By Kevin D. Williamson
Monday, November 25, 2019
Oren Cass, in the great tradition of college sophomores
throughout the ages, discovers in the words “promote the general Welfare” a
general constitutional license for federal action. Well. The preamble of the
Constitution also speaks to concerns about “tranquility,” but I do not think
that this empowers Washington to round us up and put us into camps to listen to
Deepak Chopra lectures, and I come to this conclusion because of what comes
right after the poetical language of the preamble: the establishment of a
federal government of limited enumerated powers. I will confess to being lost about
what Nicholas Cage has to do with this. Sounds like a question for Kyle Smith
to me.
Cass is scandalized by my use of the word “robbery.” But
I do not think that Oren Cass of Harvard Law actually needs to have it
explained to him that a redefinition of property rights to the detriment of the
property owner — which is precisely what “stakeholder capitalism” proposes to
do in the case of corporate shareholders — is a taking, i.e. a seizure
of property. If Cass doubts that this happens at gunpoint, he should try
sitting on some property that the government has laid a claim to and see what
happens.
Which brings us back to that “general welfare,” which is
in the case of the federal government not a license for action in and of itself
but a guide for action, a navigation point toward which federal action might be
directed. And it is here that Cass and other like-minded advocates of a more
interventionist and managerial economic philosophy for the Right indulge in
epic question-begging.
I harp on the case of Senator Marco Rubio and his tender
care that the billionaire sugar barons of Florida be shielded from market
competition and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s equally narrow concern for the tax
bills of Massachusetts-based medical-device manufacturers because they are
mirror images of one another, illustrating the same point: Political incentives
are a hurricane wind, and the rhetoric of “general welfare” is a pile of dry
November leaves. We do not have to imagine what Senator Rubio might do
with more discretionary power over economic activity, because we know what he
does with the power he has: He abuses it in the interests of his political
allies. As does Senator Warren. As does your average senator or member of the
House. In the matter of sugar — and in other similar matters — Senator Rubio
does not act in pursuit of the general welfare, but serves the rather more
specific interest of his own political welfare. Senator Rubio here is not
especially weak or especially corrupt — he is only emblematic.
I suppose that I do not need to repeat here how the
simpleminded pursuit of the necessarily crude metrics inevitably brought into
play in these political calculations reliably lead to catastrophic outcomes in
the real world: Rising home prices are very popular with homeowners, who are
politically influential (they are less popular with younger, less affluent
people struggling to buy a house on responsible terms, who are less politically
influential), and they are very popular with powerful special-interest groups
such as the National Association of Realtors, and the prospect of wider
homeownership enabled by easier access to mortgage credit is very, very popular
with mortgage originators and traders in mortgage securities — and these
political incentives in combination with others produced the federal policies
that led to the 2008-09 financial crisis and the Great Recession, one of the
greatest man-made economic disasters of our time. Again, we do not have to
imagine what political steering of markets looks like: We have experience to go
on.
Cass writes: “Williamson’s choice of Monsanto as exemplar
for his policy-free model of prosperity is instructive.” This is an absurd
sentence. I am not sure what a “policy-free model” might even look like, or
indeed what those words arranged in that order could even hope to mean. The
question is not whether we shall have policy in our . . . public policy . . .
but what our policies are to be. I advocate generally applicable rules oriented
toward the security of property rights and freedom to work and to trade in a
stable and predictable policy environment, as opposed to special-pleading
advocacy for this or that politically influential business interest (steel,
corn, sugar, “green energy,” AIG, subprime-mortgage lenders, take your pick) based
on a model of discretion that empowers politicians, giving them a whip hand
over the lives and livings of workers and firms. I do not believe that the best
alternative to a left-wing Elizabeth Warren is a right-wing Elizabeth Warren.
Monsanto is an interesting example of how business
innovations serve the interests of the world’s poor and hungry not because it
exemplifies some narrow ideological view of the world but precisely because it
does not. That this eludes Oren Cass is a fact that is of some interest to me.
Senator Rubio’s speech and essay provide very little more
than shallow, sterile, and banal rah-rah-ism of a vaguely nationalistic flavor.
(I do wonder who wrote the speech and would love to know.) If you doubt me in
this, please do go and read
it yourself, and see if it contains anything that might be generously
described as an idea, as opposed to an attitude.
What is most interesting to me about this particular
instance of the new right-wing progressivism is that it raises a question I
have been meaning to write about at more length, and will in the near future:
The coalition that has made the Republican party politically viable for all
these years no longer makes much sense; social conservatives and religious
traditionalists might sell their support at the price of a few Kavanaughs
(silver has gone out of fashion as a medium of exchange), but advocates of
limited government, free enterprise, and property rights (different ways of
saying the same thing) have fewer and fewer reasons to ally themselves with the
Trump-era GOP and the welfare populism that increasingly is central to its
political offering. For a long time, the distinct constituencies of the
Republican coalition were kept together by the common enemy of Communism;
deprived of that common enemy, they have discovered a new enemy: each other.
The Democrats have a temporary advantage in that the
outright socialism espoused by Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, et al.
is not in the current political context irreconcilable with the New Deal
progressivism that remains close to the heart of much of the Democratic
coalition; pushed far enough, that socialism will be impossible to reconcile
with the politics of certain Democratic constituencies, but the Left is still
short of reaching that point. The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to me to
have reached the point at which their coalition is obviously incoherent, a fact
that is detectable in the incoherency of Marco Rubio’s “common-good capitalism”
among other expressions of the same contradictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment