By Kevin D. Williamson
Friday, July 28, 2017
Mark Levin is kind of sneaky. He has been many things in
life, but he is mainly known to the world as a talk-radio guy. He writes books
that look like talk-radio-guy books — Levin on the cover in a blue jacket,
glowering manfully in front of an American flag — and that have keyword-heavy
talk-radio-guy titles. But he doesn’t write talk-radio books.
Which is great.
His latest, Rediscovering
Americanism: And the Tyranny of Progressivism, covers a great deal of
ground, although it hews closely to many of the themes he has explored in
earlier books: the meaning of American exceptionalism, the founding philosophy
of the United States, the upstart competitors to that philosophy, the prospects
for reform and recovery. He spends a fair amount of time on a question that is
of interest to me and that ought to be of interest more generally, which is:
What kind of political order are we to have, nationally and internationally?
Are we to have a rules-based order or one based on . . . something else,
whether that is might-makes-right politics or princely caprice? Levin is
interested in “Americanism,” but his attention turns frequently to the
Austrians, especially to F. A. Hayek, and he reminds us that there is more to
the Austrian school than economics per se.
Levin considers the question of individualism and its
variations, contrasting the progressives’ romantic version of individualism,
rooted in Rousseau, with the richer understanding of individualism in the
classical-liberal tradition, which he connects to the political ideas of John
Adams. The choice before us can be difficult to understand at times: Do we have
a national (or, as some progressives envision, worldwide) social plan, under
which all economic and political activity is in some sense directed toward a
set of unified goals in a conscientiously engineered and purportedly rational
manner, or do we have a rules-based order under which individuals, firms,
political parties, associations, etc., each pursue their own plans, leading to
the development of a spontaneous order? This is, as Hayek points out and Levin
emphasizes, distinct from what we might indicate by the modern usage of
“libertarian,” distinct from what Hayek called “a dogmatic laissez faire
attitude.” The rules-based order permits the emergence of vastly complex
systems that are beyond the understanding of any individual or bureaucracy.
That is the hard part for progressives to swallow, because they imagine
themselves to be engaged in the “scientific” management of society. Levin
quotes Hayek at length on this:
The unwillingness to tolerate or
respect any social forces which are not recognizable as the product of
intelligent design, which is so important a cause of the present desire for
comprehensive economic planning is indeed only one aspect of a more general
movement. We meet the same tendency in the field of morals and conventions, in
the desire to substitute an artificial for the existing languages, and in the
whole modern attitude toward processes which govern the growth of knowledge.
The belief that only a synthetic system of morals, an artificial language, or
even an artificial society can be justified in an age of science, as well as
the increasing unwillingness to bow before any moral rules whose utility is not
rationally demonstrated, or to conform with conventions whose rationale is not
known, are all manifestations of the same basic view which wants all social
activity to be recognizably part of a single coherent plan. They are the
results of the same rationalistic “individualism” which wants to see in
everything the product of conscious individual reason. They are certainly not,
however, a result of true individualism and may even make the working of a free
and truly individualistic system difficult or impossible. Indeed, the great
lesson which the individualist philosophy teaches us on this score is that,
while it may not be difficult to destroy the spontaneous formations which are
the indispensable bases of a free civilization, it may be beyond our power to
reconstruct such a civilization once these foundations are destroyed.
(Hayek’s remarks about “artificial language” may seem odd
to the modern reader unfamiliar with the Progressive Era political mania for
things like Esperanto or the Communist project of “rationalizing” language,
hilariously and terrifyingly parodied by Vaclav
Havel in his play The Memorandum.
But what is the modern project of political correctness if not the creation of
an artificial language within English for the purpose of writing politics into
the very tool of thought itself? E.g., the biological realities that bedevil
women pretending to be men are recast as the curious case of “men who
menstruate.” The more things change. . . . )
Levin applies the Hayekian standard to the case of
regulation. Hayek, a classical liberal who gave a great deal of thought to the
mode and character of economic regulation, argued that there were sure to be
cases in which the conditions for market competition could not be created or
maintained. What economic liberals (funny word, “liberals”) could not accept,
in Hayek’s view, was the replacement of functioning market competition with “inferior
methods of coordinating individual efforts.” What this means, Levin argues, is
that the alternative to progressivism is not doctrinaire libertarianism but
political action within the context of government power, particularly federal
power, operating within its properly understood role. “Regulations informed by
America’s founding principles and instituted for the limited but significant
purpose of nurturing, improving, or promoting private property and economic
vibrancy are both prudential and essential to safeguarding individual liberty
and the civil society,” Levin writes. But regulations organized along other
lines — “schemes to fundamentally transform society” as he describes them — are
something else, inevitably put forward in the service of “progressive ideology,
special interests, crony capitalism, etc.” and constituting “a perversion and
abuse of legitimate governing authority.”
Free societies are delicate things, and they are based on
complex economic and social systems that are not the design of any single
intelligence and not subject to reform or management by any single
intelligence. Hence, it is necessary, as EPA administrator Scott Pruitt likes
to put it, for regulation to be regular.
That means developing rules that are broad, stable, generally applicable,
predictable, and oriented toward general social ends rather than toward highly
specific political goals. (E.g., “We’ll generate x percent of our energy from solar and wind by year y.”)
Levin’s “Americanism” is very much an extension of the
British and European liberal traditions. Indeed, he makes a very good case that
the United States is where the best of British and European liberal political
thinking endures, having been written into our foundational documents and built
into our institutions by the founding generation. “Rediscovering Americanism”
means rediscovering Hayek and Adam Smith as well as John Adams and James
Madison, and Levin’s book provides a very interesting dive into that, not only
in its discussion of political philosophy as such but also in its assessment of
such early American events as the Annapolis convention that preceded the
constitutional convention in Philadelphia, the subject of which was interstate
trade barriers. It’s a lot to work through, but very much worth the effort.
No comments:
Post a Comment