A thought on Capitalism and consistency

 

Liberalism—a term that has taken quite a winding path in its usage and definition. I would define classical liberalism as closely aligned with modern day libertarianism. Classical liberalism, in its advocacy of individual rights, the free market, and a more egalitarian political order puts itself at odds with classic conservatism, an ideology wary of radical social change and distrustful of an unchecked economic order, and suspect systems of government that devalue political arête. Classic conservatism is at best a reticent bedfellow of democracy; government is best left in the hands of excellent individuals—those who have devoted their energies towards studying the art of politics(the liberal arts, funnily enough). On the other hand, the average person, has had neither the relevant education, nor any exposure to the classics, nor the guiding experience of august, elder statesmen. Hoi Polloi are simply not fit to steer the ship of state; best leave that to those who can do the finest job. 

Let’s face it, whether you’re a democrat or a republican, a liberal or a conservative; if you’re American, you’re for government for the people, by the people. Both political parties are engaged in an endless tussle to assert their democraticness—that they are for the people; real, everyday Americans, not the good ol’ boy, business as usual, inside the beltway, and all other overused and asinine euphemisms for the powers that be. Modern day liberals show their populism by advocating for social programs, such as healthcare reform, poverty initiatives, etc. as well as human rights, exemplified by left-leaning organizations like the ACLU. Modern day conservatives do so in both similar and different ways; for those in the libertarian camp, individual civil liberties are also a high priority, but libertarians are certainly not the dominant sector of influential conservatives today. Mostly, conservative populism is found in its rhetoric—politicians like George W. Bush assert their “everyman” status by continually reminding us that they were C students. Sarah Palin is highly adept at painting conservative ideology as the heart of “real” America—hard working, small town people, guided by religious values and wary of big city intellectuals and big government bureaucrats. Both political camps today have this similar thread in common; whether or not they practice what they preach in smoky backroom dealings, both profess that government is ultimately the provenance of the people. Both thus reject the classical idea of political arête—that those who should lead are only those elite ones who can, by virtue of their excellence do the best job. 

Given this context, I find the modern conservative position on laissez-faire capitalism somewhat contradictory, for what does the advocate of unfettered capitalism profess but that the financial system should be left to those with the talent, the experience, the excellence—the arête; that the economy should be left to those who can do the best job. How does this shed a contradictory light on conservatism specifically? In some ways, modern day liberals adhere to this ideology and in some ways they renounce it. Liberals are advocates of the free market, but to a much larger extent than conservatives, government regulation. Why is it, they ask, that every other arena in society should have laws and regulations governing its power and scope except for the economy? What if powerful economic forces come into conflict with the environment? What if globalizing forces outsource American jobs and dodge American taxes? What if corporate forces lower the living standards of their workers? What if gargantuan financial institutions play no-holds-barred Texas hold ‘em with our 401ks? To some extent, liberals embody the democratic ideal by demanding that government by the people have ultimate authority over powerful social actors—that the body politic reign in the economy if it grows too unwieldy. Thus, our elected officials and their appointees have the mandate to regulate the economy in the public interest. Hopefully they do so. This model of governance seems to embody an understanding that unfettered capitalism in its modern day form is not naturally democratic, for how can the people exercise power over the multi-national corporation with all its financial power and political influence? In the absence of government regulation—an institution which is, though convolutedly, ultimately accountable to the populace—powerful economic forces with no national ties or accountability to the communities of its clientele operate with impunity. If we the populace doesn’t have control of these economic forces, these economic forces will determine the direction of important parts of our lives, without our consent, ability to protest, and even awareness. Thus the modern day liberal value of government regulation of corporations and the financial system represents a democratization of the economy, for if the government is ultimately accountable to the people, and not just some of the people, namely the elite, excellent individuals, but all the people, and if our government exercises control over the economy, then we will have a social order that is true to its egalitarian principles. 

