On Puglistic Communitarianism

Joe Arpaio is the epitome of a dangerous sort of conservatism.

I write about conservatism a lot from where I see it. I think of conservatism as a combination of a few things: respect for tradition, local preferences, apolitical spaces, the rule of law, epistemological modesty, bottom-up experimentation, and skepticism of both populism and technocracy. (I even wrote a bunch of rambling pieces to this effect!)

But people aren't voting for conservatives because they like the things I wrote about. Those factors are why I think conservatism is useful and essential--or, if I'm feeling cynical, how I rationalize my voting pattern post hoc. But conservatism in popular opinion seems to be more often a response to the perception of a threat.

Let's be clear: threats are real! The world is dangerous; people are fallen and sinful; our more enthusiastic reformers are often careless in attempting to destroy existing structures en route to immanetizing the eschaton. It is not prima facie irrational to be concerned about the preservation of what exists ovetrthe creation of the New Jerusalem.

It's useful to think of reflexive conservatism in the face of this struggle as a sort of pugilistic communitarianism. That's not my phrase; that's from a perceptive article by Benjamin Wallace-Wells about Chris Christie's response to the Ebola scare of 2014.  He wrote about how Christie's default posture was to position himself as the defender of the "in-group" against external threats--but also to define the in-group very broadly.

Wallace-Wells suggested that Christie was at times "heading for a truly great political accomplishment, modernizing conservative communitarianism, expanding the in-group so that it is no longer simply just white, Christian, male, and socially repressive." A great example of this was his defense of his nomination of Sohail Mohmamed for a Superior Court judgeship in New Jersey.

In this context, the "crazies" were the out-group, and Mohammed can be part of a broad American in-group.

While his article was insightful, Wallace-Wells missed the boat a bit on the zeitgeist. He writes,

The country is evolving; in-group ties are weakening, and a politics of individual rights has grown stronger. Christie’s own politics, his instinctive pugilistic communitarianism, may seem a little anachronistic in a country less inclined to see outsiders as enemies.

On the contrary: the ongoing disaster of 2016 and 2017 has proved that in-group ties are strengthening in our era of identity politics. Indeed, Donald Trump exploited a sort of narrow in-grouping--or white identity politics--en route to his narrow election win. It is through this prism that we should see the divide over Joe Arpaio. For a certain sort of conservative, Arpaio protects a narrow in-group from threats, and whatever method he chooses for the job is inherently justified. The rest is noise.

Unfortunately, pugilistic communitarian in the absence of charity is a dangerous place for the Right to be. And while Arpaio may feign religion by playing Christmas carols for his prisoners 12 hours a day, the condition of his jails suggests that he did not respect the inherent dignity of his charges. This leads to moral atrocities, with the complicity of a disinterested or uncompassionate electorate.

Right now, the public demands government, and the Right needs a better answer than narrow in-group pugilistic communitarianism that leads to Trump and Arpaio. For the sake of our souls, the Right probably needs to return to Christie's broader approach. If only Chris Christie were better than he is.

The Most Important Life Lesson

Take responsibility for your actions.

A lot of people in America can get away with avoiding this one. The structures of American society are tilted at times, towards, among other folks, white people, rich people, and people who exercise the powers of the state. They are able to make mistakes or commit wrongdoing and use the criminal justice system, connections, public goodwill, or personal and family wealth to avoid genuine consequences.

Others do not have access to those advantages, and face the full brunt of the justice system in the face of their errors and crimes. This is obviously disproportionate.

And yet the solution is not to allow anything and everything because we cannot always offer equal treatment. Our response must be twofold. First, we must continue to focus on redressing the imbalances of opportunity and treatment in our society. But second, we must build a culture where individuals take responsibility for their actions. This should be the most important thing we teach our kids. Bad things will happen sometimes; these things will often be inadvertent. It may not seem fair that 10 minutes--or even 10 seconds--of misjudgment or rage will affect the rest of your life. But sometimes, it must.

But do not despair. Instead, don't try to hide your actions. Don't tolerate a cover-up. Tell the truth about what happened, as soon as you can. Trust that society will be merciful if you demonstrate contrition. Don't accept the easy way out because you can. Remember that your life and lifestyle here on Earth are not the most important thing. "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect." - Romans 12:2