The Slow Road to Serfdom
About four months ago, while the stimulus bill was being debated, I did a pretty nerdy post about it that generated a lot of controversy. The key points were that the spending would very likely either: (i) come too late to do much more good if we had a normal length recession, or (ii) represent a significant shift in the structural budget that would move the U.S. a significant distance toward a European social welfare state if we had something more like a decade-long slowdown. Under either scenario, I argued, this law would near-permanently lock in programs that have long been on the wish list of the left-wing of the Democratic Party. I saw it as a huge ideological shift masquerading as emergency relief. I think events have, so far, vindicated this point of view.
Keith Hennessey, who was the senior White House economic advisor to President George W. Bush, has a fascinating post that broadly confirms this view, and more importantly provides a view of the inside baseball that produced this outcome. He tends to see the Obama Administration as having been taken by the Congress. For all I know, this may be true, but it’s not clear who did what to whom when.
Let’s assume that we are moving toward more of a European social welfare state. Whose fault is it? Do you blame the folks who want the welfare state or do you blame the folks who created the massive crisis that has made such a move possible and probable?
Mike
— MBunge · Jun 6, 04:22 PM · #
The question I have for you is whether you think this is a ruse to put one over on a gullible public, or if this kind of a shift is in fact popular with the majority of the electorate.
— Freddie · Jun 6, 04:22 PM · #
Mike:
Both. I don’t think you would have ever found me to be a big cheerleader for the GW Bush administration. I was fairly widely criticized by the Right-wing blogosphere for describing the GW Bush fiscal record as “stimulus by another name” for most of the last decade.
Freddie:
I don’t know.
My criticism of that bill was not that its proponents weren’t being fully objective in describing it (no big news there), but that an objective view of it indicated that, despite it’s name, it would likely have X consequences. Independent of current popular opinion, I think that these consequences are not in the general interest.
— Jim Manzi · Jun 6, 04:36 PM · #
Freddie wrote:
“The question I have for you is whether you think this is a ruse to put one over on a gullible public, or if this kind of a shift is in fact popular with the majority of the electorate.”
I have a question for you: does it matter to you what the answer to the question is?
— jd · Jun 6, 11:02 PM · #
have a question for you: does it matter to you what the answer to the question is?
Sure. And the way to answer it is with evidence, and considering the size of Democratic electoral victories and the horrendous polling numbers for conservatism, I’d say the evidence is on our side.
— Freddie · Jun 7, 01:37 AM · #
Mr. Manzi,
Please note Casey Mulligan’s recent post on the subject of the Canadian public sector, in which he notes the ratio of the sum of public expenditure and the sales of state-owned industry to domestic product stood at 0.55 in 1992 and stands at about 0.40 today. You can march down this mountain if you have the political will to do so.
— Art Deco · Jun 7, 04:41 AM · #
Horrendous polling numbers for conservatism? Maybe you could give a few examples of those numbers. Conservatism, that is, not Republicanism, or liberal caricatures of conservatism.
I would simply add one little thing in our favor: it’s not conservatives who run from their label as conservatives. Liberals are now progressives (once again) and they really are afraid to say what they want. Obama ran as a tax-cutter (but that’s OK because liberals knew he was lying). Liberals cannot be honest about what they really want, because what they really want is socialism. That’s why Joe the Plumber had to be destroyed: he got the anointed one to say something he shouldn’t have.
— jd · Jun 7, 12:41 PM · #
Liberals are now progressives (once again) and they really are afraid to say what they want.
I’m a liberal. I know what I want, and you can ask around to see if I’m afraid to say it.
Look, jd, you’re hardly alone in this: what has struck me, more than anything, is the insistence by many conservatives that no matter what happens, conservatism is really, really popular. It’s the number one message you’ve heard since the election. Glenn Beck saying “they don’t surround us, we surround them” is kind of the ur-statement of this stuff. It just doesn’t occur to Beck that maybe that’s not true, that maybe this country isn’t, in fact, destined to be conservative. Maybe this supposed dominance of control over real America wasn’t ever the case.