In some ways, modern day conservatives embody this ideal as well. When the Sarah Palins and George W. Bushes of the world shout their rallying cry to take government hands off the economy and instead leave it in the hands of those that are best fit to lead it, they are talking about the people—the entrepreneur, the small businessperson, the individual innovator. In this sense, the ideal of leaving the economy to only those excellent individuals rings true to democratic principle, for this arête which is not a fancy education or access to elite outlets of power, but rather nothing else than individual self interest—and who is a better judge of one’s self interest than every man himself? 

But this in nothing new. Then how is it that modern day conservative ideology is inconsistent regarding the economy and its actors? When conservatives oppose regulations such as those Obama recently proposed mandating that Banks cannot invest in anything not expressly in the interest of their clients, or demanding stricter rules on risky investments, they are essentially wresting control of powerful social forces out of the hands of the people, and into the hands of a few privileged individuals vested with an obscene amount of power. Funny, a conservative would probably see in my last sentence “the people” as the CEO and the “individuals vested with obscene amounts of power” as the Fed and Obama’s economic team. But in response I ask these questions—to whom are the CEOs accountable? Are they elected? Can we choose not to elect them if we disagree with their politics/ideologies/motivations/actions, etc? Can we impeach them? What if they cause harm to our communities? What authority can chastise them for such actions except the government? Given that the powers of a corporation represent such a monumental externality—that is, their decisions affect many not directly involved in their decisions/transactions (think of what would happen to the country if Nokia left Finland)—and given that conservatives continually oppose reforms that grant the government (a.k.a. the people) power over these forces, is it not safe to ask whether conservatives of this ilk have forgotten their egalitarian beginnings? Have they crowned a new class of elite, excellent individuals above the common fray?

Advertisements

Proposition 8: Conservatism coming loose at the seams

 

As proponents of Proposition 8 are poised to present their defense in the San Francisco federal courtroom on Monday, I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the matter. 

A central tenet of classical liberalism (or in today’s veritable cornucopia of political labels and identifications—conservatism) holds that the individual should be free from external intrusion. 

“Negative Liberty”; the freedom from—from the demands of government or of society, as long as these demands fall outside of the individuals direct purview. In fact, a charge oft leveled against modern day liberals is that they are attempting a sort of “social engineering” in which a supposed “authority” dictates what is best for society and imposes its will upon others.  This imposition, according to the classical liberal camp is inherently unjust, for the individual, be it through inalienable rights or intrinsic human dignity should be free of other’s coerced conformity. 

Thus negative freedom acts as a platform for the autonomous individual to choose his own path in life. In fact, the core of liberalism rests entirely on the ideal of individual autonomy, for without this most basic assumption, how can the individual be taken as the primary unit of concern in liberal theory? How else can people make self-interested economic choices or exercise their right to vote? 

Given that this value of liberalism, which provides the intellectual framework behind conservative ideology, how can modern day conservatives justify the position that government can dictate who marries and who doesn’t? Even beyond the simple argument that there should be a separation of church and state, what ammunition do gay marriage opponents have to argue that society or government has the authority to impose such regulations on one’s life choices? Even more so, how can gay marriage opponents, operating within the ideological framework of classic conservatism level such claims without rendering themselves irreconcilably inconsistent? 

Either the individual by right is autonomous and as such the government hasn’t the ethical authority to lay such restrictions, or the individual has only those rights which government grants him. Interestingly, the only way that modern conservatives can argue for banning gay marriage is by renouncing their classic liberal ancestry. 

As of now, opponents of gay marriage make their case on utilitarian grounds; since no strong argument can be made that such an institution actually harms anyone, they argue that it is detrimental to society, leading to “incest, polygamy and sex with children” (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-trial24-2010jan24,0,3480322.story) However, classical liberalism singularly renounces such utilitarian calculations on the issue of individual choice. True Liberal society cannot simply vote away my freedom of speech, no matter how harmful my words are. 

Thus anti-gay marriage proponents have an unseen quandary to grapple with. They can win the battle against gay marriage. But the cost is their identity.