It would be hard to fathom a more futile conversation than the one about the “common good” that is playing out in that intellectually vigorous venue known as X. While some are, no doubt, purposely talking past each other, there are some who are well intentioned but nevertheless miss the mark through a variety of category errors or straw men fallacies.
In the interest of brevity, I’ve compartmentalized my thoughts into five takeaways:
(1) Those claiming that the civil magistrates do not have an interest in public morality or a general welfare of the people are wrong. Now, truth be told, I don’t hear many saying this, but if any are, they are wrong.
(2) Those beating the common-good drum in 2026 are not the writers of The Federalist Papers or founders of the American experiment. Rather, they are think-tankers and post-liberals who have magically had nothing to say about adultery, vulgarity, business corruption, or a variety of other violations of the common good that inconveniently sit in the Oval Office. In other words, power appears to be more of the agenda than a reclamation of virtue. Who could’ve guessed?
(3) The issue is not whether or not absolute standards of right and wrong exist (they do), and the issue is not whether or not the state has a role (it does). Any belief that the state ought to punish criminals and defend national security is a claim on the state’s promotion and defense of what some would call the common good. The issue is on where the lines are to be drawn and what the limiting principles are. Conservatives who loathe post-liberalism (like yours truly) recognize Kuyperian sphere sovereignty — where the primary institutional responsibility for civil society lies with the family, with church, and with robust communities. Asking the federal government to take on the role of common-good morality, manners, and virtues is a grotesque violation of jurisdiction and suitable silo. Using common-good language to rationalize some state intervention in the marketplace must contain a limiting principle, or it is better referred to by its other name: rank statism.
(4) Fusionism was, is, and will be the best framework for reconciling and holding the tension between the moral order we want and need and the liberty and freedom an individual is granted by his or her Creator.
(5) Those attempting to answer these questions by relying on the wisdom and autonomy of man, or the pagan philosophy of the ancient Greeks, are spitting in the wind. It behooves those of us who believe in a moral order to not only ask the question “By what standard?” but to have an answer. And it behooves those of us who want to fuse that moral order to freedom and economic liberty to root these beliefs in a coherent understanding of the human person. Statist inclinations regarding the marketplace fail because they do not have the right anthropology. Aristotle doesn’t have it either. But there is a way that transcends the wisdom of the world.