By George Will
Sunday, August 11, 2019
Regimes, however intellectually disreputable, rarely are
unable to attract intellectuals eager to rationalize the regimes’ behavior.
America’s current administration has “national conservatives.” They advocate
unprecedented expansion of government in order to purge America of excessive
respect for market forces, and to affirm robust confidence in government as a
social engineer allocating wealth and opportunity. They call themselves
conservatives, perhaps because they loathe progressives, although they seem not
to remember why.
The Manhattan Institute’s Oren Cass advocates “industrial
policy” — what other socialists call “economic planning” — because “market
economies do not automatically allocate resources well across sectors.” So,
government, he says, must create the proper “composition” of the economy by
rescuing “vital sectors” from “underinvestment.” By allocating resources
“well,” Cass does not mean efficiently
— to their most economically productive uses. He especially means subsidizing
manufacturing, which he says is the “primary” form of production because
innovation and manufacturing production are not easily “disaggregated.”
Manufacturing jobs, Cass’s preoccupation, are, however,
only 8 percent of U.S. employment. Furthermore, he admits that as government,
i.e., politics, permeates the economy on manufacturing’s behalf, “regulatory
capture,” other forms of corruption, and “market distortions will emerge.” Emerge? Using government to create
market distortions is national conservatism’s agenda.
The national conservatives’ pinup du jour is Fox News’s
Tucker Carlson, who, like the president he reveres, is a talented entertainer.
Carlson says that what Senator Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) calls “economic
patriotism” sounds like “Donald Trump at his best.” Carlson approves of how
Warren excoriates U.S. companies’ excessive “loyalty” to shareholders. She
wants the government to “act aggressively” and “intervene in markets” in order
to stop “abandoning loyal American workers and hollowing out American cities.”
Carlson darkly warns that this “pure old-fashioned economics” offends zealots
“controlled by the banks.”
He adds: “The main threat to your ability to live your
life as you choose does not come from government anymore, but it comes from the
private sector.” Well. If living “as you choose” means living free from the
friction of circumstances, the “threat” is large indeed. It is reality — the
fact that individuals are situated in times and places not altogether of their
choosing or making. National conservatives promise government can rectify this
wrong.
Their agenda is much more ambitious than President
Nixon’s 1971 imposition of wage and price controls, which were temporary fiascos. Their agenda is even
more ambitious than the New Deal’s cartelization of industries, which had the
temporary (and unachieved) purpose of curing unemployment. What national
conservatives propose is government fine-tuning the economy’s composition and
making sure resources are “well” distributed, as the government (i.e., the
political class) decides, forever.
What socialists are so fond of saying, national
conservatives are now saying: This time will be different. It never is, because
government’s economic planning always involves the fatal conceit that
government can aggregate, and act on, information more intelligently and nimbly
than markets can.
National conservatives preen as defenders of the dignity
of the rural and small-town — mostly white and non-college-educated — working
class. However, these defenders nullify the members’ dignity by discounting their
agency. National conservatives regard the objects of their compassion as inert
victims, who are as passive as brown paper parcels, awaiting government rescue
from circumstances. In contrast, there was dignity in the Joad family (of John
Steinbeck’s The Grapes of Wrath),
who, when the Depression and Dust Bowl battered Oklahoma, went west seeking
work.
Right-wing anti-capitalism has a long pedigree as a
largely aristocratic regret, symbolized by railroads — the noise, the soot, the
lower orders not staying where they belong — that despoiled the Edenic
tranquility of Europe’s landed aristocracy. The aristocrats were not wrong in
seeing their supremacy going up in the smoke from industrialism’s smokestacks:
Market forces powered by mass preferences do not defer to inherited status.
Although the national conservatives’ anti-capitalism
purports to be populist, it would further empower the administrative state’s
faux aristocracy of administrators who would decide which communities and
economic sectors should receive “well”-allocated resources. Furthermore,
national conservatism is paternalistic populism. This might seem oxymoronic,
but so did “Elizabeth Warren conservatives” until national conservatives
emerged as such. The paternalists say to today’s Joads: Stay put. We know what
is best for you and will give it to you through government.
As national conservatives apply intellectual patinas to
the president’s mutable preferences, they continue their molten denunciations
of progressives — hysteria about a “Flight 93 election” (the Republic’s last
chance!) and similar nonsense. Heat, however, neither disguises nor dignifies
their narcissism of small differences.
No comments:
Post a Comment