Cal Thomas: Virtue vs. utility

Among the questions I am most often asked by people who don’t like the two presidential candidates: “How did we get to this point where I can’t enthusiastically vote for either one?”

What may be a partial answer comes from an essay by Daniel McCarthy, editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review.

In the summer 2024 issue, McCarthy writes about “Democracy Beyond Elections.” After recalling what Alexis de Tocqueville found admirable about America during his 10-month visit nearly two centuries ago, McCarthy says: “In the modern world freedom begins in virtue and ends with utility.” He explains that “freedom once in hand comes to be defined by the lack of any clear aim. It means everyone can do anything he or she wants and every desire becomes equal.”

Some would call that “license.” Another word for it might be “libertine,” whose definition increasingly defines this country: “a person who is morally or sexually unrestrained…” Must I offer examples?

This suggests that making money and indulging in things that give one personal pleasure with little regard to how it affects others and the unity of the country is now the highest priority for many.

“Whatever makes money,” writes McCarthy, “will be perceived as good, while what makes less money – or loses money – must be bad: after all, money is simply a stand-in for the multitude (and scale) of human aims and desires.”

McCarthy then gets to the heart of why we are discontented with many of our leaders: “In the cultural realm, and in morals too, democratic equality levels the good and bad. The only thing that remains truly bad is whatever is more-than-equal or gets deemed undemocratic. The good is increasingly understood in utilitarian terms, not only as what satisfies the greatest number but also as the most efficient means toward producing subjective satisfaction.” McCarthy says this plays out in the thinking of people who are “outraged” when someone suggests that Beethoven might be better than Beyonce.

Tocqueville, says McCarthy, feared that “what made human beings noble and good could be lost – men could forget their own souls.”

It appears they already have, and in increasing numbers as the cultural elites demand we must accept any and every idea and form of human behavior (except conservative religious and political ideas).

We can’t say we haven’t been warned about this numerous times by the Founders and previous religious and political leaders. I’ve quoted him before, but G.K. Chesterton was right when he said:“ When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything.” The increasing secularization of our culture, including its hypersexuality without commitment in marriage, and the lack of interest in church attendance by especially younger people, gives credence to his point.

If political leadership represents what the masses believe – from entitlement to other people’s money, to no restraints on human behavior – that reflects who we are. We get what we deserve. What has become paramount are personal desires, not the greater good.

As C.S. Lewis stated in “The Abolition of Man:“ We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

More than 61 percent of voters think we are on the wrong track, according to Real Clear Polling. So why do we keep voting for people who keep us on the wrong track? The answer is they represent who we are at our core.

John Adams remarked that “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.” What happens when a majority appear no longer moral and religious? We get these two presidential candidates.

========

Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas’ latest book “A Watchman in the Night: What I've Seen Over 50 Years Reporting on America" (HumanixBooks).