The Conservative Revival

Peter Berkowitz in the WSJ pens an eloquent articulation of conservatism, highlighting its strengths that progressives often ignore: 

Progressives like to believe that conservatism's task is exclusively negative—resisting the centralizing and expansionist tendency of democratic government. And that is a large part of the conservative mission. Progressives see nothing in this but hard-hearted indifference to inequality and misfortune, but that is a misreading.

What conservatism does is ask the question avoided by progressive promises: at what expense? In the aftermath of the global economic crisis of 2008, Western liberal democracies have been increasingly forced to come to grips with their propensity to live beyond their means.

It is always the task for conservatives to insist that money does not grow on trees, that government programs must be paid for, and that promising unaffordable benefits is reckless, unjust and a long-term threat to maintaining free institutions.

But conservatives also combat government expansion and centralization because it can undermine the virtues upon which a free society depends. Big government tends to crowd out self-government—producing sluggish, selfish and small-minded citizens, depriving individuals of opportunities to manage their private lives and discouraging them from cooperating with fellow citizens to govern their neighborhoods, towns, cities and states.

It really is a must read-all piece, for Berkowitz reminds conservatives they must accept the political realities of the New Deal, and demonstrate how they will dedicate government to "effectively discharge" duties of reigniting the economy, making health care more affordable, and getting people back to work. He points out to conservatives that free markets and liberty, for all their benefits, can also bring instability and erosion of respect for tradition. When conservatives recognize these disruptions can have profound impacts to people's lives, and convey to voters they want to preserve a safety net to help one navigate capitalism's potholes while preserving its best effects--innovation, a continual raise in standards of living, and most of all--opportunity for the American dream, voters will gravitate back to these principles. It's a timeless message that reminds us that economic freedom is inextricably entwined with individual freedom, and an attractive reflection of traditional American values that imparts that with freedom comes responsibility.

Classic: Reagan on Government

A timely video from the Republican Study Committee (h/t: Powerline):

An Opportunity Society or a Welfare State?

Rep Paul Ryan pretty much nails it. Do we want to be an opportunity society with a safety net, or a welfare state?

Our social contract with the government is on the verge of being changed again. It was transformed with FDR's New Deal during the Great Depression, when government engaged in income redistribution. While marginal tax rates have decreased significantly from FDR's time (marginal tax rates exceed 90% during his Presidency), his legacy of a safety net remains.  Conservatives should support a safety net as a type of altruistic redistribution.

Julian Sanchez clarified the different types of income redistribution by their purpose when the issue arose during the election in 2008. There's incidental redistribution, which provides for public goods that benefit most everybody, or at least do not exclude anybody. Items that fall in this category include national defense, infrastructure, and public education. On the other hand, Sanchez describes altruistic redistribution as:

What I’m talking about here is transfer programs aimed at helping the badly off, where the justification for the program is specifically the benefit to the worse-off, and not centrally any benefit to the people footing the bill. 

Like most conservatives, I support some forms of altruistic redistribution. I believe that Americans who play by the rules can suffer major income shocks through no fault of their own. You get laid off and can't find a job while you have a family to support, or you suffer a major illness and are on the verge of declaring bankruptcy due to medical costs that your insurer will no longer pay. In scenarios like these, I do believe we're morally a better society for helping people in need. While I believe capitalism provides the most opportunities for all, as a reflection of human nature, it's a flawed system. Not as flawed as some of the social democratic type of mixed economies in my opinion, but I have no desire to go back to the era of the Great Depression when many of the unemployed ended up homeless, setting up make-shift shanty towns. 


My qualifiers to altruistic redistribution is to think of it what's sometimes described as a help up, versus a hand-out. A help up is often means-tested and temporary. We have many safety net programs like this, to include unemployment benefits, or COBRA health insurance. I also accept that there are some vulnerable groups that cannot fully participate in a free market society, to include children and the elderly. I just want these programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security, to be reformed so they are fiscally sustainable.

Altruistic redistribution is distinguished from egalitarian redistribution. This type of redistribution is what Obama's "share the wealth" refers to, as a way to level the playing field. It's an attempt to equalize outcomes. Most conservatives including myself do not support this. In previous posts, I outlined the trade-offs between egalitarianism and freedom, and I fall more on the side of freedom than income equality.

