Today, Law & Liberty published the text of my lecture for the Philadelphia Society in October: “Why Economic Nationalism Fails.”
The topic for the panel was “Conservatism and the Coming Economy.” Since I’m not a determinist and doubt my own powers of prediction, I focused on what political economy conservatives ought to support in the future, despite worrying trends in the present:
Conservatives ought to reaffirm the good of economic liberty, both domestically and internationally. Free markets and free trade, sustained by the rule of law and a culture of basic propriety, as Adam Smith outlined, ought to undergird the economic policy of any free and prosperous nation without neglecting the importance of non-state, non-economic spheres, such as religion and family.
mon alternative to economic liberty among conservatives is economic nationalism. So I begin by noting that there are many kinds of nationalism — it is uncharitable to assume that just because people ascribe to the label that they are any one or any bination. One must pay attention to what they say in particular.Regarding religion, I note how petition between religious groups within the limits of natural law (i.e., religious liberty) has proven more fruitful than state establishment of religion.
Regarding the family, I address some criticisms of the classical liberal tradition, John Locke in particular, from Yoram Hazony and Patrick Deneen. I am not a Lockean — he has issues, especially with regards to his theology and epistemology — but he’s not what they’ve made him out to be, as anyone with access to Google can discover by reading what he actually wrote:
What is too often omitted by Locke’s critics is that he believed there to be duties between parents and children in a state of nature, that is, apart from any consent and as a matter of natural law. Contrary to Patrick Deneen, who claims classical liberal anthropology views human beings as “nonrelational creatures,” Locke actually believed that we are not self-sufficient, atomistic individuals, but that we are rather, by nature, “drive[n] … into society,” because it is “not good for [us] to be alone,” clearly alluding to Genesis 2:18.
The classical liberal tradition has far more virtue than its critics claim.
There is a lot more detail in the essay, and I invite you to read the whole thing here.
Image credit: Portrait of John Locke by Geoffrey Kneller (1697), Public Domain