(Edgard Garrido/Reuters)

Rich’s post this morning, which builds off Matthew Continetti’s excellent column, addresses a feature of the intra-conservative debate that has been on my mind for quite some time: The emphasis on doctrinal discussion above specifics.

Rich’s post is forward looking. He accurately observes: “The questions, What and How? almost never appear, i.e., what policies are we talking about and how are we going to achieve them?”


There is a backward-looking component to this as well. I commonly come across some variant of the following: “I’m a free trader. I just think trade should be put in its proper place. It isn’t more important than family and community.” But what, specifically, does that mean? Was the president right not to enter TPP? Should the United States not have formed NAFTA? Should we have actively tried to keep China out of the global trading system?

It’s a valid and admissible opinion that, say, we shouldn’t have formed NAFTA or that China shouldn’t have been admitted to the WTO. But if that’s what you think, then please say so, and please argue that case. I would be happy to disagree with you. But at least you would have provided for me something with which to disagree.

Something similar has been at play in the debate over the importance of economic growth. Growth is great, but it needs to be kept in its proper place, we’ve been told. Again, when the rubber hits the road, what does that mean?



Here, it’s at least potentially more comprehensible. Targeted policies designed to achieve certain outcomes for specific groups — e.g., the child tax credit or the earned-income credit, or Medicare, food stamps, the mortgage-interest deduction, etc. — likely do reduce the economy’s overall growth rate. But opponents of the model of growing the economy and redistributing some of the fruits of that growth for specific purposes — Oren Cass refers to this model as “economic piety” — ostensibly have something else in mind. What is it?

The very roots of populism are saturated with this problem. “The elites” (who are they?) “have designed a system” (designed? From scratch?) “to benefit themselves” (just because a rising tide lifts different boats at different rates does not mean that all boats don’t rise eventually and considerably. And what would a different system look like? One that would not benefit the elites but would benefit the masses?) “and we need to replace it” (how? And with what?).

This problem is manifest in the intra-conservative debate over our culture, as well. In his unfortunate and misguided attack against David French, Sohrab Ahmari argues that the objective for social conservatives should be “to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good.”



But what does this mean in practice? Who decides the “Highest Good?” Mr. Ahmari? Donald Trump? (And does it mean, for example, that Game of Thrones would not have been allowed to air on HBO?)

I like a good doctrinal debate as much as anyone. But for them to matter, the doctrine must be applied. And thinking about the specific applications can help improve the doctrine quite a bit.