Character, Liberty, and Economics
The missing ingredient in the struggle against statism.
Over four decades I’ve written scores of articles, essays, and columns on economics; taught the subject at the university level; and given hundreds of speeches on it. In recent years the nexus between the economics of a free society and individual character has worked its way into my writing, speaking, and thinking with increasing emphasis. I now believe that nexus is the central issue we must address if our liberties and free economy are to be restored and preserved.
Activists in the free-market movement in the past 25 years have stressed the need for sound public-policy research and basic economic education. Think tanks and new media have sprung up to provide both. Though important, they are proving to be insufficient to overcome statist trends that are eroding our liberties. Why?
To some extent policy research is essentially locking the barn door after the horse has left. It targets politicians and the media commentators at stages in their lives when they are largely set in their ways and interested more in personal advancement than truth and liberty.
Economic education is certainly needed because young minds are not typically getting it in government schools. But even if economic education were dramatically improved, a free society wouldn’t necessarily follow. Just like public-policy research, it can be undone by harmful themes in popular culture (movies, religion, music, literature, and even sports) and in the standards of conduct people practice as adults.
Even among the most ardent supporters of free-market causes are people who “leak” when it comes to their own bottom lines. A recent example was the corn farmer who berated me for opposing ethanol subsidies. Does he not understand basic economics? I’ve known him for years, and I believe he does. But that understanding melted away with the corrupting lure of a handout. His extensive economics knowledge was not enough to keep him from the public trough. We are losing the sense of shame that once accompanied the act of theft, private or public.
The missing ingredient here is character. In America’s first century, we possessed it in abundance and even though there were no think tanks, very little economic education, and even less policy research, it kept our liberties substantially intact. People generally opposed the expansion of government power not because they read policy studies or earned degrees in economics, but because they placed a high priority on character. Using government to get something at somebody else’s expense, or mortgaging the future for near-term gain, seemed dishonest and cynical to them, if not downright sinful and immoral.
Politicians and Statesmen
Within government, character is what differentiates a politician from a statesman. Statesmen don’t seek public office for personal gain or attention. They often are people who take time out from productive careers to temporarily serve the public. They don’t have to work for government because that’s all they know how to do. They stand for a principled vision, not for what they think citizens will fall for. When a statesman gets elected, he doesn’t forget the public-spirited citizens who sent him to office, becoming a mouthpiece for the permanent bureaucracy or some special interest that greased his campaign.
Because they seek the truth, statesmen are more likely to do what’s right than what may be politically popular at the moment. You know where they stand because they say what they mean and they mean what they say. They do not engage in class warfare, race-baiting, or other divisive or partisan tactics that pull people apart. They do not buy votes with tax dollars. They don’t make promises they can’t keep or intend to break. They take responsibility for their actions. A statesman doesn’t try to pull himself up by dragging somebody else down, and he doesn’t try to convince people they’re victims just so he can posture as their savior.
When it comes to managing public finances, statesmen prioritize. They don’t behave as though government deserves an endlessly larger share of other people’s money. They exhibit the courage to cut less important expenses to make way for more pressing ones. They don’t try to build empires. Instead, they keep government within its proper bounds and trust in what free and enterprising people can accomplish. Politicians think that they’re smart enough to plan other people’s lives; statesmen are wise enough to understand what utter folly such arrogant attitudes really are. Statesmen, in other words, possess a level of character that an ordinary politician does not.
By almost any measure, the standards we as citizens keep and expect of those we elect have slipped badly in recent years. Though everybody complains about politicians who pander, perhaps they do it because we are increasingly a panderable people. Too many are willing to look the other way when politicians misbehave, as long as they are of the right party or deliver the goods we personally want.
Our celebrity-drenched culture focuses incessantly on the vapid and the irresponsible. Our role models would make our grandparents cringe. To many, insisting on sterling character seems too straight-laced and old-fashioned. We cut corners and sacrifice character all the time for power, money, attention, or other ephemeral gratifications.
Character Is Essential
Yet character is ultimately more important than all the college degrees, public offices, or even all the knowledge that one might accumulate in a lifetime. It puts both a concrete floor under one’s future and an iron ceiling over it. Who in their right mind would want to live in a world without it?
Chief among the elements that define strong character are these: honesty, humility, responsibility, self-discipline, self-reliance, optimism, a long-term focus, and a lust for learning. A free society is impossible without them. For example: dishonest people will lie and cheat and become even bigger liars and cheaters in elected office; people who lack humility become arrogant, condescending, know-it-all central-planner-types; irresponsible citizens blame others for the consequences of their own poor judgment; people who will not discipline themselves invite the intrusive control of others; those who eschew self-reliance are easily manipulated by those on whom they are dependent; pessimists dismiss what individuals can accomplish when given the freedom to try; myopic citizens will mortgage their future for the sake of a short-term “solution”; and closed-minded, politically correct or head-in-the-sand types will never learn from the lessons of history and human action.
Bad character leads to bad economics, which is bad for liberty. Ultimately, whether we live free and in harmony with the laws of economics or stumble in the dark thrall of serfdom is a character issue.