A egalitarian society will have generous entitlement programs, but an expansive government that grows bigger and bigger to regulate the most trivial aspects of our lives since, for example, in the case of health care, we have to start policing what people eat because the increased costs of obesity have become socialized. This type of society grows government at the individual's expense, and nibbles away at that American dream slowly via taxation, in a death by a thousand paper cuts fashion. But a free society with a safety net promotes opportunity. It acknowledges unfairness, but believes the individual in most cases is best equipped to deal with those circumstances. And when misfortune is particularly severe, it provides a help up, not a hand out. This is the type of society I support.

The Politics of a Welfare State

In one of my recent blogs on "Lessons From Greece," I note the window for action for true federal spending reform is rapidly narrowing in the US. While I pointed out we are not like Greece, we do have much more in common culturally with Great Britain, whose recent election shows how difficult fundamental reform is when the state creates an entitlement mindset among voters, destroying civic society that underlies successful representative democracies.  This WSJ article, "Not Britain's Finest Hour", highlights the depressing reality of British politics:

"Given that this fiscal repair job is likely to be the major domestic policy challenge for the next government, it is striking how reticent all three main U.K. parties have been in explaining how they would confront the task. Their public spending plans are particularly vague," said the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a nonpartisan think tank, this week.

In fact, even as they paid lip service to the scale of the fiscal dangers, the British political leaders' promises to voters seem to involve more spending increases.

On Wednesday, the day before the election, British televisions were in split-screen mode; on one side Messrs. Brown, Cameron and Clegg roamed the country competing to offer more money for health spending, education or the environment. On the other side, Greece, member of the euro zone, was burning as the political consequences of years of failing to address mounting debt problems were laid bare. 

To be sure, Britain's public finances are much more manageable than Greece's. Its debt is less than half that of Greece's in relation to its national income.

But the direction of the U.K.'s economics and politics are clear—and run directly counter to the nation's pressing needs.

The reality is that the state has—in economic terms—become so dominant in Britain, the public largesse so pervasive, that the political costs of reining it back are seen as dangerously high for any party that wants to get elected."  [emphasis added]

There are tradeoffs between having a more economically egalitarian society and freedom. To achieve egalitarianism, the state must rely on income redistribution, usually via higher taxation.  But you ultimately pay in freedom.  I remember having a conversation with a liberal concerning income redistribution for welfare payments. When I pointed out this out tradeoff, he said, so what? So you go to one less restaurant a week or don't buy that IPod.  Never mind that I think it's none of his business on how I should spend my money.  What if I want to save my money to reach my American dream, or to send my son to a better school?


Some liberals will undoubtedly see this as a bit selfish.  I'm not against all forms of income redistribution--I'll outline my philosophy on redistribution in a separate follow-up post.  However, while they may acknowledge the first order costs of egalitarianism on economic freedom, they don't acknowledge the indirect costs which when cumulative, cost us much more than that IPod.  
Here is where the difference between conservatives and liberals sharpen. Conservatives are more comfortable with inequality if they believe there are few barriers to someone born of any class, to have the freedom to achieve success. Liberals seen injustice in great inequality, and feel it's in society's interest to help those they feel are worse off--otherwise, they reason, they have little opportunity to achieve the American dream if they're too worried living hand-to-mouth. Additionally, they point out these people do not feel part of society and there is a greater likelihood of societal conflict with great inequality. The conservative rejoinder is that by giving government assurances of meeting all one's basic needs, the incentive for individual responsibility is reduced; security is traded for freedom over time.  And thus, the importance of freedom is diminished.  After all, what's the point of freedom without individual responsibility?

Britain is a prime example of this--the voters don't want to give up their entitlements, but somehow expect the government to return their nation to some semblance of fiscal order.  The conservative candidate, Dave Cameron, has claimed the Tories are the party of the NHS, and has pledged more government spending on it.  Since the costs of egalitarian programs like health care are socialized, economic freedom isn't the only freedom that suffers--even individual freedom to eat what you want starts coming under scrutiny since the rationale goes, society is paying the costs for your obese behind.  


Suffice it to say, philosophers of these positions articulate them much more elegantly than I can do on a blog.  The liberal economic tradition is often articulated by John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin while the conservative position is take by John Kekes.


My simple point as with Britain, our nation is not immune to these types of policies and politics which will irreversibly change our national character. For once, I actually hope Britain proves me wrong on this.