By Kevin D. Williamson
Wednesday, May 06, 2020
‘Don’t put all of your eggs in one basket,” advises the
proverb.
Why not?
Anyone who ever has spoken with an investment adviser has
heard the sermon about diversification of risk. And most people understand that
in the context of an investment portfolio. But in other contexts, we respond to
risk with the opposite of diversification: centralization. Many progressives,
for example, believe that the best way to mitigate the personal financial risks
associated with buying health insurance and medical care is the imposition of a
single-payer system, in which the government not only pays for medical care
but also regulates it and organizes doctors and other providers into closely
managed cartels, as in the United Kingdom under the National Health Service.
After 9/11, many in government came to believe that U.S. counterterrorism
efforts would be improved if functions entrusted to different agencies across
different departments were placed under the central management of a Department
of Homeland Security, which they set about creating.
The bureaucratic mind prefers uniformity, conformity,
homogeneity, and centralization, because these qualities make processes more
amenable to bureaucratic management. We Americans often use “bureaucratic” and
“bureaucracy” as pejorative terms, but they should not be understood as such:
Effective bureaucracies make functioning modern states possible, and they are a
big part of the success of countries as different as Denmark, Switzerland, and
Singapore; in the same way, lack of effective administration is a big part of
why U.S. governance remains relatively ineffective even on those rare occasions
when we get the policy right.
The bureaucratic preference for homogeneity and
centralization is what is at work when you hear someone saying that some
important thing such as health care or education “is too important to be left to
the free market.” When I look at a mobile phone from 1988 and compare it with a
mobile phone today — not only its capabilities but its price and its
accessibility — and then I compare a public school from 1988 with a public
school from today, I think that education is far too important not to be
left to the free market, which has a very good record of making important
things (food, clothing, communication) better and cheaper and more widely
available consistently over long periods of time.
Free-market processes are not perfect, and they no more
closely approach perfection than any human arrangement should be expected to;
the error (or the political stratagem) is comparing the real-world outcomes of
the free market with the theoretical ideal outcome produced by the centralized
bureaucracy in education or health care or controlling air pollution.
And even with the famous eggy proverb to guide us, we
consistently fail to appreciate the risks associated with centralization.
Back to the schools, for an obvious example: One of the
American Left’s major projects in the post-war era was converting the
public-school system from a loose collection of locally controlled educational
institutions into a tightly governed state-and-national network of welfare
centers that serve a variety of functions from providing direct social services
to engaging in political indoctrination and ensuring above-market compensation
in noncompetitive jobs for members of progressive political constituencies.
On the social-welfare front, schools act as free day-care
centers, provide some health-care services, and feed children to such a great
extent that millions of students rely on school meals for the majority of their
daily food. None of those endeavors is in and of itself an obviously bad
policy, but they do show the imprint of the bureaucratic mind: Millions of
families doing millions of things in millions of different ways with millions
of different outcomes cannot, from the bureaucratic point of view, possibly be
the best possible arrangement. Better instead to enact centralized programs in
the facilities in which children are legally compelled to spend their days,
with the agents of social welfare ministering to a captive clientele.
That this imposed certain risks became a source of some
concern when the schools had to be shut down because of the coronavirus
epidemic. Suddenly, students and their families were not shut off only from
such education as happens in these facilities but also from their de facto
subsidized child-care arrangements, free or subsidized food (more than half of
the children in our public schools are eligible for subsidized meals), and much
else. Working parents of modest means were left scrambling for substitutes in
an environment in which few were to be found.
Put another way: They had become excessively dependent on
a single institution for a variety of needs that are only tangentially related
to the notional purpose of that institution. And if you believe that the
goodwill of the public sector and the whip of democratic accountability will
necessarily produce outcomes preferable to those associated with the cold heart
of the profit-seeking market, consider those Americans who are entirely
dependent on the public institutions that most closely resemble the public
schools: our jails and prisons, through which the coronavirus epidemic is
raging uncontrolled, in many cases in an environment in which the responsible
authorities are not even prepared to guarantee such rudimentary needs as
regular running water and soap. Prisoners are, by necessity, utterly dependent
on the institutions in which they are incarcerated — an American prison is what
you get when you extend the assumptions of an American kindergarten as far as
politics will take them.
There are some important cultural differences between the
schools and the prisons: Our attitude toward public-school students is largely
one of indifference, whereas our attitude toward prisoners more often is marked
by cruelty and viciousness. But in both cases the institutions often have
settled on the same basic solution: throwing out as many of their inmates as
they can, making them someone else’s problem.
What happens in a single-payer system when the single
payer will not or cannot pay? Prisoners know. Kindergarteners, too.
The welfare state is not going away. But there are many
ways to design a program. And one of the distinctions that should be kept in
mind is that there is a world of difference between government funding
consumption and government directly providing goods and services. The
food-stamp program surely has its shortcomings, but can you imagine a system
under which the U.S. government attempted to operate farms, distribution
centers, and grocery stores for the poor and hungry? The great benefit of food
stamps and other voucher programs is that they allow beneficiaries to avail
themselves of the benefits of the same market system in which the affluent get
their goods and services.
You can take your SNAP card to Whole Foods, but you can’t
take your kids and the money earmarked to educate them to Choate no
matter what you pay in school taxes. Do you think that is for the benefit of
your children or for the benefit of the actual
big-money donors in American politics? (In the 2016 cycle, the teachers’
unions spent
36 times what the “big money” National Rifle Association spent on contributions.)
Getting priced out of the market for this or that is a
risk for lower-income people, albeit a risk that can be managed in a relatively
straightforward way, most obviously by giving them vouchers that bridge the
distance between the consumption they can afford and the consumption we think
they should have. Institutional failure is a different kind of risk, one that
can be very difficult to solve when there is monopoly power at play, as with
the prisons and the public schools.
Our social-welfare strategies should be designed to
create fewer monopolies and less centralization. (Public-sector monopolies are
no less monopolistic for being public.) With apologies to Senator Sanders,
choice is not only a matter of having 23 different brands of deodorant — it is
a matter of risk, of whom we put at risk and why, a matter of alternatives and
who is entitled to them, and a matter of whether people who are not rich and
powerful are to have some control over their own lives or whether their proper
role is to take what is put in front of them — and to shut up and be grateful
for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment