The “New Right” Illusion: Oren Cass's Flawed Vision of Top-Down Governance and the Betrayal of Capitalism
Oren Cass, founder of the think tank American Compass, presents a vision of the “new right” in his recently released book, Rebuilding American Capitalism. In it, he advocates for a top-down approach to governance in response to what he perceives as free-market failures.
He tends to believe that certain politicians can and should shape markets to achieve desired outcomes rather than letting free markets, which are free people, work. This attempt to rebrand not only the right but capitalism itself is flawed, as history and sound economics prove.
Cass pinpoints growing concerns in the economy to help bolster his arguments, like poor inflation-adjusted wage growth and lack of strong social and family units. These are problems making it harder for people to prosper, but they are not, as he suggests, evidence that free-market capitalism has failed.
But these problems–if they are problems, as Scott Winship and Jeremy Horpedahl recently found that people are thriving–aren’t the results of free markets but are driven instead by government failures.
These failures include bloated government spending, restrictive regulations, high tax burdens, excessive safety net programs, costly tariffs, and other barriers to entry in the marketplace. They are imposed by politicians and government bureaucrats, hindering competition, disrupting entrepreneurial endeavors, impeding wage growth, and destroying human flourishing.
Cass contends that capitalism only works under the right conditions, which must be facilitated by the government to keep the labor market and the economy strong. Rather than what he calls the “Old Right’s market fundamentalism” of fewer regulations and less government intervention being best, he welcomes more government with certain politicians in power. He proudly makes markets the scapegoat and, with it, globalization and financialization.
In the book’s foreword, Cass writes:
Believing that more opportunities in the form of globalization inhibit rather than help Americans is the same faulty basis with which people discourage immigration and trade, which are central to thriving economies.
But the crux of Cass’s theory is that he believes markets must be molded, even referring to work by the father of modern economics Adam Smith. Conveniently, he fails to cite the economist Frederick Hayek, who built on Smith’s ideas, to identify spontaneous order, the basis of free-market capitalism that argues economic growth and prosperity arise from voluntary transactions by free people, not government guidance and control.
This “new right” idea was debunked long before Cass came along by Hayek (and others), who also highlighted the “knowledge problem” associated with central planning. He argued that no central authority can possess the information necessary to make efficient decisions for an entire economy. The complexity of economic interactions and the constant flux of information require decentralized decision-making and market mechanisms to aggregate and incorporate local knowledge effectively.
Hayek’s insights emphasize the limitations of top-down control and the importance of allowing market forces and individual actors to shape economic outcomes based on their localized knowledge and preferences from the bottom-up. But Cass would have it that government is heralded as the keeper of knowledge and the arbiter of good decisions rather than encouraging freedom and liberty in individuals, i.e., the essence of capitalism.
Capitalism allows individuals to pursue their economic aspirations and make decisions based on their knowledge and preferences through voluntary exchange within rules of the game set by limited government. Through this freedom, innovation, entrepreneurship, and competition thrive, leading to greater prosperity for all.
History is full of successful economic transformations driven by leaders who championed limited government and free markets.
Former President Calvin Coolidge cut government spending, cut taxes, and reduced the national debt, providing more paths for human flourishing. Likewise, former President Ronald Reagan cut taxes, tried to rein in government spending, and reduced regulations, unleashing economic growth and job creation.
Both of them understood that cutting spending, reducing taxes, and removing excessive regulations create an environment where businesses thrive and workers can benefit. Their approaches embraced the power of individual freedom and self-determination, not top-down control that breeds the opposite.
Oren Cass’s theory of the “new right” and its embrace of government fundamentalism misunderstands the principles of capitalism and human behavior. Top-down approaches, rooted in centralized control and regulation, do not lead to economic prosperity or personal freedom no matter who is in charge but do distort the efficient allocation of resources, undermine the adaptability of markets, and reduce opportunities to let people prosper.
To achieve a thriving and prosperous economy, we must adhere to and strengthen the principles of free-market capitalism, which too much of our economy today is deprived of when considering healthcare, education, transportation, manufacturing, and the labor market. This should include embracing limited government, voluntary exchange, and individual freedom as the pillars of strong families, productive workers, and profitable employers.
Economist Milton Friedman noted what this debate is about decades ago. “The problem of social organization is how to set up an arrangement under which greed will do the least harm; capitalism is that kind of a system.” And while “history suggests that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom,” it’s clearly “not a sufficient condition.”
But capitalism is the best system yet that has supported economic prosperity and political freedom. The problem is that we have had too little free-market capitalism for people to thrive because of too much government.
There’s no need for a “new right” of big-government progressive policies offered by Cass and others when free-market capitalism of the “old right” is too often missing in our lives.
Vance Ginn, Ph.D., is founder and president of Ginn Economic Consulting, LLC, senior fellow at Americans for Tax Reform, chief economist or senior fellow at multiple think tanks across the country and host of the Let People Prosper podcast. He previously served as the associate director for economic policy of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, 2019-20. Follow him on Twitter @VanceGinn.
READER COMMENTS
Mactoul
Jun 28 2023 at 9:51pm
Coolidge is a strange example to give — his rule led directly to the Great depression. Not a great example of free market policies.
And many counter-examples may be given where industrial policies led to flourishing of a country. One may cite Japan, South Korea and China– biggest of them all.
