The present election cycle has focused almost exclusively on the personalities, temperament, idiosyncrasies and supposed inadequacies of the two individuals running for the presidency. Lost, in large measure, has been a serious discussion of the most important issues, and lost completely is a discussion of the underlying principles which would inform a discussion of the two parties and the two approaches to government.
I believe that we are losing, in this personal slugfest, an opportunity to engage in the investigation of those underlying principles. Were we to bring the basic concepts, reasoning behind, arguments for and against, and implications of the progressive platform versus the conservative one, we could at least, as a nation, take steps forward more guided by an underlying conceptual structure, than the present teetering between issues and personalities of the day.
I hope to make a plausible argument here that a central, liberal, “progressive or left” leaning conceptualization for the role of government and its efforts is better for this nation right now than the conservative “right” leaning approach. I think that argument can be made even were we to have two equally capable and equally untarnished candidates. I will leave untouched for this article whether that happens to be the case or not.
I will make this argument with the points which follow.
Questioning the Basis for the Moral argument for conservatism.
I assert that the romantically imagined ‘rugged individualist’ argument for a moral basis for conservatism is a flawed argument. The argument, stated quite articulately and compellingly by Ayn Rand and F.A. Hayek, holds that when an individual alone, by dint of their own personal capacities, talents, efforts, courage, willingness to take risks, to work tirelessly, suffer mightily and bear any hardship to create something in the world, they should be able to reap, unencumbered and unfettered, the benefits which result from the fruition or success of their labors.
This argument is further extended by the assertion that the way in which the less gifted and accomplished majority surrounding that productive individual can share in the benefits produced by that individual is only through the coercive power of the state, either implicit or explicit, to compel the individual to give away from what is rightfully theirs to those who did not share in its production. This has been called a “Road to Serfdom”.
The argument finally extends to state that it is human nature to work for one’s own wellbeing, and that of one’s family, but once a productive individual finds the fruits of his or her labor being ‘redistributed’ more an more widely one’s motivation to work will crumble, and everyone will sit around waiting for others to do the work (after all, why should they do anything) and the productivity of the society will collapse.
This is, as I can see it, the clear principles which underlie the right, the conservatives, in their conception of national policy and finance. All of the concern about ‘redistribution’, tax structure, the size of government and regulations obtain from this underlying structure of thought, that the individual creates and produces, and the government has no right to interfere.
The argument is flawed for two basic reasons.
First, although there are exceptions, the vast majority of those who ‘produce’ do not achieve what they achieve in a vacuum. Most people who “make it” do so within the context of considerably enhanced opportunity compared to less fortunately endowed. They are born into more successful families, endowed often with more intellectually favorable genes, but more to the point with more achievement oriented influence, they are held on the lap and read to from infancy, shown to recognize and reproduce letters almost from the time their little eyes can discriminate shapes. They get pre-school, nursery school, and, even when not enrolled in a better or private schools, they are usually lead to know from Day 1 that school is special, important to be taken seriously and exceled at. They are generally well supervised, often well tutored, usually well travelled and culturally enriched. Those meant to be successful go to summer camps, get riding lessons, learn a musical instrument and are expected to compete and succeed in literary, artistic and musical endeavors. They are, in a word, groomed. Not everyone who succeeds, but the vast majority. To assert that the world is like a race in which we all are given an equal start and is therefore somehow fair is simply not true. If a race were run where some started halfway to the finish line on bicycles and the others started behind carrying bags of cement, we would not call it fair. This is an exaggerated image, of course, but not completely off the mark. The underlying “fairness” argument for the conservative approach to government is, rugged individuals aside, not really fair.
Second, to the extent that the productive individual’s talent and effort are translated into a deliverable and reward-able product or service, still the vast infrastructure which was needed to allow its production and distribution do not belong to the individual, but are the produce of a vast history and society. The roads along which the products travel to market were made by hundreds who came before, on land which was settled by thousands in decades and centuries passed, defended by the blood, sweat, and tears of millions who died preserving the right to build into the future. The hedge fund hero or the dot com maven owe most, of course, to their own efforts, but a significant contribution to their success was made as well by the unknown communist comrade who fell at Stalingrad, or the son of an immigrant dying in the sands of Iwo Jima. “You didn’t build it someone else made it happen” was a line that earned President Obama a firestorm of criticism, but the speech articulated this argument quite to the point.
The rugged individualist, Man on his Own, is not really on his own. It is a romantic notion, I admit, and few adolescents can escape the thrill of Atlas Shrugged, but a fair and, I believe mature understanding of the way the world works will call into question the claim of the conservative rugged individualist that no one else has a share in their success. The claim is not accurate.
