The Introduction:
No man-made philosophy or school of thought is completely compatible with the gospel of Jesus Christ and its divine program for the spiritual and temporal well-being of man. This is true of both modern liberalism and modern conservatism. They are both deficient in certain respects when measured by the divine plan that has been revealed by the Lord.
As a significant historical movement, liberalism emerged as a product of the humanism of the Renaissance. As a school of thought, it centered emphasis upon faith in human reason and in the essential goodness of man, with the freedom of the individual under law as its major objective. While still endeavoring to cling to this basic objective, twentieth-century liberalism has altered its approach by championing social justice in the interest of human freedom. Liberals now argue that men must be socially and economically free if they are to be free in other ways. But while this is a proper conclusion, modern liberals, being essentially humanistic in their approach, maintain that man-made conventions such as the political state are proper devices through which to achieve social justice. This means that while they seek to promote the basic dignity of the individual, modern liberals favor the socialization of the state as a means of coping with the social and economic problems of society.
But while modern liberalism attempts to foster the freedom and dignity of man through state-sponsored welfare measures, its program is deficient as a movement in that it lacks the necessary enlightening and regenerating powers to promote social union and justice without destroying the freedom of man. Social justice can be achieved only as the product of that kind of social union where free men spontaneously, of their own free will and desire, unite together, without sacrificing their freedom, to achieve intelligently the goal of social justice. Union and justice are then founded in individualism. If such union as is required to attain social justice cannot be achieved without impinging upon freedom, arbitrary measures must then be exercised to achieve this end. Since modern liberalism lacks the necessary powers to promote the free and open union of men, it must therefore pursue its quest for social union and justice at the expense of the freedom and dignity of man. Here is its main weakness. And here is its dilemma. Modern liberalism is seeking to attain an objective that it has not the tools to achieve.
Modern conservatism stands upon similar ground to that occupied by liberalism until around the turn of the twentieth century. Modern conservatives approach the problem of achieving human dignity and progress by emphasizing freedom, individualism, and a substantial return to free enterprise of the variety that was predominant in the atomistic society of nineteenth-century America.
But while it stresses the need to reassert the principle of freedom in modern society, conservatism also lacks the necessary cohesive powers with which to promote true social union among free men and thereby achieve social justice. Here modern conservatives leave themselves open to attack, for free men must also be sufficiently mature to unite together, without sacrificing their freedom, and thereby cope with the problems of social justice in society. This type of maturity has not been demonstrated in the past; and the failure of free men to achieve it has resulted in serious disruptions within our free economy, that have paved the way for the modern liberal approach to the problem. The most significant disruption occurred with the financial crash of 1929.
Modern conservatism therefore has the same fundamental weakness as modern liberalism. They are both hopelessly entangled in a problem which neither of them can fully solve. But while liberalism proposes the socialization of the state, with its inevitable loss of freedom, conservatism holds that man can get nearer to a solution of the problem of social justice by maintaining a climate of freedom in which to work. The spirit of freedom has made Western civilization, and particularly America, great; and to maintain that climate of freedom, conservatives argue, is the best approach that men can take to the problem of social justice.
In the following articles, the writer takes the view that the true plan for achieving social justice without impinging upon man's freedom and dignity has been revealed to the Latter-day Saints through the Prophet Joseph Smith. If this is true, Latter-day Saints possess the key to the riddle of social justice. It must follow, therefore, that they have a primary responsibility to learn of this divine program and assist in its development upon the earth in these latter days, rather than become entangled in strife over the deficient man-made approaches to the problem of human welfare. Nevertheless, it is the writer's studied opinion that, in order to meet the problems that currently confront them, Latter-day Saints are bound by that which they hold sacred, to support an intelligent, conservative position in social, economic, and political philosophy, not because conservatism provides the final and ultimate solution to man's problems, but for other reasons which may be listed as follows:
First, Latter-day Saints should give primary attention to the preservation of freedom, for next to the gift of life, the gifts of freedom and virtue are man's most sacred possessions.
Second, it is a historical fact that within a climate of freedom the United States has become the greatest nation of all history. Citizens of this favored nation should therefore be able to achieve the goal of social justice to a greater degree by maintaining that climate of freedom than by encouraging the development of a welfare state. While the welfare state seemingly stimulates the development of man by seeking to foster his economic well-being, in reality it stifles his development by regimenting him to a paternalistic program that takes away both his freedom and his dignity.
Third, closely associated with the two reasons listed above is the responsibility Latter-day Saints are under to build up Zion. It is impossible for them to fulfil this responsibility and at the same time foster the development of the welfare state, for in the ultimate sense they must either seek to solve their social and economic problems by building up Zion or they must turn to the systems of men, primarily to the welfare state. And if they become enmeshed in the stifling program of the big paternal state, how much freedom can they retain to build up the society of Zion?
Fourth, Latter-day Saints should sustain an intelligent, conservative position in order to retain the climate of freedom required to build up Zion, because freedom is the basic foundation upon which the divine socio-economic and religious program of Zion must rest. The Saints must therefore retain it as the foundation of all that they hold to be sacred.
Finally, it should be observed that the following articles were not produced originally with the intent of publishing them together in a single volume. For this reason they may lack continuity and overlap in minor areas. But while there are certain ideas repeated in some of the articles, the author feels that these articles do identify certain major issues about which Latter-day Saints should be concerned. But while they do not treat all the issues that modern liberals dwell upon, it is hoped that they will provide food for thought on the subjects they treat. The writer takes full responsibility for that which is herein contained as being an expression of his own personal conclusions.
