December 4 , 2002
 
Dear Concerned Citizen,
 

A free society is, in fact, not free. That is, a free society does not come free. More intellect, more effort, more decentralized power is required to sustain a free market order than the concentrated power needed to uphold an authoritarian society. In a free social order every person must work daily to think and do right. In despotism only the rulers must. For a just market order to flourish, every person-despite the human passions of avarice, ambition, and lust-must summon the will to respect the human and property rights of his neighbor. Individuals in a free society must govern themselves so that a limited self-government of the whole might lightly regulate the general welfare of all.

We learn from history and experience that people can be moved to do the lawful thing primarily by two social mechanisms-either a morally grounded conscience, or by the external threat of civil and criminal penalties. If a majority is moved to do the lawful thing only by coercion, penalties, and jail, then who would deny that a free society must in time become an armed camp of police, prosecutors, and prisons? As we learned from the late, unlamented, Soviet Union, the cynical admonition, "follow your inclinations with due regard to the policeman around the corner" is no practical rule for a durable free society. When moral anarchy prevails, there can never be enough policemen! But a free society can remain free; the creative mind of man can achieve its loftiest aims; capitalism can be sustained in the long run, only if the vast majority is moved by the inner dictates of a well-formed conscience. Such a conscience, by itself, enables every person in the community to transact business without fear of unaccountable theft and bodily harm. The well-formed conscience is the simplest, lowest cost, and most efficient regulator of a free social order.

Where is such a conscience formed? I think this is the supervening question of a durable social policy. Conscience is primarily formed in children by the love and fair-minded instruction of their parents, their family, their teachers, their neighbors, the laws of their country and the faith of their fathers and mothers. It is the gift of love, from parents to children, that quickens into action the law written in their own hearts. It is the indispensable long run gyroscope of a free society.

Many cynical contemporaries hold to the spurious idea that the long run is a phantom, even that capitalism can be sustained without an objective moral code forming the conscience of every citizen. "In the long run we are all dead," John Maynard Keynes taught three generations of modern economists and college graduates. This dismissal of the long run may have come easily to Keynes. He seemed never to have been interested in children. Concern for children brings the long run into view, and with it the profound challenge to form and maintain the Judeo-Christian conscience- and its dependent economic institutions, called capitalism.

 
The 2002 Conference on Integrating Faith and Learning in Economics Scholarship

  The old joke claims that a hundred economists lined up from end to end would never reach a conclusion. So putting two hundred economists, philosophers and theologians in the same room for a weekend might be a formula for getting nowhere fast. But at Baylor University in Waco Texas, the Business school and the seminary hosted just such a gathering and it was anything but dull.

Most of the economists present were devout Christians who earnestly want to find a way to incorporate Christian moral teaching into their economics curriculum and research. Most of the philosophers and theologians were also devout Christians, who earnestly want to learn how economics can help in the Christian mission of serving the poor. The result of this mix was a series of conversations that hardly ever happen anywhere else.

Some speakers used tools of economic analysis to illuminate questions interesting to Christianity. For instance, historian of religion Philip Jenkins used demographic trends to predict that the future "center of gravity" of Christianity is likely to shift from the developed countries of the North and West to the developing countries of the southern hemisphere. Economist Jennifer Roback Morse used economic analysis to explain why economic thinking should not be applied to family life. And Mercedes Arzu Wilson used statistical analysis to show that married couples who most deeply embrace traditional sexual morality have more stable and lasting marriages.
   
 

Philosophers and theologians raised questions about how we ought to view the relationship between the market and morality. Although many theologians raised the traditional objections to free market activity, several offered more nuanced views. Michael Novak, for instance, gives the market full credit for its extraordinary success in allieviating human suffering, without making the laissez-faire into a kind of substitute religion. At the same time, these theologians pointed out the desire to regulate markets has to be weighed against other aspects of the common good.

The most interesting and nuanced argument along these lines came from a Ph.D. economist and Dominican priest named Albino Barrera. In his book, "Modern Catholic Social Documents and Political Economy," he laid out a very helpful taxonomy for making balanced judgments about the inevitable conflicts that arise between material and spiritual goods, and between individual interests and the greater common good.

If nothing else, this conference demonstrated that economics is no longer "the dismal science," but a very hopeful combination of art and technique that can be used with philosophy to improve the human condition.

 

But what of our friends, especially our fellow Americans, who do not embrace Judeo-Christian teachings, or the natural law, or even an objective ethical code? Is there no American social teaching which could bring together, on common moral ground, all American citizens? While there have always been some Americans who cling to the self-centered view that the autonomous citizen can be sustained by means of a strictly relativist, utilitarian code (devoid of objective moral foundation), such an attitude is unhinged from the American heritage of four centuries.

I say unhinged, because all Americans, past, present and future, are constrained by the organic laws of the American Republic. The Declaration of Independence and the constitution of the United States comprise authoritative social teaching to which all American citizens should be bound. In Mr. Lincoln's words, our "ancient faith" is that all human beings "are created equal", that "they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". First is the right to life, next liberty, last the pursuit of happiness. If the right to life is not secure, what can be the security for liberty and happiness?

The American social teaching of the founding of the republic, primarily secular in principle, is harmonious with authoritative Judeo-Christian social teaching. This is expressed eloquently in the peroration of President George Washington's "Farewell Address":

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and citizens…A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that…morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle…[But] virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. [And this rule…extends with more or less force to every species of free Government."

May God bless America.

 
Links
The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
Integrating Faith and Learning in Economics Scholarship
Jennifer Roback Morse: homepage
Michael Novak: homepage
Phillip Jenkins: homepage
The Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty
about tothesource
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

Tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Lewis E. Lehrman is the founder and chairman of the Lehrman Institute. He co-founded the Lincoln and Soldiers Institute, the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History, the Gilder Lehrman Collection of American history, and Gilder Lehrman Center on Slavery Resistance and Abolition at Yale University. He has written extensively on both Abraham Lincoln and monitary policy in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and other publications. He served as president of Rite Aid Corp. from 1968-1977. He was a Managing Director at Morgan Stanley from 1987-1990. In 1982, he was narrowly defeated in the gubernatorial race against Mario Cuomo in New York. He received a B.A. in history from Yale and an M.A. in history from Harvard and he taught history at Yale University and Gettysburg College.
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org