By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, November 08, 2016
Whoever wins the election on Tuesday, conservatives will
be in our customary unhappy position: explaining to people who are unhappy with
the state of their lives that there is not really very much that we can do for
them, because they are adult human beings with particular responsibilities of
their own rather than livestock or pets to be cared for out of self-interest or
sentimentality.
What should we tell these unhappy voters?
A few suggestions:
A great deal of what happens in your life is going to be
determined by factors beyond your immediate control. You have certain natural
gifts and talents, and those are not going to change very much no matter what
you do. You can develop them, but there are real limits on that development. It
isn’t true that anyone can become a concert pianist or a chess grandmaster or a
Fortune 500 CEO if only he wants it enough and is willing to put in the work.
You do have to want it, and you do have to put in the work, but those are
necessary, not sufficient, conditions. If you were going to dance with the
Bolshoi or play in the NFL, you’d probably know it by now.
Beyond your own endowments, a great deal of your
happiness and advancement in life is going to be influenced in one way or
another by the family in which you are raised. How much money your family has
is a part of that, but it is not the only part, or even the most important
part. Some of you have wonderful families that will encourage and advise you
intelligently, helping you to make good decisions and to make the most of the
gifts you have. Some of you have horrifying families marred by addiction,
neglect, abuse, and worse. Government can step in and remove minors from the
most extreme situations — putting them into foster homes or institutions that
may or may not prove an improvement — but, for most people, the family you have
is the family you have, a lifelong blessing or burden.
None of that is fair. But most of the unfairness — the
vast majority of it — is working in your favor. Modern human beings have
existed for about 200,000 years, and you, as a 21st-century American, are a
member of a blessed minority, a true 1 percenter among all the human beings who
ever have lived. You have ways of developing yourself and enjoying your life
that were literally beyond the imaginations of most of the people who have
lived, and indeed well beyond the dreams of most people 50 or 60 years ago.
Poverty of the sort that existed in the United States
less than a century ago has been all but extinguished; to the extent that we
have people who are suffering from malnutrition or sleeping in the streets,
this is almost exclusively the result of psychiatric factors rather than
economic ones. We could, if we were inclined, scoop those people up and put
them in hospitals, which is what we used to do with them before
“deinstitutionalization” — which is the refined term for throwing mentally ill
people out on the streets — but that isn’t something that is going to be very
useful for solving problems short of crippling psychosis. Even the admirable
“housing first” programs that have enjoyed some success in Utah and elsewhere
are fundamentally oriented toward mental-health and addiction treatment rather
than the mere provision of housing.
But, most likely, your problem is not that you are
suffering from schizophrenia or (though this is more likely) a debilitating
addiction. Maybe you had a rough upbringing. Maybe, like most of us, you’d be
in a better place in life if you were a little bit smarter, taller,
better-looking, disciplined, and oriented toward the future. But there isn’t a
government program that is going to change any of that.
Free markets — which is to say, the economic networks
that emerge when people are left free to pursue their own ends and interests —
are good at many things, and one of the things they are terribly good at is sorting. Companies know who their most
productive people are and which of the firms they work with provide the best
results; and, though it is more art than science, they are pretty good at
figuring out what characteristics those valuable workers and partner firms
have. As human cooperation grows more and more seamless — this is what is meant
by “globalization” — markets become larger, more fully integrated, and more
efficient. Your value to an employer is always relative to the value of the
next-best option (just as your employer’s value to you is always relative to
your next-best option), but 50 years ago your employer’s choice of next-best
options was limited to the available workers in your area and those who might
be recruited to relocate there for work, whereas today there are next-best
options everywhere from Ireland to India, depending on your job.
To the extent that you have skills and abilities that are
neither uncommon nor bound to a particular place or institution, you are now in
competition with workers from around the world in a way that your father and
grandfather probably weren’t. That probably is not going to change, and the
government could not do much to change it even if it wanted to, which it really
doesn’t and shouldn’t.
Barack Obama has often derided such observations as a
philosophy of “You’re on your own.” Some conservatives and libertarians even
embrace “You’re on your own” as a kind of moral maxim. I myself recently was
criticized as personifying an “unfeeling” conservatism; if by “unfeeling” we
mean “unsentimental,” then I do hope so. But how one feels about these
realities is immaterial. This is the way things are. It is not the case that
you are on your own — we have
families, and communities, and social-welfare programs that ensure you aren’t —
but that you are your own, an
autonomous individual with responsibility for, and to, himself.
For struggling, downwardly mobile residents of Michael
Brendan Dougherty’s Garbutt, those are unwelcome realities. There may be some
political benefit into packaging our policy solutions in the colorful wrapping
paper of penny-a-pound sympathy, but in the end we are left with the same
choice: People either are going to do what is necessary to become autonomous,
self-sufficient individuals — and citizens, and parents, and members of
communities — or they are going to be maintained in open-ended welfare
dependency. We are a rich society, and we can save people from homelessness,
starvation, death from common preventable diseases, etc. We cannot save them
from the contempt that inevitably accompanies lifelong dependency, least of all
from the contempt that they will feel for themselves. The patron-client
relationship is always and everywhere the same, no matter what we do to try to
disguise it.
The good news is that we, ungrateful though we are, are
living in a true golden age of human flourishing. If you want to make life
better for yourself — or to make life better for other people — you have never
had more choices or more opportunity.
Our reform-conservative friends and the libertarians have
some excellent ideas for improving welfare programs, schools, the tax code, and
more, and Republicans would do well to pursue them. And the United States is
not unlike India or China in that a great deal of social friction can be
relieved with the lubrication of strong economic growth. After the fundamental
duty of national defense (which includes securing the borders), economic growth
— call it “general welfare” — should be the federal government’s main priority.
But that does not mean the nickel-and-dime approach that both Hillary Rodham
Clinton and Donald Trump have offered, a little something for this group, a
little something for that group, a tax break for this constituency, government
“investments” for that one. What it means is stable rules (how are you enjoying
your exciting new health-insurance
market?), strong property rights, sound money, predictable policies, a light
hand on taxes and regulation, and — this part will not be easy — a political
culture that does not view us as dairy cattle to be fed and cared for in order
to maximize the value of milking us.
That, really, is the question: Are we to be treated as
human beings, with moral agency and responsibility for our own lives, or as livestock
to be cared for because of what we can be used for? Either we are citizens
choosing between two ideas of government, or pets choosing between two brands
of kibble.
No comments:
Post a Comment