Ross Douthat on Liberaltarianism

An intellectual and their theories is the same as the man with a hammer. The man sees everything as a nail and the intellectual sees a use for his theories everywhere he looks.

Humility in the power of govt. is not something that liberals have or will ever have.. almost by definition.

I tend to dismiss sweeping generalities which are not supported by factual evidence and careful analysis.

For example, who can say anything reliable about Sarah Palin unless they know her well and have frequently interacted with her? I think those who have only seen her on TV can say little beyond the fact that she can deliver a good political speech, and has achieved politically to a major degree by being elected governor of Alaska, and by being selected as a running mate by the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

In my opinion, that is too much favorable evidence to wave her aside as a potential national political figure. But it also seems too little to compare her to two-term President Ronald Reagan.

The politicians want power and the people want to posture. I think the politicians actually want to pull the levers of power, but like an airline pilot, they are constrained by circumstances. There’s competition for office and they must satisfy their voters. The voters don’t have to satisfy anyone. They can vote for whomever they choose.

I think successful politicians are those who can satisfy their constituents’ desire for posturing. A problem is that reality can conflict with one’s posture. (e.g. minimum wages) A successful politician can craft policy that minimizes this dissonance. (e.g. “affordable housing”)

Libertarians don’t want power. Economists make posturing difficult. “A rising tide raises all boats” doesn’t do much for a voter’s wish to appear charitable and benevolent. The conflict with politicians and the electorate is obvious. “Lose the we” is not likely to be an energizing campaign slogan. Think of all of the ire that Thatcher raised with “There’s no such thing as society.”

An honest comparison of how the media treated Palin’s errors to how they treated Biden’s errors would make a neutral observer question the accuracy of the Sarah Palin image the media created.

Biden should have been made a laughing stock for his statement that the US and France forced Syria out of Lebanon.

The fact that he was bought in for his foreign policy expertise and had decades of Washington experience made this error particularly egregious.

Yet it was roundly ignored by most of the media.

We will learn more about Palin in the next few years. However, I don’t think her errors were that bad compared Biden’s.

Particularly when you consider Biden had decades of experience in washington and Palin had about 9 weeks to get up to speed.

Although I do largely agree with Les and Mike Rulle’s articulated points, I also believe there are some particulars to consider vis à vis Reagan’s history and Hayek’s philosophy.

Consider, for example, Reagan’s fabulous speech-writing record — which I believe is very telling with regard to intellect and understanding, as we are discussing them. And returning to the issue of formal and informal education, might it be germane that Reagan majored in economics (Caplan strikes again?). I think these particulars are illustrative of something, something of which there is no equivalent to be found when considering Palin. In fact, from what I have seen the comparison is rather embarrassing for admirers of Reagan (of which I consider myself an extremely qualified member), if for no other reason than because of what Reagan was able to accomplish, both in terms of debate in the public space and with regard to political policy.

However, the more important issue is the matter of Hayek and Hayek’s philosophy. Although I would certainly wish to avoid putting words in Arnold Kling’s mouth, I will run with the assumption that he did not mean to imply scholastic knowledge of Hayek’s life was the matter. I do this primarily out of charitable interpretation — since I agree with such a notion, I will charitably assume everyone else does as well.

Therefore, I would say that “explaining Hayek” is not necessary, but considering Hayek’s distinct contributions to economic, political, and social science, it would be a splendid indicator of some intellectual substance and political/economic understanding. It could be argued that familiarity with the ideas of his British and Scottish intellectual forebears would provide an equivalent indicator, but I assume the larger issue involves actually taking Hayek seriously with regarding to his theory (as Mike stated). Therefore, we must wrestle with the notion that some of the most important kinds of knowledge are tacit – and that the good statesman might not be capable of articulating (or even be influenced by) the sort of armchair intellectual constructs that probably appeal to those who read or write at a blog such as this. All in all, this sounds very Socratic to me, and I am hopeful that such a Weltanshauung would not be off-putting, since I am inclined to think it is true.

So libertarians engaging lefties should open the conversation with, “you’re right about the social issues, but your understanding of economics is wrong.”. See how that works for you.

Jacob,
Is the issue “statism” or liberty? Are you really ready to sacrifice a better life if statism is the way?

If the only way to eliminate Jim Crow laws is the state, then statism is a good thing. If there is a more efficient way, then that is ok too…but no one was able to find it when the time came.

So you don’t think that genitalia should be displayed in public places. Does that mean you are in favor of the state closing down displays of Greek statues? I would say that yes, this is the slippery slope you fear and embrace.

Robert writes:

The defense of Palin in the comments truly surprises me. Either you guys are the hardest of the hard-core republicans or I have been reading all the wrong sources.

