Looking for Some New Values
One of the great emerging themes from the Democratic convention is the idea of community and common good, as an explicit refutation of the libertarian-Republican notion of rugged individualism that has rode roughshod, and practically unchallenged, over the national discourse since the Reagan era.
Initially, the injection of some of this ideology was beneficial to public policy. By 1980, much of the promise of welfare-state liberalism had decayed into a frustrating mass of government programs that did not accomplish their stated objectives, and, by institutional inertia and entrenched interest, proved nearly immune to internal reform. It took a blast of external opposition to shake loose the worst of it. Unfortunately, partisans took this victory as validation of an ideology that is at least as bad in its extremes as anything posited by the Left, and continue to cling to it even as its own unintended consequences have created a new set of problems.
For 20 years, Democrats were unable or unwilling to reclaim the language of liberalism as a framework for a coherent public policy, in part because of effective opposition, and in part because of their own doubts about the continued relevance of social governance in an era of unbounded market growth, globalization, and the disintegration of the American national culture into a politics of identity and exclusion. Now, however, it seems that the uncompromising ideological extremism of Bush has caused Democrats to rally to the old standard and find strength in the enduring appeal of community values and commitment to collective progress (rather than simply individual profit and achievement). Win or lose, it’s a triumph for America to have someone speaking proudly for these values as the basis for public policy once again.
In the comments to yesterday’s post, there’s some lively give-and-take with frequent EA guest Matthew DeLuca on whether the new-old liberalism being proclaimed so triumphantly in Boston signals a return to policies that Matt characterizes as wasteful government spending to buy off Democratic constituencies. In light of undeniable abuses of the welfare state by some Democratic politicians during the height of the “big government” era, this is a fair question.
In my own view, the kinds of government programs proposed by Kerry – particularly in health care – are rather modest and prudent, even by recent standards (e.g., the failed 1993 Clinton plan). They only appear radical when viewed through the lens of extremist libertarian ideology, which distrusts any role for the state. It is equally true that the best aspects of our free market system in health care – the continued investment in new treatments and new technologies, resulting in a better quality of care at the top end (which may eventually filter down to everyone else) – is only really a problem to die-hard leftists.
It seems to me that neither ideology alone can pose a total solution. To achieve better care for more people at lower cost, conservatives need to accept some socialization of the financial costs and liberals need to accept some inequality in the standards of treatment based on the ability to pay. Total ideological victory on an issue like this, as on many others, is so clearly in no one’s interests that I really wonder why people insist on grinding axes and arguing with straw men.
The result of a total commitment to ideology over outcomes is evident in the following exchange from the comment thread.
[Matt quotes Rob] I don't think anyone is proposing that the state try to solve everything, but there are definitely clear and obvious ways that we as a community (through our agent, representative government) can do more [...]
[Matt writes] Ah, yes, representative government. The system where the wolves and sheep vote on lunch, yes?
We're entering a dangerous period in the history of our democracy. We're already at the point where the vast majority of the taxes are paid by a minority of the voting population. If John Kerry and the Democrats get their way, we'll soon be in a position where a majority of the population is receiving direct payments from the government. Naturally, these aren't going to be the same people paying the taxes.
Now we have the classic bread-and-circuses problem...people voting themselves largess from the public treasury that they themselves don't actually contribute to. This is when we as a nation will *really* start circling the drain.
What then? Well, there's nowhere to go from here...America is supposed to be the 'last, best hope of mankind'. All that's left at that point is to have the revolution and start again.
My reply to Matt is the following:
If you lack faith in democracy and in the capabilities of your fellow citizens to govern themselves responsibly, perhaps you'd like to suggest an alternative? Redistribution of wealth is a feature of every government that has ever existed - the question only is, who benefits? By offering equality of opportunity and even occasionally delivering on that promise, America has successfully avoided the worst consequences of a statist economy. At the same time, we have an extremely wasteful and corrupt welfare system right now whose primary beneficiaries are large corporations with the resources to influence government policy for their private, rather than public, good. When the hogs feed too greedily at the trough, ordinary people start to doubt the system and then, indeed, you get trouble.
It's a simple practical matter that for people at the top to keep most of what they've got, they need to share some of it. Build stuff that benefits everyone, take care of pressing problems like health care and infrastructure, and the whole society ends up richer for it. I'm not sure what your experience is, but in mine, I find that most people aren't lazy and don't want to freeload. They're looking for ways to make positive contributions, for themselves, their families and their communities, but they can't do everything themselves. This cult of unalloyed self-reliance in all things that underlies libertarian belief strikes me as quite perverse and contrary to ordinary human experience. We've formed communities for a reason - we might as well make them work.
12:29:52 PM 
|
