A conservative approach to state intervention in the world of COVID-19 | Ojel L. Rodriguez Burgos

The first half of 2020 has been dominated by the Coronavirus, which has spread throughout the world. Many of us have now been living under some form of lockdown measure, ones that differ from country to country, yet the policies internationally adopted in response to the crisis have one invariable thing in common; state intervention in our daily life, not seen on such scale since the Second World War. 

The actions undertaken by many countries have given more fuel to the great debate present in our politics; to what extent state intervention is morally permissible. It is a recurring question of the utmost significance. Especially now since no one can doubt that after this crisis is abated, the debates in the areas of politics, society, economics will never be the same.

On one side, you have the supporters of the minimalist state, which have reacted with horror to these policy implementation. Followers of the modern philosophy of liberalism are being torn by the ideology’s commitment to liberal freedom and their egalitarian concerns. Naturally, the question that also arises is how conservatism determines what is morally permissible, through the use of normative standards.

Hence, it is my intention to delineate what I believe from a conservative perspective should be the normative standards of analysing state intervention’s moral permissibility- specifically important for us when we approach the sort of intervention seen during the Coronavirus crisis. These normative standards are the common good, subsidiarity- drawing from Catholic social teaching as an outline, and Prudence. This essay can not address whether all current policies are permissible, nor do I intend to address the debates within the framework of Catholic social teaching about the common good and subsidiarity.

The structure of this essay begins by looking at the three standards of the approach I advocate conservatives ought to use, and how they relate to the questions around state intervention. The final section will conclude why the three-part system is an approach that is consistent with conservative thinking.

I: Prudence

Russell Kirk established ten principles that every conservative should believe in. One such was the invariable virtue of prudence; “conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence”. This is not surprising, as this virtue is considered to be the most important among the four cardinal virtues, helping guide and measure political and moral decisions.

Prudence is the ability to use our wisdom as individuals or rely upon the collective wisdom of society in order to make the right judgments about any political and moral questions. A key conservative instinct. This definition raises two important types of knowledge that anyone who wishes to act prudently must possess. The first; there must be a foundational knowledge of the general moral principles within a given society. The second is a deep knowledge of the situation or reasons that will lead to any governmental or political decision being made.

These types of knowledge are based around several essential tenets that the virtue of prudence must have. The first (already mentioned) is knowing the first principles. Second is memory, drawing from the time-tested process of collective wisdom. Another integral tenet is docility, and drawing knowledge from others; a further element is that the individual must be shrewd in evaluating the situation quickly. The ability is also required of the conservative to have foresight in understanding that the decision will reach the desired goal, and to be able to reason between the possible decisions to be made for that anticipated objective. Finally, circumspection, being able to know all the facts of the situation, and caution through trying to avoid a greater evil by the consequences of the decision.

Prudence, centred around these essential tenets, provides one powerful guide on how to measure the actions taken (and yet to be taken during) the Coronavirus crisis. This points to accepting state intervention, that is limited and temporary to the circumstances of the situation. That this decision must be made in full knowledge of the moral principles that guide our society. Also, that the decision must be guided by the three forms of collective wisdom. First, to the past, to what has been tried and tested. Second, the present, what new phenomena society had not envisioned and finally the future, where our wisdom is amplified in our concerns for future generations.

Prudence balances the tension between ordered liberty and the needs of the community. It allows for political moderation in the policies to be adopted, the rise of politicians as statesmen and for these policies to garner support from across civil society. Furthermore, for the future, it will guide the path towards reforms in the aftermath of this crisis. A reform based on Prudence, means limited in relation to the problem and the current circumstances, this would safeguard the ordered liberty and permanent things we enjoy.

However, politicians (being human beings) will inevitably not always, in their entirety, be guided by prudence to measure current and future state intervention. Therefore, prudence as the most important of the cardinal virtues, alone, would not suffice as the basis for the conservative analysis of state intervention. Another principle is needed in conjunction with prudence; the principle being subsidiarity. 

