By Kevin D. Williamson
Tuesday, July 16, 2019
I like and admire our friend J. D. Vance, but I do want
to throttle him just a little bit — just a little! — when he says things like
this: “The question conservatives confront at this key moment is this: Whom do
we serve? Do we serve pure, unfettered commercial freedom? Do we serve commerce
at the expense of the public good? Or do we serve something higher, and are we
willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?”
Is there a conservative who actually endorses “pure,
unfettered commercial freedom”? I know conservatives who want to make it a
little easier to operate a hair-braiding business without a license and 500
hours of “professional education,” and I know conservatives who think you
should be able to start
a moving company without asking permission from a preexisting cartel of moving
companies, and conservatives who want Americans to be able to work from
home without having to file tax returns in multiple jurisdictions. Vance works
in venture capital. He no doubt has been within smelling distance of the SEC.
Conservatives do not (in the main; there’s always that one guy) propose to
abolish the SEC, or to leave banks unregulated, in spite of the constant
Democratic claims to the contrary. Who is the champion of “unfettered
commercial freedom”? Who? It is nobody in the Republican party, and, as far as
I can tell, nobody writing in National Review.
Fetter away!
Vance worries about serving “commerce at the expense of
the public good,” as indeed do most other conservatives. But that gets pretty
complicated pretty quickly. On balance, commerce overwhelmingly serves the
public good, and attempts to use the fat fingers and long nose of Washington to
disentangle commerce and its social effects in a Goldilocks-satisfying manner
historically have not gone very well. His complaint with Facebook et al. is that
people enjoy using these products too much. I agree, though I’d argue
that the real root of that evil is the mobile phone itself. (I’m in an airport
lounge, listening to one of those cretins who insist on using a speaker phone
in a public place. Brilliant conversation you’re having there, Caitlyn.) The
press is full of panicked parents complaining about their children’s use of
social media or, lately, Fortnite. I do not have a great deal of confidence in
the parents of this country — I have met your children, America — but I
nonetheless believe that they are better suited to deal with the addictive
features of social media than is, say, Ilhan Omar.
But on the broader point: Who is it that Vance imagines
is on the opposite side of that argument? We may disagree about how to go about
best regulating business and nudging the profit motive toward service of the
public good, but I can think of few conservatives, even radical libertarians
such as myself, who in principle seek to serve commerce “at the expense of the
public good” or who believe we should be indifferent to the question.
“Do we serve something higher,” Vance asks, “and are we
willing to use political power to actually accomplish those things?” Our
strange new nationalists (neopaleocons, I suppose we should call them)
ask the strangest questions. Paul Ryan was often held up by conservatives of
this stripe as the mascot for soulless, market-dominated, Chamber of Commerce
conservatism. But would anybody say that Paul Ryan had no conception of the
national good and no sense of higher moral purpose, or that he was unwilling to
use political power to accomplish those things? Every Tom, Dick, and Hillary in
our nation’s hideous capital has some high sentiment to share and zero
hesitation about using political power in pursuit of their own often eccentric
moral visions. Donald Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are precisely alike in
that much at least.
How does that work out in fact? American cities are
governed by people who spend millions of dollars on inclusion-and-diversity
programs while the roads have potholes of practically lunar circumference. The
nice people in Washington are practically Jimi Hendrixing on fine and noble
sentiment (’scuse me while I puke and die) and will talk your ear off about
“serving something higher,” but they can’t balance the books, secure the
border, or win a war to save their useless lives. They cannot manage the federal
version of fixing potholes, and the potholes need fixing.
Is there someone who actually believes the things
Vance here is criticizing? If so — who? Because it is a mystery to me, and
you’d think I’d know, running dog of capitalism that I am.
If the situation is not as Vance describes it — if in
fact we disagree about how rather than whether to serve the
public good — then that is a different conversation. And that might be a good
conversation to have. But if you are telling me that the problem is Mark
Zuckerberg and the solution is Donald Trump, I’m moving to Switzerland.
No comments:
Post a Comment