By Charles C. W. Cooke
Thursday, May 23, 2019
New York magazine’s
Jonathan Chait has continued his turn toward conspiracy theory with a new
essay. Inspired by our “Against Socialism” issue, it’s titled “The New
Socialism Panic Is the Right’s Trick to Justify Supporting Trump.” The central
thesis of Chait’s submission is that National
Review — a magazine that was founded to fight socialism — is still fighting
socialism in 2019 because this gives us . . . cover to back Donald Trump.
Before 2019, we apparently didn’t mean it.
Ingenious!
Chait is particularly annoyed by my contribution to the
issue — in which I make the fairly straightforward argument that free markets
are democratic tools, and that the Constitution presupposes a limited
government that is flatly incompatible with socialism — and he for some reason uses
it as the main evidence in support of his main proposition, which is that:
The conservative movement’s embrace
of Trump has puzzled so many outsiders as a betrayal of principle. Cooke’s
essay makes clear that, on the contrary, their support for the plutocrat-in-chief
is a vindication of conservative principle: Strongman government in the pursuit
of oligarchy is no vice.
It’s difficult to know where to start with this
silliness. My essay makes no mention of Trump in either direction because it
isn’t about Trump, it’s about socialism and democracy — both perennial,
timeless topics that are far, far more important than who happens to be
president at the moment. The idea that the argument I advance makes anything
“clear” about Trump — or of my view of him — is ridiculous on its face, especially when one considers that that
I haven’t, in fact, “embraced Trump,” so much as I have resolved to speak
honestly about him. As I argued last time that Chait tried this, being honest
requires admitting when Trump is right, it requires arguing against him when he
is wrong, and, most crucially, it requires maintaining the views that I held
before he came along irrespective of whether Trump likes or loathes them. That
Chait cannot stop thinking about Donald Trump irrespective of the topic at hand
is sad. But it is his vice, and his limitation, not mine.
As for the absurdity of using me as evidence for a
supposed preference for “strongman government” . . . does New York magazine have editors? I am, for my sins, a broken record
on two topics in American life: the dangers of the imperial
presidency, and the need to restore Congress — and to the point of being a
bore. I write about these topics more than any others. I speak about these
topics more than any others. I hijack
conversations in order to bring up these topics more than any others. After
President Trump announced that he hoped to bypass Congress and build his wall
unilaterally, I slammed him in
print, in a
video, across the radio circuit, in a speech in Washington, on Jonah
Goldberg’s podcast, on The Editors podcast (for several weeks running), on
the Mad Dogs and Englishmen podcast, and so on. Moreover, I did so in precisely
the same language (“king,” “emperor,” “tyranny”) as I used when discussing
President Obama’s overreaches; that I use when criticizing, say, Kamala Harris;
and that I use when criticizing presidents of both parties for their foreign
policy Caesarism. If you’re using me as an example of enthusiasm for “strongman
government,” in any way, you’re a fool.
You’re also spectacularly missing the point. The analogy
I drew in my piece was with the First Amendment, which, I noted, both restricts
the power of transient majorities and
is regarded as an invaluable part of our democracy. In my view, markets are similar:
When government declines to get involved in them, it is both declining to take
a democratic vote and freeing up
space in which people may engage voluntarily and vote with their feet. Chait is
free to disagree with this supposition if he likes; if everybody agreed with
me, I wouldn’t bother arguing. But unless he believes that by defending the
First Amendment I am by definition endorsing “strongman government,” it’s
unclear why he believes that by endorsing laissez-faire
I am somehow setting myself up to endorse President Trump — who, incidentally,
is not even a laissez-faire kind of guy (don’t take my word for it;
here’s Jonathan
Chait on that topic). I have no doubt that it would be convenient for Chait
if I were of the view that capitalism needed a Pinochet to sustain it. But I’m
not, as anyone with elementary reading skills can discern.
On the contrary. My view of America in 2019 is the same
as my view of America in 2014: That power should be localized as much as is
possible; that the federal government should be limited to a core set of tasks,
and that, within its structure, Congress should be dominant; that markets and
civil society are the essential backbone of our system; that the Constitution
should be understood as a contract and strictly followed; that free trade is
not just an economic good, but a democratic good, too; that America is the one
country in the world in which the Anglo-American conception of “democracy”
still flourishes (by my lights, “America is the only country in which . . .” is
usually a compliment, not an insult); and that free people should decline to
relinquish any rights that they would need were the government to turn
tyrannical. As Chait charges, I do indeed list “‘the right to bear arms’ as one
of these fundamental human rights that ‘6,000 years or so of human
civilization’ has shown is essential to human liberty.” Know why? Because I’m
not into “strongman government.”
Chait’s final complaint is that I chose to outline a set
of principles and approaches, rather than a set of specific policies. But there
is nothing problematic about that in this case, because every single part of the agenda that has been proposed by the new
“socialists” would take us in the wrong direction. Were the new “socialists” to
take power, they would preside over a massive increase in the power that the
federal government exerts over individuals, families, and other little
platoons; they would increase the power of the executive branch at the expense
of Congress; they would increase the power of bureaucrats at the expense of the
free market and its players; they would increase by two-fold the revenues that
are forcibly removed from private hands and put under the control of
politicians; they would continue their march toward the forced subsidization of
opinions and activities of which vast numbers of people disapprove; and they
would put further pressure on the Constitution’s commerce clause and on the
integrity of separation of powers. These are not the marginal disputes of the
1990s, and we’re not haggling over minutiae, but over foundations. The
socialists know this. I do, too.
As Chait puts it himself, “American conservatives have
never relinquished their conviction that the entrenchment of the New Deal is
not only suboptimal but fundamentally undemocratic.” Because he flits so
seamlessly between making observations such as this one and implying that National Review has not really believed what it has said in the
past — and, indeed, that it is now warning about socialism only as part of some
“trick to justify supporting Trump” — I’m not entirely sure whether Chait
believes this about conservatives or he’s just throwing anything he can find at
the wall and hoping it sticks. But, at least in my case, he is correct: I do,
indeed, think that about the New Deal. And, given that the people I was writing
about in my essay want to go even further down the New Deal road, it is quite
obvious why mine was not an essay about trivialities. The issue was against
socialism, not against technocratic tinkering from annoying center-lefties.
No comments:
Post a Comment