Our Divided Political Heart Read Online Free PDF Page A

traditional social bonds. “ Freedom cannot be maintained in a monolithic society ,” he wrote. “Pluralism and diversity of experience are the essence of true freedom . . . Neither moral values, nor fellowship, nor freedom can easily flourish apart from the existence of diverse communities each capable of enlisting the loyalties of its members.” Freedom and a healthy brand of individualism
depend
upon a strong sense of community.
    Because of my respect for conservative thought, I try to be careful in distinguishing between brands of contemporary conservatism that have embraced radical individualism and the broader conservative tradition. (I say this knowing that many of my conservative friends will arguethat I have not been careful enough.) I readily acknowledge that conservatives going back to Edmund Burke have revered community and what Burke called society’s “ little platoons .” I have always found this sort of conservatism attractive, which explains my affection for Nisbet.
    Thus, to be clear, my primary argument is not with the entire conservative tradition, but with the form conservatism is currently taking, typified by the Tea Party. Partisans of this view are trying to break the links between the conservative movement and its more communal and compassionate inclinations. Between communitarian liberals and compassionate conservatives, there is ample room for dialogue and even common action.
    But I do go further and argue that even my compassionate conservative friends need to acknowledge more than they do that the American quest for community has taken national as well as local forms, and that action by the federal government has often been constructive and even essential to community building on the local level. Intervention by the national government was required to defend African American communities, particularly but not exclusively in the South, whose rights were violated by state and local governments—violations that were often justified through a defense of the “rights” of local communities to their own peculiar (and oppressive) arrangements. We are, finally, a nation and not simply a collection of states. Our Constitution declares, in Article IV, Section 4, that “ the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” States’ rights do not extend to the “freedom” to create state-based monarchies or despotisms. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments curtailed the rights of states to approve slavery, to deny basic rights to citizens, and to restrict the voting rights of minorities.
    Moreover, I argue throughout this account that conservatives face a contradiction in their creed and in their practice. They often find themselves defending state and local rights except where the national economic market is concerned. In this case, they typically choose to deny states the right to regulate national enterprises—and then often turn around and deny the federal government the same ability, sometimes invoking states’ rights. It seems to me that conservatives need to acknowledge far morethan they do that the existence of a national and international market can require national and local rules and regulations—and that free nations may also be required to pool their sovereignty to impose necessary rules on what has become an increasingly integrated global system.
    National and international corporations can be as indifferent to the needs and desires of local communities as any distant government. Communally minded conservatives should accept that if centralized state authority poses challenges to community building, so, too, do centralized, though private, economic enterprises.
IV
    American history and its implications are central to this account. This should not be taken to imply that if only we could get our history right and agree on its lessons, all would be well. But I do believe that our inability to share at least some common