By Lee Habeeb & Mike Leven
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
In the early 20th century, two of England’s towering
minds, the socialist George Bernard Shaw and the Catholic G. K. Chesterton,
engaged in a series of debates. Shaw was an atheist, socialist, and vegetarian;
Chesterton a Catholic, moralist, and meat-eater. Shaw argued against private
property, and for redistribution of wealth. Chesterton argued for private
property, and warned about the perils of consolidated power. It was like Ali
vs. Frazier. A clash of styles and vision.
Shaw, sounding like a modern progressive, said this about
wealth and equality:
The moment I made up my mind that the present
distribution of wealth was wrong, the peculiar constitution of my brain obliged
me to find out exactly how far it was wrong and what is the right distribution.
I went through all the proposals ever made and through the arguments used in
justification of the existing distribution; and I found they were utterly
insensate and grotesque. Eventually I was convinced that we ought to be
tolerant of any sort of crime except unequal distribution of income.
In came Chesterton:
We say there ought to be in the world a great mass of
scattered powers, privileges, limits, points of resistance, so that the mass of
the people may resist tyranny. And we say that there is a permanent possibility
of that central direction, however much it may have been appointed to
distribute money equally, becoming a tyranny.
Chesterton added, “Mr. Shaw proposes to distribute
wealth. We propose to distribute power.”
The moderator warned the audience that what they were
listening to wouldn’t have relevance in 20 years. How wrong he was.
Those men were engaged in a debate that rages today. How
do we best organize a society? From the top down or the bottom up? With the
individual — and, as Chesterton argued, God — as the ultimate sovereign, or the
state, as Shaw argued? Which system drives the most effective and the fairest
outcomes?
If there is a single reason why conservatives continue to
lose the battle of ideas, it’s because we don’t make the moral case for freedom
and free markets. Our political class instead makes the economic case for our
philosophy. Our smart guys are so impressed with their own intelligence, they
think we can win the debate using numbers and data, charts and graphs, and
political tactics and strategy.
It’s the Left’s secret advantage. They create the feeling
that they care more about the average American because they make the moral case
for their philosophy.
One of the advantages this confers on the Left is this:
They get to play large ball, while we play a dour brand of small ball.
When you play large ball, you get to be on offense. When
you play small ball, you always feel like you’re playing defense. They make big
bold moves about big bold things like Obamacare, while we wallow in the weeds
explaining why Obamacare won’t work.What can we do about this regrettable state
of affairs? Let’s start by talking about the moral implications of a government
that tries to do too much for its people.
Dennis Prager wrote a great column two years ago that
included the following formulation: the bigger the government, the smaller the
citizen.
He argued:
Not only does bigger government teach people not to take
care of themselves, it teaches them not to take of others. Smaller government
is the primary reason Americans give more charity and volunteer more time per
capita than do Europeans living in welfare states. Why take care of your fellow
citizen, or even your family, when the government will do it for you?
From there, we should take Prager’s formulation one step
further: the bigger the government, the smaller the private sector.
As more of our money goes to feed ever expanding
government bureaucracies, it leaves less money for us to do with as we choose,
and less for the private sector. As big government crowds out the private
sector, the result is less innovation, a less efficient economy, and less job
creation.
Does anyone think government is the engine of innovation,
efficiency, and job creation? Will government create the next medical
breakthrough? The next iPhone?
We can extend Prager’s formulation further still: the
bigger the government, the smaller the church.
As the state takes more of our money, there is less for
us to give to churches, synagogues, and mosques who take care of the weakest
among us. And not just with a check, but with a caring human being connected to
that material support.We can point to 20th-century Europe’s experience. As the
state grew, the churches there had less influence and eventually emptied.
From there, we can take Prager’s great line a step
farther: the bigger the government, the smaller the family.
As people in Europe left their churches, they lost the
connection between love, sex, marriage, and family. Birth rates fell below the
replacement rate in many of those countries. In many parts of our nation, too,
they are barely at replacement rate. Moreover, as we work longer hours and pay
more to the government, it leaves less for our families. Kids are expensive,
and parents keep families smaller out of economic necessity.
Now let’s take Prager’s formulation one last logical
step: the bigger the government, the smaller the dreams, and the smaller the
future.
More than half of recent college graduates are either
unemployed or underemployed. And in inner cities of America where government
manages nearly every aspect of too many people’s lives, youth unemployment is
at rates never seen before.
When we make the case against big bureaucracies, we are
actually making a moral case that the bureaucracy will, over time, generally
seek to serve itself at the expense of service to its customers. And even at
the expense of its employees, if they have the desire to reform the
bureaucracy.
Big, as we all know, too often becomes impersonal and
breeds alienation. Talk to anyone who
has attended a high school with 3,000 students, as opposed to one with 800 or
500. No matter how hard the educators try, and no matter what economies of
scale a large school creates, something important is lost — something personal,
something human.
That is why great innovation often comes from small
companies, from a few guys in a garage. And it is why, as companies grow, their
greatest challenge is to keep that contact with the customer, and the ability
to adapt quickly as the customer’s needs change.
In a similar way, government that is small and close to
home can best serve its citizen’s needs and more easily adapt to change.
The fact is that the Left doesn’t have much faith in the
little guy. Or the individual. Or much faith in the faith community. Indeed,
what they really believe about us without ever admitting it is that we are not
very smart. We are not capable of making choices on our own. And we are
incapable of great and small achievements without them.
What the big-government crowd has faith in is themselves
and their ability to heal, help, and guide us along.
Their side may talk about fairness, but how is their
version of fairness working in inner cities in America? How does public housing
look, and how are those schools working? What if we instead gave all of those
families a choice — a voucher — and let them decide for themselves where to
live and where to go to school?
How about calling into question a public-education system
that rewards teachers only for the amount of time on the job, and not for their
performance? Is that fair to the good teachers? Is that fair to the students
trapped in bad classrooms?
Does the union monopoly in education promote fair
outcomes?
We should start calling the Left’s ideas unfair and their
top-down approach insensitive. We should assert that their worldview empowers
bureaucracies, not people.
We should then compare their dim view of mankind — and
the shoddy outcomes it engenders — with ours.
While they have the heartless bureaucracies on their
side, we have the love of the individual on ours. We believe in the power of
the individual and in the God-given talents of all people; that the more
choices we all have, the better off we all are; that we have more power over
our lives than we know; and that our best guide to living productive and decent
lives — our standard bearer — should not be the state, but God. Or some guiding
light — some North Star — of our own.
We should then propose bold solutions to America’s
problems. Show Americans of every race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and
class that we care about them, but also that we believe in them and will fight
for their right to be happy, productive members of our nation.
Of course we should have safety nets for those in need.
But those nets should not become cages. Those nets should lead people to
self-sufficiency and the real self-esteem that comes from a good job, hard
work, and independence.
The truth is that our side has the moral high ground, if
only we have the courage to seize it. And we can win these arguments, if only
we dare to make them.
No comments:
Post a Comment