Comment by Talbotalban on 16 August 2010:
I am new to your website and arrive full of hope for real substance. So where is the substance? A fourth grade lesson on character offers no solution for our economic woes and loss of freedom. I offer a basic premise for a solution in the next paragraph. We need more true individual private ownership of the means of production.
Interesting that you should bring up the first century of American history. As I understand it, during that time we were a nation of farmers. Back then most farms were the center of a fairly autonomous family community–an environment that encourages excellent moral character. The situation now is very different. Most Americans are wage earner slaves who have very little say over the course of their lives.
The real problem with our economy and nation is the lack of true private ownership of the means of production. Notice I said private ownership, not communal,government, or corporate ownership–all of which lead to less and less liberty for individuals and families, especially the poor. The solution is to put the means of production back under the control of the common man. Mega corporations should be the exception, not the rule. Imported goods should be the exception, not the rule.
I have and example of this principal in action–in my back pocket, literally. It is a leather wallet, hand made in America, that I bought over ten years ago. It is still in good condition after being in my pocket every day for over ten years. I estimate it will last another ten years at least. No cheap imported wallet has ever lasted me more than a year! It is time to return honor and dignity to the American work force.
Comment by Norman G. Lilly on 16 August 2010:
I totally agree that a growing lack of character and honesty is at the heart of all of our social and political and moral problems. Until there is widespread transformation in the hearts of the citizenry, conditions will continue to disintegrate regardless of who may be elected. We have passed the point of no return in terms of solving our problems politically. Nothing short of individual and national repentance can save our nation from utter collapse!
Comment by Joe Schmoe on 2 December 2010:
Re: Talbotalban
If you’re looking for extensive economic analysis there’s plenty in other articles, old and new.
You’ll do naught but enable statism when you advocate “putting the means of production back under the control of the common man”, if you are truly advocating for action with such a statement.
Comment by Beth on 21 January 2011:
Talbotalbon,
The author brought out very good substance, that of not neglecting character. He reasoned very well and logically why the policy and enducation routes were not sufficient enough on their own. It was clearly pointed out that character is what makes the policy and education ways possible.
And I believe he is correct and that is why there has been a very big shift against liberty for the last 100+ years. It is about character.
Thus a reasonable plan for individual liberty supporters would be to incorporate more character arguments into our statments when explaining to others liberty’s benefits. Obvious is the action of raising our own children with character condusive to liberty. We have to make the case and continue to do so because the statists will also never stop advocating their “character.”
Comment by Winton Bates on 21 January 2011:
It seems to me that one of the most important characteristics of successful societies is a widespread belief among citizens that individual success depends on individual effort rather than on rent seeking.
A recent post on my blog containing some international comparisons of percentages of populations who believe that hard work brings success might be of interest. For one reason or another people in countries with big governments seem to have less faith that hard work brings success.
Comment by Craig Newton on 27 January 2011:
I have been in law enforcer 30 years. 26 years ago I
worked at San Quentin a level 4/5 Prison in San Rafael
California. 4 powerful prison gangs kept violence,
even though there was alot of it, under control.
I had little fear for my safety because the gangs actually
protected honest hard working cops.
I remember reading an article then about youth gangs
in L.A. that were making headlines. When these youth
came to prisons they disrupted the entire moral code.
now there are 17,000 gangs in Calif.
Samuel Adams said that men must be controlled either
by a power within them or a power without. Either by the word of God or by the strong arm of justice. We must continue to surrender our freedoms until we can restore morality with pure
christian religion.
just chaos and way more violence.
Comment by pat on 31 January 2011:
Just to whom do we “continue to surrender our freedoms,” while waiting for a restoration of morality? Certainly not to a government run by those who epitomize lack of character.
Comment by Konrad Losen on 3 February 2011:
We insist in a “value-free” society. Today, with moral principles in decadence, government and private
action is not judged if it is ethically correct, but rather if it is “politically correct”. There is almost no difference between morality and legality. Politically inspired legislation (which sadly has little to do with the LAW as the constitutionalists understood it), defines something as good or bad simply because it is said to be current law, and not because it is in harmony with eternal judeo-christian principles proven through 2000 years of history. Leonard Reed reminds us that if we try to separate political activity and economics from the sound principles of morality, failure is the result. No policy or program which fails morally can be successful in final analysis. We are facing a moral and spiritual crisis, which has produced a crisis of behavior and CHARACTER. What is good for me today is my value, what is good for me tomorrow will be my new value tomorrow. Relativism, egalitarianism,
the almighty state. We suffer from a lack of values — a lack of faith.
Comment by Brian Meyers on 9 September 2011:
Talbotalban,
if you have a great American made wallet why do you buy cheap imported wallets that don’t last. Fyi, you clearly haven’t’ had your American wallet in your pocket every day for ten years if you’re also buying crappy foreign wallets. And there’s nothing wrong with so called “mega corporations” unless they become mega through force, fraud or other nefarious means.
Pingback by Cognitive Dissonance « Without Eyes on 11 October 2011:
[...] bleak — that some people will get it. But without clear, focused objectives based on principles other than merely repeating the talking points of those already in power, they are just being [...]
Comment by England Patriots Season tickets on 4 February 2012:
this article can help to me personally,thank u.