Imposing Morality

Matthew Harrison Brady: But your client is wrong. He is deluded. He has lost his way.
Henry Drummond: It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is right and what is wrong, Mr Brady
--Inherit the Wind

Although the focus of this article is on 19th century libertarian Lysander Spooner, I was more interested in Rothbard's recount of the role of the pietists and liturgicals in 19th century America. Actually, Rothbard's recount is a more of a review, as we have considered much of the story before.

Pietists believed that a religious person must experience a real-time conversion of sorts that made him/her morally just in action. In mid-19th century America, pietism took on a normative bent, meaning that people needed to watch over the behavior of others and participate in their conversion if necessary. Protestants generally supported this view.

This religious view leaked into politics, when pietists reasoned that they could do an even better job of converting their fellow man by using the force of government to do so. The Republican Party of the 1850s thru 1890s became the pietists' political vehicle. During this period, the Republican Party was commonly known as the 'party of great moral ideas.' Republicans backed such social movements as prohibition, public schools, and abolition.

Liturgicals, on the other hand, believed that salvation was achieved by following the creed of the church. The experts in the creed were the leaders of the church, not the State. Liturgicals had no interest in forcing others into being saved. They merely wanted to be left alone to pursue their interests. Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Roman Catholics generally supported this view.

The Democratic Party of the 1850s thru 1890s was the party of choice for liturgicals. Liturgicals profoundly believed that moralilty was not the business of the State. The Democratic Party was commonly known as the 'party of personal liberty.'

This arrangement continued until the mid 1890s, when a confluence of factors drove the libertarian liturgical vein out of the Democratic Party. Replacing it was a socialist populism, a secular pietist of sorts prescribing that people in society should behave in ways that support a leveling of economic and social status, and that it is the job of the State to impose this view of 'social justice.'

What happened to the liturgicals? Many of them defected to pietist or populist groups, perhaps sensing opportunity to advance their interests using State force. Others simply backed away from politics and focused on their religious pursuits.

Over the past 100 years, lack of engagement in political process has penalized those who believe morality is not the business of the state. Liturgicals and others who believe that people should be able to pursue their interests unencumbered by forceful intervention by others have no meaningful political vehicle to advance their view, although perhaps the Tea Party movement is changing that.

Meanwhile, America is dominated by two political parties, each trying to impose their version of morality on others using the strong arm of the State.