to retain the monarchy.
And Australia's irreligiousness is no more or less recent than Britain's.
The true cause of Britain's decline is genetic. Most of the independent and enterprising Brits have emigrated to the daughter countries long ago.
Australia is mostly the product of that emigration. Only 3% of Australians have convict ancestry -- though I am one of the 3%
Best
Heard an interesting interview on the Todd Mundt show today. A survey of world happiness suggests that all of the Protestant countries--even the formerly Protestant--are happier than other nations, which suggests there are still some residual benefitrs being reaped, as in Australia. The question then is : how long will they last once a couple of irreligious generations move through the system.
http://wvs.isr.umich.edu/index.html
John Ray, you can't win this argument with PJ. If Australia is still free and prosperous in 100 years, PJ (or his ghost) will still chalk it up to the residual effects of Christianity. If not, then secularism will get the blame. Heads, Christianity wins; tails, Secularism loses.
Posted by: Robert D at December 23, 2002 5:10 PMJudging from the sample of Australians I had contact with in London, I'd be doubtful about the validity of the genetic argument.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at December 23, 2002 5:32 PMActually the Christianity argument is Orrin's, I just back him up so he won't feel lonely. Obviously Christianity helps at most slightly in improving average individual virtue, but I think that a slight edge in individuals can make a huge difference in the overall chance of success for the whole society.
Robert, I expect that the whole world will be free and prosperous in 100 years. And I wouldn't be surprised if most of the world is Christian as well. :-)
pj:
Has there ever been a nation that remained prosperous with a declining population?
In reply to:
"Judging from the sample of Australians I had contact with in London, I'd be doubtful about the validity of the genetic argument."
-M Ali Choudhury
I agree that Indians have to be more heavily selected to get to London than Australians do.
Amusedly,
Yes. The "residual" argument does seem unfalsifiable and therefore meaningless but in case evidence matters I should note that Australians have been a pretty unholy lot for 200 years.
Posted by: John Ray at December 23, 2002 10:47 PMAustralia: Anglican 26.1%, Roman Catholic 26%, other Christian 24.3%, non-Christian 11%, other 12.6%
Posted by: oj at December 24, 2002 8:18 AMJohn Ray: is unholiness incompatible with Christianness?
oj: in principle a declining population need not necessarily lead to a declining economy, but in combination with a welfare state & tax-paid pensions it surely does. But you have to connect the dots for me. Are you saying that abandoning Christianity leads to a declining population? Then why did atheist/Buddhist/Hindu states like China and India become so populous?
pj:
No, I believe they're separate but related issues. Population in the West has gone into decline in large part because of the State replacing the family and the decision that fetuses aren't human (leading to a situation where some nations now have more abortions than births per year). Both of these are functions of the decline of religion.
OJ, your explanation does not ring true, not for the US at least. Fertility rates in the US are declining, but the US is overwhelmingly religious, and in a period of religious resurgence.
Protestantism was probably the largest influence in beginning the downward pressure on family size in the west. By emphasizing the connection between material success and chosen-ness, it led to a strategy of investing more resources in the success of fewer children. This has just carried forward into modernity.
As far as Asian cultures, it is not a religious, but an economic consideration. In the western, Protestant worldview, children are an investment, a net cost to their parents which they do not expect to recoup. For modern Americans there is an economic disincentive to have large families. In traditional societies, (this would include Catholic cultures in Latin America) children are a net benefit, a profit center. Children go to work for the family at the earliest possible time, very little is invested. Children are also the "Social Security" plan, and are expected to take care of their parents.
Not believing in the Devil does not preclude one from believing in evil, no more so than not believing in Zeus precludes one from believing in lightning.
Posted by: Robert D at December 24, 2002 12:00 PMRobertD:
American fertility rates are actually rising again after a period of decline--one of the many ways in which we are unique even within the West.
You're right though about the economics, which is why we have to get government out of the lives of the elderly, so that they are dependent on their children again and the family becomes re-extended.
Of course most Australians when asked at census time do put down some religion. Note, however that in the last census we had over 1 million Methodists -- a denomination that does not exist any more here.
In other words, for the vast majority of Australians, Christianity is a token thing.
I intend to put up a big posting on my blog about this tonight;
">http://jonjayray.blogspot.com
And doesn't self-identification suggest that they still feel its influence?
Posted by: oj at December 25, 2002 10:00 PMOJ
You have to factor in the impact of immigrants to the fertility rate. Basically, we are importing our fertility from third workd countries. Once the new arrivals become "protestantied", meaning in their socio-economic outlook, not their religious affiliation, their children will probably take on the attitudes of existing Americans, and have less children.
Here
is another observation of the marginal place of Christianity in Australian life.