It’s been quite a semester so far. It’s the beginning of my senior year, I have already had job application jitters, and then my world gets rocked by two nuanced, incisive, and compelling insights into my person in a matter of weeks. First, that I hated Eve Carson. But then, I was told:
Et tu, Nathan?
A rather childish (not to mention cowardly) thing to say, especially coming from the President of Young Democrats who is supposed to be one of the Serious People on campus.
I could dispense with his criticisms easily (I have a girlfriend, half my close friends are gay, my mother was the first in her family to go to college, etc) but that would be rationally responding to irrationality which simply doesn’t work.
Of course, that wasn’t actually an attempt in constructive criticism- it’s a tactic the Left uses with relish to club their opponents into submission. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, or the epithet of your choice are invariably among the first barrage to come from the Left when debating ideas- which brings to mind Mark Steyn’s quip: “The aim of a large swathe of the Left is not to win the debate but to get it cancelled before it starts.”
Their thought-process go something like this: conservatives hate the poor because they support free markets (because that makes sense). This ignores the fact that 99% of conservatives support the free market because they honestly believe capitalism has been the mechanism by which billions of people around the world have been lifted out of poverty. Read Kirk’s The Roots of American Order and tell me that his overriding concern is his own self-interest. You’ll find, shockingly to most liberals, that he’s actually concerned with the well-being of all of mankind!
We could keep going: conservatives oppose affirmative action not because of racism but because, like Clarence Thomas, they think it actually impedes the success of African-Americans; conservatives and gay marriage; conservatives and abortion; conservatives and immigration; et cetera.
Hayek makes this point in The Fatal Conceit. He argues that part of the reason liberals despise capitalism is, for example, a grocer doesn’t sell apples because he desperately wants to give you, YOU an apple. A grocer wants to sell apples to make money to buy a coat for his wife or what have you. And you, the buyer, don’t want to buy the apple from the grocer because you desperately want him to buy that coat for his wife, you simply want the apple. So there isn’t the first-level intentionality there that a more “rational” economic system would have, where we are all looking out for each other’s interests. But, somehow, the grocer still gets you the apple and, by doing so, is still able to buy that coat for his wife, even though neither cared about fulfilling the other’s interest. Self-interest accomplishes the same task, just on a deeper level.
This has political implications: take minimum wage for example. For liberals, this is a clear example of how conservatives’ hate poor people: if we raised minimum wage, we could increase everyone’s wages and everyone, especially the poor, would be better off. That’s the first level argument- on the surface, the connection between the minimum wage and bettering the lives of the poor. Conservatives, however, dastardly insist on opposing minimum wage increases- why? Are they in the pockets of Big Business? Maybe some are, but while there is a superficial connection between the two, conservatives argue that there are Unintended Consequences to raising the minimum wage- higher unemployment for one. For example, there is a great deal of empirical evidence to support the idea that teenagers and young African-American men have been severely hurt by minimum wage increases in the past.
So do conservatives hate everyone under the sun? Clearly not, it’s unhelpfully ignorant to suggest so. If we are to elevate our civil discourse like every liberal- including the president himself- claims they want to, ascribing negative motivations to others’ actions is precisely what not to do. Let’s debate the policy, but let’s more fully understand the underlying axioms to the others’ positions, and, maybe, just maybe, we’ll discover the other side is really in it to accomplish something good too.
i knew it.
That's a nice straw man you've made. Liberals hate pure capitalism, but that doesn't mean they want to do away with markets altogether. The problem is not that the baker doesn't sell bread out of altruism. The problem is that market forces don't always lead to just outcomes. Since you love the market so much, I am sure you know that power asymmetries that exist in it lead to outcomes that make things much worse for poor people. The government's object should be to direct market forces toward more desirable outcomes, not to replace markets. Nobody is talking about doing away with capitalism… except conservatives who mischaracterize liberals.
If you keep thinking of arguments from the other side of the spectrum in absurd terms, you will always be able to convince yourself that they don't have anything to contribute. But whatever makes you happy.