II: Subsidiarity

One of the consequences of the current crisis is that central, national, or federal governments are centralizing efforts in many policy areas. This is true not only of this current crisis, but has been in the past as well; as in times like this government often tends to centralize and opportunistically assume more powers for itself. Hence, it is important to analyse whether the actions of the supranational and federal government are best left at the local or national level In this, the Catholic teaching subsidiary comes in.

This principle was first enunciated in the famous encyclical Rerum Novarum from Leo XIII and later given its fullest explanation in Quadragesimo Anno by Pius XI. This principle means "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."

This definition points to a system where the higher order (for the purpose of this essay) can be identified as a supranational, federal or central government. And that it should avoid intervening or pursuing policies that are best left to decision makers in the lower order. Lower order being the “little platoons” that Edmund Burke referenced such as civil associations, communities, churches and local government. This indicates, therefore, that the higher order may only intervene only if the lower order is unable to accomplish the assignment or solve the situation. 

Subsidiarity creates the condition where individuals within civil society can prosper, since it is inherently communitarian in nature. Because in its promotion of the lower order; we give value to communities and civic associations, and also, we can promote, respect and safeguard the dignity of the human being, within the framework of the common good.

Yet, since this crisis started, we have seen across the world, countries not following the subsidiarity principle. There has been a constant centralization across the world in the responses of anything related to the Coronavirus; such as Personal Protective Equipment procurement and testing, among others, that were best left to market forces or at best to local governments who know the circumstances of their situation and thus how to act in a prudent way. This policy of centralization and decision making, natural during times of crisis, has respectively led to numerous disastrous consequences for the overall governmental response to the crisis.

However, it is important to emphasise that subsidiarity does not mean a minimalist state in the higher or lower order. The word subsidiarity comes from the word in Latin “subsidium” meaning support or to provide aid. Therefore, the higher order must provide support for the safeguarding or the attainment of the common good when the lower order is not capable of accomplishing this. An example of this is the need for the security of the state, hence, the higher order rightly has control over national defence. 

This principle is a normative guide to help look at the current state and future actions relating to this crisis. Subsidiarity provides that normative support, but as in the case of Prudence the principle alone does not suffice. This leads to the final component of my three-part system; the common good. 

III: Common Good

The term common good, for many conservatives, raises a lot of deep doubts. Since, it could be construed to support egalitarian or totalitarian outcomes. However, in the conservative movement in Anglo-American countries, there is an ongoing debate that pits common good conservatives against more libertarian-leaning conservatives on the question of the government response to the current crisis. This is not surprising since the idea of the common good, is very intuitively attractive to anyone who subscribes to conservative thinking.

The common good following in the tradition of Aristotle, St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas is a concept that is natural to every human being, as we desire fulfilment. Hence, one can define the common good as the social conditions which allow individuals or communities to achieve their fulfilment. This idea of the common good is comprised of three important elements.

The first is peace, order, and security. This is in my view the most important element and holds primacy over the other two.  Only through a secure state and an existing, sustained social order, may the other two elements be pursued or achieved. This primacy, however, does not mean that we adopt a Rawlsian principle of priority, where only when we achieve total peace, order, and security the other two elements can come in. Primacy means that there must be a sufficiency of this element in the common good. 

The second element is respecting persons; I contend that this means safeguarding the freedoms necessary to achieve one’s autonomy. Hence, these freedoms and the personal and moral autonomy we gain from them, have a purpose and that purpose is the overall common good. These freedoms are derived from the natural law, and it will be impossible within the constraints of this essay to enumerate them all. But, some of them include liberty of thought, expression, religious liberty, liberty to hold ownership rights over property etc…

The final element is social well-being, meaning “it should make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life”. This ambiguous definition I believe can be understood through the economic theory of Distributism. I contend that Distributism should mean the distribution of ownership rights which would lead to a truly human life, to as many people as possible. This entails that we should be sceptical of concentration in ownership rights in the private sphere as we are in the concentration of power in the state.

