THE rIGHT IS THE lEFT:

The New Right emphasizes the rejection of rationalism, and embraces human nature. But it prefers not to leave the exercise of discretion up to the self-interested individual and rather wishes to empower surrogates to act on behalf of the masses in pursuing the common good. It rejects the mode of societal decision-making that Sowell argues characterizes the constrained vision - that is, the emergent and unplanned direction that comes out of the chaotic interactions of millions of individuals who do not consciously seek to further the common good, but seek rather their own good. 

This is most clearly seen in judicial philosophy. Common Good Constitutionalism is the New Right's legal theory, which rejects strict adherence to text and tradition as 'value neutral' or 'positivist.' Instead, judges are to call upon their own understanding of morality when making decisions. And yet, according to Sowell, this is not a constrained approach to interpreting the law. Rather, the "black letter law" of William Blackstone, in which judges apply the law instead of sitting above it, is the approach of those who believe in the fallibility of human nature and who doubt the ability of individual judges to put aside their biases when making collective decisions for the common good. 

Black letter law favors the "evolved systemic rationality" of legal tradition over the "explicitly excogitated individual rationality" of judges seeking to ascertain the common good on their own. We see again the constrained preference for decision-making that evolves naturally over time via a process of trial and error, rather than reason that is axiomatic and worked out from first principles. Both conservatives, and nationalists, sometimes claim to be the true adherents to this principle, accusing their opponents of forgetting it. 

Common good constitutionalism at least pays lip service to the English common law tradition at times, of which Blackstone is perhaps the foremost jurisprudential figure. However, Blackstone did not merely advocate following "doctrines that are not set down in any written statute or ordinance but depend merely upon immemorial usage" (i.e., common law), but also "urged following the original intentions of those who wrote the law, seeking to 'interpret the will of the legislator...' by taking his words 'in their usual and most known signification' establishing their meaning 'from the context' if necessary and only as a last resort 'when the words are dubious' trying to carry out the intent or spirit of the law" (p. 199-200). In other words, Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia didn't invent the idea of using original legislative intent to guide judicial decision-making.  

This historical resonance of originalist thinking goes against the common claim of Common good constitutionalists that originalism has little precedent - that the Founders weren't originalists, and used their own beliefs about natural law to guide judicial thinking. While there is likely some truth to this claim, it isn't the whole story. Appellate judge J. Harvey Wilkinson, in Cosmic Constitutional Theory, cites ample evidence that "originalism has been around, in some form or another, since the first days of the Founding" (Wilkinson, p. 34).

It isn't just judicial decisions where the New Right likes to mock process and procedure. Supposedly, the rule of law, with its due process and neutrality, holds conservatives back, forcing them to keep their gloves on while the Left fights unfairly. Of anything in liberalism, it is perhaps this that most earns the scorn of nationalist critics. 

And of anything in liberalism, it is perhaps this that most earns the scorn of progressives and socialists. "Damn the rules, we know what is right and we are going to do it," has been the rallying cry for radicals and revolutionaries and technocrats and social reformers throughout the ages. 

And yet it is the constrained men and women who know that we do not in fact just know how to do the right thing, and that it is the rules that might possibly be the only thing we have that keeps us from doing the wrong thing. The hallmark of constrained thinking is an emphasis on process and procedure.

Unconstrained thinkers, who believe in results, think it is silly to care so much about how something is done when there are so many problems in the world to be solved, so many battles to be won. Constrained thinkers know that many of those problems cannot be solved (results can never be guaranteed - making it a fool's errand to focus on them). Often, every attempt to achieve a desired result will fail, and the only outcome will be unintended consequences which cause more harm than good. 

This is why constrained thinkers believe in leaving things well enough alone, focusing on that which can be controlled (process, rules), preserving that which has been tried and tested and is known to work well, showing skepticism towards that which is new and untested, and generally letting problems work themselves out in the emergent equilibrium of the marketplace. If we cannot trust men and women (including experts) to solve societal problems, we must let the common good come via natural bottom-up processes. 

Tweet   @brothersjudd