Palin, like Reagan, excites rage and fanaticism in her opponents. People who are genuinely not too bright do not get that reaction.

If anyone doubts that Reagan was an intellectual who thought deeply about a wide range of important topics (unlike most of his critics) they should read “Reagan, in his own hand” – a collection of those of Reagan’s writings that we know for sure were written by him, and not by his staff.
We don’t have anything comparable for Palin, but the rationale for concluding that Palin is an ignorant moron is strikingly similar to the rationale for concluding Reagan was an ignorant moron.

Arnold has mentioned that his Dad was a fan of the constituency model of politics, especially in explaining the Democratic Party. It would sure be nice if Republicans could find the stones to package up the religious nuts with shiny wrapping paper and a giant red bow and deliver them to the Democrats. The Republicans could become the party of socially tolerant people who weren’t shorted the economics gene. They might even win a few seats before the end of the century.

I’m with you, Rappaport. There’s an ugly veneer of class bias on much of the criticism of Palin. Behind it all is a disdain for middle America, for people without a moneyed pedigree. It makes me sick.

Kling: “On the other hand, I see elite Republicans as exploiting the fervently religious.”

Right on! I am a citizen of the only state in the union in which McCain carried every single county, Oklahoma. Republicans thought they had an old-fashioned tent revival of conservativism with the election of Reagan, but they were fooled. The religious right has almost always been Baptists because they outnumber all other denominations by such a larger measure. Before 1980, Baptists didn’t care about politics. We thought the best way to change the world was to win individuals to Christ and politics was a dirty business.

Historically Baptists feared and loathed the state. We gave the US its first taste of separation of church and state in Rhode Island. Reformed churches, such as the Presbyterian and Lutheran, always favored using the state to transform society, not Baptists.

The Moral Majority movement changed that thinking, although many of the leaders in the movement weren’t Baptist, but they held similar beliefs on morality. MM convinced Baptists to try to use the power of the state to reform society and Baptists fell for it for the first time in history. Big mistake!

Reagan tapped into that dawning political awareness with moral issues, but Republicans never understood that Baptists are generally socialists on economic issues. Oklahoma is a good example. The state has voted Republican for Presidents and Senators for decades, but Democrat for Representatives and for members of the state legislature. Registered voters are overwhelmingly Democrats who vote Republican on moral issues.

What we witnessed in the last election was evidence of a growing disillusionment with politics on the part of Baptists. Almost 30 years of political activism has seen little progress on those issues Baptists care most about, such as abortion, and a growing awareness of being taken for granted. As a result, more and more Baptist Democrats are returning to the Democratic party where they feel at home on economic issues. As this trend continues, moral issues will decline in importance in political races and economic ones assume greater importance.

Okies voted for McCain on moral issues. The recession hadn’t hit this part of the country yet because of the oil industry in the state, so economics wasn’t on our minds. The state is the last hold out of the defunct Moral Majority and this will probably be the last time a Republican will sweep the state.

Socialism has won. Democrats are socialist and Republicans socialist-lite. As we just witnessed, no president could advance socialism to the degree that a Republican can. We are returning to the pre-Reagan era in which Republicans were a perpetual minority that always wanted what Democrats wanted, but just a little less.

The smart people at the top of both major parties aren’t smart about Hayek – they’re smart about Gallup.

I imagine Hayek himself was less concerned what people knew about him than what they knew about his ideas.

If somehow, the average voters embraced those ideas whether or not they understand the source, the ‘leaders’ of both parties will follow obediently.

All that is needed is to get Hollywood, the NEA and John Stewart to embrace Hayek.

Arnold, you can’t even get away from your own political biases to make these comments. For example, you say “Liberals mostly just pose about caring for the poor and take money from others (including many who are not well off) to burnish that pose”.

The trouble with this statement is that taking a little money from a lot of people is far more effective in raising money than a lot of money from a single person; so you’ll find more people arguing for it. The fact that current tax codes worldwide usually also leave many poor people monetarily less well off (though not less well off considering net value, including social services), isn’t terribly relevant. Alternative tax strategies, such as negative income taxes for poor people, would likely be far more preferable for so-called social liberals, but such huge change is very difficult for reasons, including practicality, politics, vested interests, etc.

Kling’s comment is summarized with, “The way I see it, the libertarian’s task is to try to restrain the power-hungry elites in both parties.”