These three elements representing the common good should be treated within a primacy ordering, starting with order, followed by respecting persons and lastly social-well-being. This is important since it may well be that they be treated in different degrees depending on the society or the circumstances. For example, in some societies, and in some contexts, it may be necessary to sacrifice one natural freedom for the attainment of order or lowering some demands for our liberties for the well-being of society. 

The system of primacy and degrees means that we should promote or accomplish them to the highest attainable possibility. But I am conscious of the fact, these three elements cannot be attained to their fullest without infringing on the other. Thus, this idea of primacy and degrees of these elements avoids the mistaken Universalist claims of modern liberalism. It means it can be extrapolated to other communities or societies that may find degrees of the common good to be quite different from others. It crucially calls for balance.

IV: The Conservative Approach 

The three important elements of the three-part system, I am arguing for, gives the conservative his normative underpinnings to examine whether current and future state intervention during this crisis is morally permissible. I believe this is a more attractive approach to the dominant views current in the political and academic world, mainly liberalism, and libertarianism. 

Take for example the zealous libertarian support for individual rights and self-ownership fundamental- the foundational blocks for Nozick’s theory. Libertarians would consider all these actions by the state to be morally problematic since they violate individual rights and the concept of self-ownership. These limitations create a predicament that even Libertarians admit are reasonable ones conceding that these policies should be accepted and limited in nature.

Modern Liberalism also faces a strong dilemma with its commitment to liberty and equality. Many states have clearly violated liberal liberties like the one’s enumerated by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice. Yet current state intervention points to the idea that community is prioritized, before individual liberties. Also, those who adhere to egalitarian principles of liberalism, will realize the Coronavirus and the response from it, will inevitably lead to the expansion of economic inequalities. 

The Conservative approach, however, does not face that same dilemma. The three-part system gives sensible normative reasoning to accept or reject all the state actions undertaken because of this crisis. First, prudence allows for a thorough examination of the policies to be adopted, by prioritizing reform, limits, restraint, and time-tested solutions. Prudence demands deep analysis from policy makers, thus, avoiding the perils of populism, and transient outrage that we have seen in this crisis.

Subsidiarity provides on what level should government and civil society be expected to take charge in policy making. The principle allows for the focus to be more on community, civil society, localism, and decentralization, while the higher order (meaning national or central governments) focuses on areas where the lower order cannot accomplish the desired policy. Hence, we can examine whether any action, from the examples of lockdown policies, should be decided at national or local levels. 

The common good offers the final piece for a conservative approach, it encompasses what I believe is the essence of conservatism; the maintenance of a well-ordered society where the common good is pursued or achieved. State intervention should be examined considering the common good; whether it provides for the order and security of the people being the prime element. And that the respect for persons and the safeguarding of liberties is protected whilst well-being of society is considered throughout.

The three-part system of analysis for state intervention is related to several of the principles within Anglo-American conservatism and conservatism in general. It provides a defence for our communities, our traditions and continuity with the appeal to the collective wisdom of society past, present and future. The principle of prudence is a call for restraint to government, and the individuals in society. The entire three-part system is a reminder of what Burke argued that the individual is foolish, but the society is wise.

V: Conclusion

The purpose of this essay was to establish a normative system from where conservatives can analyse state intervention during the Coronavirus crisis. This system is comprised of Prudence, Subsidiarity and the Common Good. Taken together, it gives a more flexible normative approach in dealing with the philosophical and policy issues that have arisen from the Coronavirus crisis. But, more importantly, it gives a proper theory of political change, from where conservatives can approach normative and policy questions.

However, this essay does not address several issues raised by adopting this approach and some of them are a focus of my research. These being the idea of primacy and degrees, of how to know when or how much is enough to sufficiently satisfy not in terms of good, but in a philosophical sense of the idea of the Common Good. How can I reconcile my support for Distributism, with the liberty of private property, or how to know when the Subsidiarity principle is being violated? These are some of the questions that could arise from arguing in favour of this system. Yet, I believe it provides a more attractive approach, first to examine whether any state action is morally acceptable, and secondly provides a theory of political change that conservative can support.