How can we determine what is just? What is desirable? How can we “direct” capitalism?
It is very difficult to determine what is just, and almost impossible to reach a consensus. But it is more productive to look at the government that way than to look at it as a counterproductive force, and the market as something that always produces good outcomes. Instead, people should examine what outcomes the market actually produces.
The government can direct capitalism by modifying incentives. Milton Friedman says some good stuff about this if I recall. "Capitalism and Freedom" is one of my favorite books, although I believe that the government has a bit larger role to play than he ascribes. Sometimes, the government gets it wrong. For example, corporations (and especially financial institutions) have too many incentives to focus on the short-term. Other government policies encouraged more borrowing than should have taken place. On the other hand, the government gets it right, or close to right, very often as well. Rather than look at regulations in terms of "more or less," we should look at them in terms of whether or not they create incentives that lead to desirable ends. Some moral questions are easier to reach agreement upon than others. The democratic process is an imperfect way to do that, but it's the best we've got (although I am personally very interested in alternative models of decision-making, haven't found one I'm sold on yet).
A good place to start is by looking at the reasons that real markets fail to produce economically efficient outcomes, as opposed to theoretical markets where the conditions for efficiency are assumed. These market failures can be drawn directly from the theory that "free marketeers" claim to advocate. For example, asymmetric information leads consumers to make choices that they would not otherwise make, but the idea that the market will generate economically optimal outcomes assumes perfect information. Food safety regulation is a good example of how the government fixes this problem. Economic theory also assumes perfect competition – no market setters, no transaction costs, an infinite number of producers and consumers, completely interchangeable inputs, etc. Many of our government regulations improve competition, hence improving the operation of the market. The government can also smooth over bumps in the economy that produce disastrous consequences for people. I am sure you have looked at a GDP graph and seen how much more stable it became after the Great Depression.
Once the government institutes regulations that modify incentives and behaviors in a way that generates more economically efficient outcomes, you have to start thinking about whether economically efficient outcomes are the only goal worth pursuing. Those goals are more difficult to agree upon, some are easier than others. For example, giving everyone a fair shot at prosperity – the "American Dream," which has been eroded by rising inequality. But like I said, starting from a place that views government as the problem is counterproductive. It's about which regulations produce desirable outcomes and which don't, to the extent that society can come to an imperfect consensus about what goals are worth pursuing.
Governments exist to solve collective action problems, to do things that are good for people that they can't do in a free-for-all setting. Does the government get it wrong sometimes? Sure. But the paradigm in which most people in this country consider the role of government is blissfully ignorant of economic theory – and that's before you even get to non-economic goals.
That's a nice straw man you've made. Liberals hate pure capitalism, but that doesn't mean they want to do away with markets altogether. The problem is not that the baker doesn't sell bread out of altruism. The problem is that market forces don't always lead to just outcomes. Since you love the market so much, I am sure you know that power asymmetries that exist in it lead to outcomes that make things much worse for poor people. The government's object should be to direct market forces toward more desirable outcomes, not to replace markets. Nobody is talking about doing away with capitalism… except conservatives who mischaracterize liberals.
Anthony, having a girlfriend doesn't actually prove that you're pro-womankind, I'm afraid. That's like Sarah Palin saying she's a feminist because, after all, she has ladyparts.
What would prove I'm pro-womankind?
great article
I'm offended. I don't have a girlfriend, nor are any of my close friends gay, nor was my mom the first in her family to go to college (she was the third I think). I demand to be called a more hateful person than Anthony Dent.
I think we, progressives, can do much better than dragging legitimate ideological differences through the mud. Attacking Anthony is groundless and reflects a serious political ineptitude by the Young Democrats. I propose that all concerned patriots advocate for their respective constructive visions for both the country and the world, while extending both respect and an open-mind to contrary positions. To my left-leaning friends, I promise that we will always win that debate.
Thanks, Chris. But I'll contest your last point
"If we are to elevate our civil discourse like *every* liberal- including the president himself- claims they want to, ascribing negative motivations to others’ actions is precisely what not to do."
Way to generalize.