First, Rolle and a few others provide insightful comment to which my comments would only be additive. To provide something new and distinct to the comments, I think it’s interesting that a two party system is the presumed case. Historical record accepted, their is room for a multi-party process. If the theory of representative democracy holds, then combined with the theory of libertarian beliefs, an ‘independant’ libertarian party has space to gain power at the present. Holding to its own doctrine, such a movement would have to be carried through the initiatives of the people, building upon foundations of local constituencies at city, county, state levels. Combined with mass communication available to each individual today, there exists the potential for a ‘virtual levee en mass’ that could easily link local constituencies to form a national coalition able to compete with the ‘two parties’. Accepting two parties as the standard represents a ‘fait accompli’ cognitive bias amongst the very minds and individuals who must work together to achieve broader, and ‘smarter’ representation. If the people are not the cause of the change, deemed incapable of determinig and developing their own direction and representation, then all theories of liberal democracy have failed and we are best to move to whats next sooner than later, something I’m not ready to admit.

“It’s amazing how Palin figures so heavily in the responses to the post, the best defense anyone can muster in her defense is that she is unknown, a might-have-been.”

No, I’d say the best argument in support of her is that she has taken a strong, consistent stand against corruption, even when it was in her own party and that stance might hurt her. Living in Illinois, I can’t help but contrast this with Obama, who tried to keep his own hands clean but cheerfully wallowed in the rampant corruption of Chicago, never supporting a reformer or doing anything else to take a stand.

Obama has always been careful to put his own career first. Palin got involved because she really wanted to fix things, and she has been effective at the city and state level, making government work better.

Bless my soul, Hayek’s ideas are not that difficult to understand especially for a very bright political lady who is evidently of a conservative bent and instinctively against the liberal Democrat notion that government knows best. We are not talking about Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or Galois Theory of groups. And if we are assessing intellectual capacity I would have thought our lawyer, Barack Obama, in talking economics, is into something that is way over his head.

Barry Kelly: “The trouble with this statement is that taking a little money from a lot of people is far more effective in raising money than a lot of money from a single person; so you’ll find more people arguing for it.”

I don’t see how that is an argument for the state to redistribute income. There are a lot of wealthy and middle class people who give to charity.

Barry: “Alternative tax strategies, such as negative income taxes for poor people …”

Arin: “So what do “liberal elites” do by exploiting “the poor” – they pass policies that downwardly redistribute income. Gee, that’s horrible – someone should warn the poor.”

It’s nice to have people from the opposite viewpoint visit the web site, so I don’t want to frighten you off with criticism. But everyone sees the short run and visible effects of policies. The short run is all the media cares about and reports. But a good economist sees the long term and the unintended consequences. The economist’s main job is to warn people about the unintended consequences and long term effects.

The short term effect of income redistribution is more money in the pockets of the poor. That’s all the media reports. The long-term, unseen effect is lower wages for the poor. That happens because taxes reduce the money that businesses have available to invest in new equipment. Higher wages require greater productivity, which in turn requires new, better equipment for workers to enable them to produce more. No real school of economics offers any other way for wages to increase.

So the choice is between 1) quick cash for the poor today and lower wages in the future or 2) less cash today with higher wages in the future.

People who genuinely care about the poor work with the poor and give their own money to the poor.

Not necessarily. If you think the reason people are poor is not because they lack hand-holding and spare change from better-off people but because there are screwed up laws and practices that help keep them poor, then changing those laws makes them less poor. How is helping change those laws not caring about the poor?

This is like suggesting that the only way to help those afflicted with cholera is to care for them as a doctor or nurse. But you can also go into a lab and invent a cure for their disease. Or you can take the handle off a public water pump contaminated with cholera so that people don’t drink the cholera-infested water. You can organize a neighborhood to force its leaders to install proper sewers. All of these help stop cholera, but very few of them involve actual hand-holding with the afflicted.

I am also puzzled that you’re comparing the poor to the religious. These groups are very different. Poor people have an actual problem–being poor. Religious people, on the other hand, don’t have a problem. They have a point of view. Addressing poor people’s actual problems and addressing religious people’s desire for their point of view to be more popular…well, those are two very different things.

fundamentalist: “So the choice is between 1) quick cash for the poor today and lower wages in the future or 2) less cash today with higher wages in the future.”

I think most from the opposite viewpoint understand this elementary economics, but also understand that a Corporation is not bound to increase wages as profits rise – in fact, they are bound to do everything to increase profit, so unless there is a counterposed legal compulsion to increase wages, or another mechanism for redistribution such as taxation, wages will remain low while profits increase, whether through the capital expenditure you mention or other means.

It would be nice if this were not the case, but as it stands the choices are really amongst the methods of income redistribution 1) Compulsory redistribution by taxation or 2) Compulsory redistribution by wage fixing.

Frankly I would think that redistribution by compulsory wage fixing would be preferred, as it gives the employees a choice as to how to spend, while taxation puts that choice in the hands of politicians and bureaucrats.

The fact that neither is ever popular with the GOP is the reason that it looks very much like they just don’t want the lot of those on the lower end of the socio-econimic scale improved at all.