Jon Murphy
Jun 28 2023 at 10:19pm
Well that’s just incorrect.
None of those are counterexamples. They’re all evidence toward Ginn’s point; their growth occurred in industries that were decentralized. Where the government did plan, there is failure after failure.
robc
Jun 29 2023 at 9:30am
“That man has offered me unsolicited advice every day for six years, all of it bad.” — Calvin Coolidge on Herbert Hoover
If Hoover had continued Coolidge’s policies, there would have been no Great Depression.
robc
Jun 29 2023 at 9:31am
To tie it all together, Coolidge’s comment on Hoover is how I think about Oren Cass. I have no idea why anyone pays any attention to him.
Jon Murphy
Jun 28 2023 at 10:17pm
Good stuff. One thing I would like to add. You write:
Cass and his supporters will try to got around this problem by saying they are not trying to plan an entire economy, but just a few key industries. But the knowledge problem still holds. Even at a relatively small scale of a firm or an industry, the knowledge problem rears its head and there are trade-offs between centralization and innovation/efficiency.
BS
Jun 29 2023 at 12:14pm
The essence of the problem is the conceit that handfuls of minds thinking about a problem from 30,000 feet for a little while can out-guess millions of minds focused on their particular circumstances.
Richard W Fulmer
Jun 29 2023 at 1:39pm
Economist Mariana Mazzucato tried to address the knowledge problem in her book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. She proposed that panels of scientists with expertise in diverse fields would identify national goals. The government would then create incentives for the private sector to use its dispersed and specific knowledge to achieve those goals. Other expert panels would review the results and make adjustments as necessary.
Mazzucato doesn’t address how the experts will be chosen. No doubt, special interests will lobby to get “their” experts empaneled. Also, in the current race-conscious environment, DEI considerations will likely loom large in the selection process. In addition, the type of expert most likely to be chosen for a government panel would be someone with impeccable credentials, decades of experience, and an established reputation – someone unlikely to embrace the “new ideas, innovation, and disruptive thinking” that Mazzucato says she wants.
Nor does she address the problem of vested interests. Creating incentives will result in people who want to keep those incentives in place. Her panels of experts must have the political power to change or eliminate incentives that are either not working or that are leading to unintended results and do so over the objections of those benefitting from them.
Finally, she doesn’t address the issue of opportunity cost. By expending enough resources on a project, the government could achieve success – “that which is seen.” What is not seen is what would have been done with those same resources had they been left in the private sector. How do we know that what we gain is worth more than what we gave up?
robc
Jun 29 2023 at 2:11pm
Which of these experts would have forseen the rise in craft beer and cut back production of fizzy yellow lager?
Richard Fulmer
Jun 29 2023 at 2:41pm
Exactly. How does a panel of experts gain the knowledge to come up with useful national goals?
Dylan
Jun 30 2023 at 8:51am
I’ve not read her book, but is that an accurate representation of the level that she wants to set national goals at? I’d have guessed it was more at the level of creating R&D tax credits because we want to better incentivize innovation…or something along those lines? Or, we want to reduce CO2 emissions, so we’re going to put in place a carbon tax. Not that there aren’t problems with these approaches, but they at least have the benefit of being fairly industry agnostic. Are people really talking about nationalizing industries and having top down production targets?
Jon Murphy
Jun 30 2023 at 8:57am
Yes. It’s her core thesis through several books.
Dylan
Jun 30 2023 at 11:18am
Wow. While I’m probably a bit more supportive of government interventions than the average reader of this blog, it just boggles my mind that there are economists out there that advocate for such a top down control approach despite all the evidence that it leads to spectacularly bad results.
vince
Jun 29 2023 at 2:55pm
Cass isn’t saying to replace capitalism. He recognizes that economics is inseparable from politics, and that we have crony capitalism, or crapitalism. Agree or not, he is proposing changes, and not all his suggestions are necessarily bad. Who wouldn’t argue that our crapitalism couldn’t be improved? How long should we ignore rising populism? We don’t have Adam Smith’s version of free markets. He believed not in self-interest but in enlightened self-interest.
Jon Murphy
Jun 29 2023 at 7:44pm
Capitalism can be improved. Cass’s suggestions will not do that.
Mark Brophy
Jul 1 2023 at 7:32pm
Crony capitalism isn’t capitalism, it’s another term for socialism. The government can be improved only by shrinking it, by removing subsidies and regulations.
steve
Jun 29 2023 at 3:48pm
“President Ronald Reagan cut taxes, tried to rein in government spending, and reduced regulations, ”
Tried? Do or do not. There is no try. Spending increased while taxes were cut. What we had was massive deficit spending. The bad part was that the right learned this wins elections. Cut taxes, everyone likes that, but dont cut spending and you dont make people angry. Adds up to lots of votes, and debt.
Steve
vince
Jun 29 2023 at 4:48pm
True. And later on, the left learned to pander to large corporations. No wonder young people want change and populism is rising.
Mark Brophy
Jul 1 2023 at 7:36pm
The President isn’t a dictator, he must persuade Congress to enact laws. Reagan couldn’t do that because his party was always in the minority. Future Republicans gained a majority but were not interested in making markets freer. Robert Kennedy his bid for President will lose because his party doesn’t want free markets, either.
Comments are closed.