The Trouble with Chesterton's Fence

We sometimes should tear it down

A conservative Republican says “Nothing should ever be done for the first time.”

A modern Republican says “It should be, but not now.”

—Mort Sahl, “The Future Lies Ahead”

People on the left, like humorist Mort Sahl, mocked the Eisenhower Administration for its slow, cautious approach to racial integregation. Racial segregation was maintained by force of law in the South, where a drinking fountain would be labeled “whites only” or “colored only.” It was maintained in housing in the North via Redlining, in which real estate agents would not show black families houses in “white” neighborhoods. Federal government mortgage subsidy programs reinforced this.

In the 1950s, the Supreme Court led the way on integration, with the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling against segregated schools. But politicians, especially Democrats in the South, resisted change.

One of the most fundamental divides between the left and right concerns the relative value given to reason vs. tradition. The left believes that a cognitive and moral elite is capable of using reason to determine what is best for everyone. The right believes that there is wisdom embodied in tradition, and tradition should be maintained even when reason seems to suggest otherwise.

Conservatives use the shorthand “Chesterton’s Fence” to describe their position. If you come across a fence, reason may suggest that you should tear it down. But you may find out later that the fence was serving an important purpose.

When Mike Munger and I discussed my essay on Thomas Sowell’s Conflict of Visions, we talked about how racial integration poses a problem for “Chesterton’s Fence” arguments. Racial segregation was wrong. But it was like a fence that had been in place for a long time. Does that mean it should be left in place?

What this example shows is that the “Chesterton’s Fence” argument has to be more nuanced than just “never tear down the fence.” Instead, the argument should be that before we change a law or a social norm we should try to understand the purpose of the law and to anticipate the unintended consequences of changing it. We should try to limit the risks by making changes experimentally and incrementally. And we should do the best we can to prevent harmful consequences, or at least to recognize when they occur and try to mitigate them.

I think that drug legalization represents an example of tearing down a fence and not allowing for or facing up to the harmful consequences. Proponents of legalization continue to stand on the same arguments that they used before. That people should not be prosecuted for personal choices. That enforcement disproportionately punishes black people. Etc.

But substance abuse affects the quality of life for many people who do not themselves take drugs. And it seems that legalization has resulted in more enthusiastic marketing and stronger drugs, both of which have affected people who otherwise would not have had their lives ruined by drugs.

We can concede that the “war on drugs” did not work. But we should admit that our current regime is not working, either. It may even be worse.

The drive to expand access to college is another example. Keeping blacks out of colleges was wrong. Keeping women out of the most elite colleges was wrong. But if racial balance requires getting rid of longstanding standards for rigor, then that is too high a price to pay. If large numbers of women at elite universities bring attitudes and behaviors that run counter to free speech and open inquiry, then we need to be more vigilant about defending those values.

Sometimes, there is a good case for tearing down the fence of law and tradition. But sometimes it turns out that the fence was serving a useful purpose, and we need to rethink more carefully.

This essay is part of a series on human interdependence.