NO "SENTIMENTS", NO "WEALTH":

[I] believe that fusionism is a phenomenon that illustrates a deeper and more fundamental connection between social conservatism and economic liberty. To better understand this connection, let us consider the relationship between Edmund Burke and Adam Smith.

Reconsidering Burke and Smith

There is extensive literature on both Burke and Smith and upon the relationship between the two. Without reviewing it all, I should simply note that the view that Burke and Smith's conceptions of political economy are complementary has a long pedigree. It goes all the way back, in fact, to Adam Smith himself, who said (according to Burke) that after first conversing "on subjects of political economy" that Burke was "the only man, who, without communication, thought on these topics exactly as he did." Burke's biographer, Robert Bissett, who passes along this oft-repeated quotation, also observes that Burke talked in very high terms of Dr. Adam Smith; praised the clearness and depth of his understanding, his profound and extensive learning, and the vast accession that had accrued to British literature and philosophy from these exertions; and described his heart as being equally good with his head, and his manners as peculiarly pleasing.

As William Clyde Dunn puts it, "The views which Smith and Burke each held with regard to the other's field of major interest show a close ideological relationship between the two. There is much of Burkian politics in Adam Smith." Burke, in fact, briefly reviewed Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments quite favorably in print. He calls Smith's treatise "one of the most beautiful fabrics of moral theory, that has perhaps ever appeared." Burke also corresponded privately to Smith in 1759, again praising the work: "I am not only pleased with the ingenuity of your Theory; I am convinced of its solidity and Truth." In Burke's view, a special virtue of Smith's theory was its grounding in timeless truth about the human person. "A theory like yours founded on the Nature of man, which is always the same, will last, when those that are founded on his opinions, which are always changing, will and must be forgotten," says Burke.

Though he praised the work highly, Burke reserved judgment on some of the particulars of Smith's project in The Wealth of Nations, preferring to see how particular policy proposals and application of prudential judgments might play out in relation to timeless and objective truths about reality and human society. In Burke, we see this connection to the past, to tradition, to culture, and to religion as a source and foundation for moral virtue.

Burke and Smith did not hold identical religious views, nor did they agree upon all details of political economy. Still, there is a broad coherence and complementarity between their perspectives about the relationship between virtue and social order. Keeping Burke and Smith in conversation can help us to hold on to tradition while still being open to dynamism. It can help us to respect religion, make right use of reason, and hold together both freedom and virtue.

In succeeding generations, there was a close connection between religion--Christianity in particular--and classical political economy. As Paul Heyne put it, "Protestant clergymen played a prominent part in the early teaching of economics in the United States, especially prior to the Civil War, and their doctrines generally lauded the productive as well as the moral virtues of the American economy." This connection between clergy and classical political economy was evident not only in the United States, but also overseas.

The Future of Fusionism

While not advocating a simplistic return to a bygone age of "clerical laissez-faire," as Heyne calls it, I do advocate a return to the moral foundations of the free economy represented by Burke and Smith. In particular, reconnecting virtue and liberty can help us sort out the contemporary challenges of nationalism and internationalism.

We need a proper balance between nationalism and internationalism, or what has been called cosmopolitanism. Burke can help us realize that we are all rooted in particular places and among a particular people, whether defined by creed, ethnicity, or culture. We cannot cease to be a member of a political society any more than we can cease to be a member of a family or a member of the human race, and it is the challenge presented by much contemporary populism that we must properly order and orient these different aspects of our individual identities.

Much contemporary economics proceeds as if the economic argument, whether it is on an issue like the minimum wage or free trade or welfare transfers, ought to be the end of the discussion. If the cost-benefit analysis comes out in favor of a particular policy, then that policy should be enacted. Yet, even if there is an economic consensus on a particular question, that should not be the end but rather the beginning of the policy discussion. Advocates of the liberal order and of the connection between freedom and virtue must work to put the political back into political economy. Lord Acton said it well: "Political economy cannot be supreme arbiter in politics. Else you might defend slavery where it is economically sound and reject it where the economic argument applies against it."

A corollary of this correction to the dynamic dichotomy between nationalism and internationalism is the proper valuation of the "middle things," those institutions and realities that lie between the individual and the collective, and especially the state, as an expression of identity. We can think here of Burke's "little platoons," or Tocqueville's observations about civil society and voluntary associations. It isn't of course only strictly voluntary associations that mediate between the individual and the state, though. There are families, which we are naturally born into or at least become part of independent of an act of rational willing on our parts. There are churches, which, depending on the ecclesiology, we are born into or at least nurtured in before the age of consent. Even our earthly citizenship defies a "voluntary association" identification, as we are all born a citizen of some nation or some political order. All of these things are real and have consequences and meaning for people and cannot simply be elided into a dichotomy of individual and state. For the most part, these "middle things" are where life is lived and given its meaning, where we are formed and express our virtues and our vices.

Tweet   @brothersjudd