Notice I am not claiming, here, a moral superiority to the progressive view that we are “all in this together”. Most religious teachings argue a mandate to share with the poor. But I will not make this argument here. I only assert that the moral argument for conservatism is at best questionable, and if the moral arguments for the right and the left are, at least, equal, then we should look to what is most effective a way to run a society.
The “straw man” of socialism.
For the record, not even the so called socialists call for a system in which individuals are not rewarded for their individual efforts. While it is always popular to attack progressive agenda by calling it socialist and Stalinist, implying that the productive will work and the others will lounge, that is simply no one’s position. The progressive agenda admits the right of individual achievement and private property, but calls for broader distribution of opportunity and a more comprehensive safety net. It also calls for some segments of the economy which are traditionally private and profit motivated to transition to being viewed as societal and universal. As we progress now into the main points of the argument, it is at least dispensing with the view that the left is socialist and will lead to sloth. It is not, and will not.
Four Pillars of Arguments for a more liberal leaning worldview.
1. The enormous and growing disparity of wealth, income, power and opportunity
, but within the nation and internationally are inherently destabilizing and are the largest cause of increasing conflict and war. Although some argue that inequality has mixed benefits and threats, most view the level of increased inequality in the world as a threat. Certainly the majority of conflicts have some major discrepancy in opportunity as part of what might appear an otherwise sectarian struggle. Although no single point of view has a monopoly of concern over this growing threat, I believe it is clear enough not to need specific citation to know that liberals and progressives view wealth inequality as threat to the nation and world stability, while conservatives tend to favor policies which only promote that inequality.
2.
Those challenges which must be met to bring our nation and the world further into the next century will demand investment and coordination
of resources which can only be done with a national, somewhat centralized public private and planned approach. The needed investment in urban infrastructure and the creation of world class city regions, investment in the complete overhaul, modernization and maintenance of local, regional national and international transportation infrastructure for both people and goods, the massive development of information infrastructure, health infrastructure and so on will require, most likely, tens if not hundreds of trillions of dollars world wide over the next decades. It will require intelligent planning and coordination on a scale unimaginable for a single private enterprise.
Private entities could not have put a man on the moon, nor could they have won the Second World War. There is a time for a coordinated, public and national response. I would assert that time is now. A progressive and liberal government could see that. A conservative outlook will not. Partially that is because:
3.
The next step in our national evolution will require a very long-term vision,
one that sees our development in the context of technological and social changes extending into the next several decades. It is highly likely that the national “balance sheets” would have to be ‘in the red’ for several decades before this generation’s investment pays off for our children and grandchildren. Corporations report to their constituencies on a quarter-to-quarter basis. A government informed primarily by a corporate mentality simply is less likely and less able to respond to the longer view.
4.
-
The majority of issues of the conflict in the world
can be easily framed in a black and white, us versus them, good guys versus bad guys, we win means you lose motif. And, sometimes, that is true. But more often, to really get a longer term, difficult problem solved requires extensive cooperation, negotiation for mutual benefit, give and take, willingness to hear another’s view points, and a willingness to come out of an argument having achieved some but not all of what one wanted. Efforts by recent conservative administrations to impose unilateral and non-consensual solutions by unilateral force, for example in Iraq, have been, I think most observers would agree, been less than successful. The effort to achieve a fair, sustainable, if not total solution in Iran used a different, consensus building approach.
The rhetoric of the guys with the white hats sallying forth to confront evil is very appealing, but rarely, not never, but rarely works. At least not without broad consensus building and compromise. A liberal and progressive agenda tends to look for compromise, consensus, and diplomacy, using military intervention sparingly and as a tool of diplomacy. That is sometimes, but, I would assert, less often the approach of a conservative government.
I could go on to list specific issues, climate change, our relationship with our super-power rivals, our approach to regional conflicts, tax policy and the like, and view review them in the context of these pillars of difference. I will not do so at this point, only to reiterate that from the standpoint of what can clearly be argued as our greatest threats and challenges, a left of center government, sustained over a several election cycle will be much more effective in address those threats and challenges than any but the most moderate center right.
The specific threats to the American electorate in terms of globalization and automation are real. In the next part of this article I will attempt to address those within a more liberal leaning framework, which is, I believe, much more likely to succeed than one steeped in conservatism, nationalism and xenophobia.
Notice I have not considered the persona characteristics of the two candidates for office in this article. I have attempted to argue for voting liberal rather than conservative in any situation in which the two candidates are of equal capacity, leadership qualities, character and temperament. I suppose, if there were a situation in which the candidate of the Republican or conservative faction were clearly superior, I would consider for one election voting for that candidate.
I do not believe that to be the case in this election, so will continue to vote for the candidate I believe best represents the more liberal leaning, center left approach to governing. I hope I have demonstrated it to be more effective, and at least as well morally grounded.
Hi! I love you article! TNK!!!