In the recent book that we jointly wrote, “Aligning Values and Politics: Empowerment versus Entitlement” (University Press of America, 2016), we mention Barbara Anderson as the very first person deserving of our gratitude and acknowledgment. We did so for two reasons. The ideas in the book were fomented and developed in the forum Citizens for Limited Taxation, which she helped create; but far more importantly Barbara took both a principled and a pragmatic approach to problem-solving, demanding that people not just diagnose problems, but come up with the policies that help solve those problems. Barbara defined herself as an “owl” (old wise libertarian) whose first allegiance was to the U.S. Constitution, including the power that individuals and the states retained under that document. We illustrate below some consequences of this attitude.
Let’s take up illegal immigration first. If you have a conservative frame of mind, you realize that defying immigration rules can be damaging to the country. People are coming in who are not vetted (hence crime rates can potentially rise). Communities of illegal aliens are inevitably unwilling to contribute to the civic structure of the country, since reporting crimes exposes them to their own disrespect for the laws and opens them to lawless retaliation within their communities. This implies that most illegal immigrants are unwilling to assimilate into American culture and indeed–what is worse–blame the American government for past injustices in their own countries of origin. Poorly educated illegal aliens undercut the economic stability of poorly educated Americans, regardless of race or ethnic origin, because they need to work under the table and get paid (less) in cash. The list goes on.
Now, most constitutionalists (including all conservatives) believe that enforcing immigration laws, building walls, imposing stringent employment verification rules, etc. will stop the flow of illegal immigration, and they have a point. But that point depends on the assumption that those American citizens who do not share their values will be supportive of those policies: that is not just a big assumption, but one that has not been born by the facts. Most liberals will argue that illegal immigrants are deserving of our compassion. Liberals are also in synch with open border businesses that benefit by labor markets with surplus labor. Even churches, with no natural increase in their congregations, will protect the illegals both on religious grounds and because they can help the churches survive decreases in membership. In short, we understand the negative consequences of illegal immigration, but overcoming the problem requires different attitudes from those who disagree with us.
We have two alternatives. One is to conclude that we live in a zero-sum political environment, where our gains are our opponents’ losses, and vice-versa. This approach leads to great bitterness, which currently defines our cultural and political divide. The other one is to convince opponents that their values are based on wobbly grounds, a strategy that is used by liberals but that we (conservatives, libertarians and constitutionalists) can use against them effectively.
Aren’t we disgusted when some religious leader says that we must protect persecuted immigrants and, soon thereafter, liberals who care less for religious principles suddenly proclaim the brilliance of those leaders and demand from us to change our political attitudes? The reason liberals think we are on “wobbly grounds” is because often enough we defend our policies on religious convictions. We must accept that we live in a country where there is full separation of church and state, and conservatives need to learn to defend their political convictions on nonreligious grounds (which is what we do in our book). If conservatives do not do that, they fall prey to the accusation that many of their policy preferences are simply attempts to impose their religious convictions on others.
Barbara Anderson never used religious convictions to defend her positions, and that should be an inspiration to the rest of us. No group can impose their religious values on others, and that in itself has political consequences. Let us instead use other arguments. We can should cry out, for example, that illegal immigrants undermine the economic prosperity of poor Americans. We should argue that an open door to Cuba undermines American tourism in Puerto Rico, the Dominican Republic and the whole Caribbean area, which has many countries on friendly terms with the United States. We should ask churches with international ties to demand human rights for Mexicans in Mexico. We should be willing to monitor the hypocrisy of those church leaders who do nothing, literally nothing (in practical terms, like excommunicating leaders), for stopping the evil of partial-birth abortion. Stopping the killing of the unborn, just moments before their birth, does not require religion for its justification.
Barbara once had the opportunity to speak to college students. Soon after, she pointed out to us that her single motto from her college days, learned from a philosophy professor was: “Hume says you can’t and Kant says you can.” She wanted to instill that motto in the college students she met.
This motto applies to our own work. Kant challenges young people to dare to know, to tell it like it is, to engage in an active life and to change the status quo by questioning the powers-that-be. Barbara always displayed a can-do attitude, even when told by Barney Frank that the only thing that was possible with a bloated budget was to slash and hack it. Instead, she argued for transparency in government, to let the power of people to bring pressure on legislators. Barbara really believed in working within the confines of the rule of law and the Constitution, and the key to her success was open engagement with her opponents and the transmission of information to the public at large.
Barbara deserves much praise for adapting her Socratic passion for dialogue to the digital age. We will always remember and thank her for that.
Michael Gendre and Nicolas Sanchez, coauthors of “Aligning Values and Politics: Empowerment versus Entitlement,” University of America Press, 2016.