Not that I think America is necessarily a liberal country, mind you, in any kind of way that doesn’t require massive qualifications. Like Conor said the other day, America is probably some combination of a pragmatically moderate country, a fickle country, and a country that is apathetic in its ignorance. Most people aren’t dedicated to a particular ideological vision at all. I find the crude theory of economic election outcomes— Americans reward incumbent parties if the economy is good, and punish them if the economy is bad— very persuasive.
But Jim here is talking about the size of government, and if there’s one thing that I hear again and again from Republicans, it’s that Americans have this great aversion to growing the government. And I simply don’t think that this is true. If they do, they’ve been remarkably patient about getting what they want. Ronald Reagan grew the government. George HW Bush grew the government. George W Bush grew the government. Republican congressional majorities in 1994 and 2002 failed to meaningfully shrink the government.
I fully expect Republicans to be back on top in the next several election cycles. That’s American politics. But as for small government orthodoxy, I’m sorry, I see no evidence that it’s something that the majority of the American electorate cares about on any kind of a substantive level. Many Americans feel like they can’t get ahead economically, particularly those without college degrees— the large majority of Americans. Whether they have a right to see themselves as disadvantaged or not is a fair question. But with the collapse of our uneducated labor market, thanks to globalization, it’s harder and harder to understand what path a traditionally conservative economic vision offers the millions of Americans who are incapable of getting a bachelors degree. These people are generally speaking not suffering from their tax burden. So while I’m convinced conservatism is going to make a comeback, it has to have something to offer uneducated workers that can match liberal social programs that (yes, it’s true) can improve the quality of their lives.
— Freddie · Jun 7, 02:06 PM · #
And, incidentally, that’s why a book like Grand New Party is so essential to the future of conservatism. Even if those aren’t the answers, they are answers that aren’t “cut taxes.”
— Freddie · Jun 7, 06:18 PM · #
“Conservatism” generally polls rather well, I think. What polls poorly is libertarianism. Many people find this result confusing, because libertarianism is more popular the higher you are on the social scale (I wonder why?). Thus, most members of the chattering classes, or most people reading this comment, know a lot more self-proclaimed libertarians than, say, nuns, or career military officers, or what have you.
— y81 · Jun 7, 08:00 PM · #
Freddie,
“I’d say the evidence is on our side.”
Since the core issue is recovery from recession aren’t we all on the same side?
— C3 · Jun 7, 09:13 PM · #
Freddie:
You’re one liberal, at least, who doesn’t run away from the label. But, if you’re honest, don’t you have to admit that Democrats cringe at the label, and in moments of honesty will refer to themselves as progressives, a la Hillary Clinton during the campaign—(“a progressive of the early 20th century tradition). And then there’s Barack, who as I said, had to run as a tax-cutter. (wink-wink)
I hate to agree with you, but it appears that Americans do not seem opposed to bigger government, if what Congressmen do reflects the actual desires of the American people. But I’m not prepared to say that. Are you? I’m extremely concerned that Congresspeople are not at all honest about what they stand for. We elected conservatives by a huge landslide in 1994, and somehow, they started spending like Democrats. Something bad happens to most people when they get to Washington.
That being said, if voting for one guy meant big government and voting for the other guy meant smaller government, I’m not so sure how it would turn out. The tea parties show that a significant number of people are pretty upset about spending.
Your last paragraph was so loaded with assumptions that I can’t really unpack it all—especially since I can’t seem to figure out how to use “textile”.
But let me say one thing about it. One of the biggest dangers of democracy is that the majority can vote themselves all the goodies they want, and not lift a finger to produce anything. That is not a good thing, and it is not sustainable. I truly believe that your liberal social programs are way too often in that category.
— jd · Jun 7, 09:31 PM · #
But, if you’re honest, don’t you have to admit that Democrats cringe at the label,
Yes.
— Freddie · Jun 8, 12:00 AM · #