By Kevin D. Williamson
Thursday, February 11, 2021
Anewspaper editor once described journalists as people
who have the bad taste to learn in public. Ezra Klein, a rhetorician who poses
as a policy analyst, is doing some learning in public, and learning the hard
way.
But what would we do without him? Who but Ezra Klein
could survey
the wreck left-wing Democrats have made of California and conclude that the
state’s problem is its excessive conservatism?
“Conservative” is, of course, an ambiguous word. I
remember when both Ronald Reagan and the Communist Party bosses in the Soviet
Union simultaneously were described as “conservative” or even
“ultraconservative,” sometimes in the same broadcast. Klein the rhetorician
anticipates objections on this front and writes that he is not speaking of “the
political conservatism that privatizes Medicare, but the temperamental
conservatism that” — see if this formulation sounds at all familiar — “stands
athwart change and yells ‘Stop!’”
Well, yes, we have heard about that!
California progressives have progressive policies and
progressive power, and they like it that way. That is the substance of their
conservatism.
California’s problem is not that it is governed by people
with copies of An American Renaissance
autographed by Jack Kemp on their bedside tables. California’s problem is — not
that Klein is inclined to see the fact — that it exemplifies precisely the
longstanding conservative critique of managerial progressivism that National Review et al. had in mind when
first committing themselves to “Stand athwart.”
Klein makes a superficial distinction between political
conservatism and temperamental conservatism, but combines them in rhetorical
opposition to the promise of enlightened progressivism, which apparently is a
set of policies and principles reflecting whatever his preferences happen to be
at any given moment. If the ill effects of some deregulatory effort are an
indictment of conservatism, then so, too, are the ill effects of excessive
regulation on the California model, which in Klein’s formulation simply
represents a different subspecies of conservatism.
Yet Klein gropes his way toward an epiphany, describing
California as a victim of
old processes and laws that
interest groups or existing communities have perverted for their own ends. The
California Environmental Quality Act wasn’t passed to stop mass transit — a
fact California finally acknowledged when it recently passed legislation
carving out exemptions. The profusion of councils and public hearings that let
NIMBYs block new homes are a legacy
of a progressivism that wanted to stop big developers from slicing
communities up with highways, not help wealthy homeowners fight affordable
apartments.
Unintended
consequences of economic regulation? Regulatory
capture? Tell me more!
California talks a big game on
climate change, but even with billions of dollars in federal funding, it
couldn’t build high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The
project was choked by pricey consultants, private land negotiations, endless
environmental reviews, county governments suing the state government. It has
been shrunk to a line connecting the midsize cities of Bakersfield and Merced,
and even that is horribly over
budget and behind schedule.
Political
incentives create inefficiencies and rent-seeking? Political managers have their own interests, distinct from and
sometimes at odds with those of the people they purport to serve? Who ever
heard of such a thing?
In San Francisco, for example, it
took 10 years to get two rapid bus transit lines through environmental review.
It’s become common in the state to see legislation like the California
Environmental Quality Act wielded against projects that would curb sprawl.
Groups with no record of green advocacy use it to force onerous environmental
analyses that have been used to block everything from bike lanes to affordable
housing developments to homeless shelters.
It is almost as though stated preferences are in some cases at odds with revealed preferences!
Etc.
Klein and others of his ilk like to present themselves as
dispassionate pragmatists, enlightened empiricists who only want to do “what
works.” Conservatives have long understood that our choice is not between a
bundle of prejudices and enlightened scientific management but between a bundle
of prejudices and a different bundle of
prejudices. Klein mocks San Francisco for renaming schools (Begone, Abraham Lincoln!) while it has
no plan to reopen them, but he cannot quite see that these are two aspects of a
single phenomenon.
Klein is a practitioner of what Michael Oakeshott called
“rationalism in politics.” What is meant by “rationalism” there is not
“reason,” but rather the cultic conviction that all social arrangements and
sources of human unhappiness are subject to scientific improvement through
(generally) inductive methods. It is a superstition. It is also a cover for
ideology and camouflage for bias.
Unless Klein intends to argue for some kind of benign
dictatorship, he must eventually understand that the troubles he identifies in
California are baked into the progressive cake. Create a political power that
limits property rights, and that power will be used in the interests of
politically powerful people at the expense of less-powerful people as long as
there are democratic processes that give them the opportunity. It doesn’t
matter how well-intentioned the program is. It doesn’t matter what a regulation
was meant to do — it matters what it does.
Intentions do not matter very much, and mere stated intentions matter even less.
Klein is blind to that, which is why he is able to write, as though there were
something unusual on display: “For all the city’s vaunted progressivism, [San
Francisco] has some of the highest private school enrollment numbers in the
country.” Rich progressives have always
been in favor of school choice and private schools — for themselves. They only
oppose choice for poor people, whose interests must for political reasons be
subordinated to those of the public-sector unions from which Democrats in
cities such as San Francisco derive their power.
Conservatives do not resist many regulations of the sort
seen in California because we want cities to be horrible or because we secretly
are in the pockets of developers who for some reason want their cities to be
horrible; rather, we are skeptical of such schemes because they tend to create
artificial shortages, distort markets and investment decisions, and prevent
solutions from emerging organically. “Markets
work!” is cartoon libertarianism, but you know what? Markets work. And if you don’t let them
work, you end up with artificial scarcity, high prices, and rationing.
That has real-world consequences, currently on display in California to such a spectacular degree that even Ezra Klein is able dimly to perceive them. Maybe he’ll learn something.
No comments:
Post a Comment