I wondered when the socialists would start coming out of the woodwork. The answer, if the behavior of E. J. Dionne is indicative of the species, is now. In a column called “Capitalism’s Reality Check,” Dionne tells his readers that “the biggest political story of 2008 is getting little coverage.” And what, pray tell, would that be? The remarkable turn around in Iraq? That, surely, is a pretty big story, and one, moreover, that has been assiduously ignored by the mainstream media? Or maybe it’s the news that the approval rating of Congress has dipped to single digits (an historic low, I believe)? That’s a big story if only because it bears crucially on an important foundation of democracy: public confidence in our political institutions. And, again, you don’t hear much about it from the mainstream media who, when it comes to approval ratings, are considerably more interested in telling you how low President Bush’s rating are–never mind that they are twice as good as that enjoyed by Congress.
But, no, neither is what E. J. Dionne has in mind. His Big Story “involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated our economic debate for three decades.” You know, assumptions like low taxes and free markets and deregulation are good for productivity and central planning, government intervention, and egalitarian economic policies are bad for productivity. Those were the policies–the capitalist policies–that, over the last three decades that Dionne cites, lead to the greatest creation of wealth in history. In the early 1980s, remember, the top marginal was 70 percent. In 1982, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped to 776–that’s seven hundred and seventy-six–and many were the bulletins alerting us to the impending “Death of Equities.” What happened in the succeeding decades? Capitalism happened. Republican Presidents pursued tax-cuts and free-market policies, they did what they could to stymie economy-strangling regulation. The result? The Dow is now over 11,000, and everybody, even E. J. Dionne, even, alas, Barney Frank, is much richer now than they were in 1982. (Congressman Frank is not being frank–indeed, he was either being culpably uninformed or disingenuous–when he says that the huge, worldwide economic boom of the last few decades was “monopolized by a very small number of people.”)
We are also going through a painful moment as the subprime crisis (brought about, at least in part, by liberal politicians demanding that the banking industry loosen their lending requirements) and soaring energy costs batter the economy. But this too will pass–unless the socialists get their way. E. J. Dionne tells us that “The old script”–i.e. the script that over the last few decades created trillions of dollars in wealth–”of is in rewrite.” He then cites Representative Barney Frank–Barney Frank!–who warns that “We are in a worldwide crisis now because of excessive deregulation.” Hello, earth to Barney? Let’s have a little lesson, shall we, Congresman, in the difference between post hoc and propter hoc.
Of course, E. J. Dionne’s valentine to the return of socialism is not an abstract exercise, it is a move in the game of partisan politics. Hence his peroration: “In the campaign so far, John McCain has been clinging to the old economic orthodoxy while Barack Obama has proposed a modestly more active role for government.”
Let’s parse that, shall we? John McCain “clings”–a bad thing, “clinging”–to an “orthodoxy.” Orthodoxies are bad, too, right? Politicians can’t quite bring themselves to say we want heterodoxies, partly because not enough people are familiar with the word, but mostly because it not heterodoxy but just Something Different (Change!) that sells. But since E. J. Dionne advises a “reality check,” shouldn’t he recognize that McCain is not some much “clinging to an orthodoxy” as subscribing to sound economic principles that have fuelled the longest bull market in history? (That sounds different, doesn’t it?) And as for Obama’s “modestly more active role for government,” when you stop laughing at the distinctly immodest, er, fib , start totting up the ways Obama wants to run your life and take your money. (Think government-mandated “service,” think elimination of the cap on social security tax, think raising the tax on capital gains–and that is just the beginning.)
The thing that is so depressing about E.J. Dionne’s litany on behalf of socialism is that we have been down this road before. The road was accurately denominated by Friedrich Hayek: it’s called the road to serfdom. We’ve been there before. Do we really want to go there again?
It is strange that socialists seem so keen to push the point that capitalism has (supposedly) failed. Many of the left seem to act as if the death of capitalism is just around the corner and, when the corner is turned, they say it’s behind the next corner again. No solid reason to doubt capitalism arises merely from the fact that it is not entirely unproblematic, economically. Socialism, in the area of problem-free economies, seems much worse.
Besides all that pragmatics, it is a fundamental issue of liberty and to compromise that for egalitarianism seems wrong, even if it were the case that socialism worked. To argue against capitalism because of this idea that deregulation might not be good for productivity is to ignore the respect for people’s economic freedoms and rights, which is the essence of some of the best arguments for capitalism, including Hayek’s.
It’s no different than the so-called end of the “American Century.” I’m with Tom Wolfe, we’ve got about eight more of those to go. Here we have another bien pensant who thinks Europe has everything pretty much figured out. His facts haven’t been adjusted in about 20 years. In another 20 socialism will be permanently discredited, but like Arthur Schlesinger, Dionne will go to his grave proclaiming he was right.
Great article. Don’t expect logic or even awareness of the meaning of terms from the proponents of socialism. Dionne et al. write as if they don’t know the name of what they propose.
Deference to Barney Frank’s economic acumen is comic relief. Give Dionne credit, he made a funny.
Finally, Roger, please do use “heterodoxy” and “post hoc” and “propter hoc.” Dionne et al. will not understand, but they don’t want to. So I hope you continue to use your vocabulary and command of logic.
It is good to read somebody who is willing to come right out and talk about SOCIALISM, instead of “LEFTISM” – a vague, wishy-washy euphemism that he academics hide behind. And we let them.
We face one over-riding issue in this election – the rise of radical socialism within the Democrat party to the degree that they have been able to place a committed, life-long believer as their nominee for the Presidency. We had better start calling it what it is.
They want power. If they have to tear down the whole world to get it…so be it. Really, when you think of the volume of suffering their insane anti-reality agenda will bring down on the heads of the very people they purport to care about…
There is only one conclusion possible: the Left is a criminal enterprise.
I often see a form of argument that goes: a policy is not perfect, therefore anything that is not that policy is preferable.
You see this in complaints about the war: the execution of the war is not perfect, so it was a mistake to have pursued it at all.
It seems to me that the complaint against freedom mentioned here is similar: market capitalism is not perfect, so whatever I recommend to replace it must be better.
Yes, the market is not perfect: many of its strongest supporters can only muster two cheers for capitalism. But nothing is perfect, and pointing out imperfections is less compelling an argument than some of its practitioners seem to believe.
Back at the Dawn of the Sixties when the “Great Society” was fresh, the liberals has plans for everything. Keynesian economics was going to put paid to the business cycle. Rehabilitation would cure criminals. Root causes of all kinds of things were going to be uprooted. There was even some talk of a Dept. of Leisure to guide the population in socially productive past-times.
Now these grand visions have been replaced by the insipid thesis that Government is a good thing and there ought to be more of it.
OT: I’ve read “The Long March. . ” and will soon be ordering “The Rape of the Masters. Hence, I thought this might interest you.
http://www.sellmodern.com/listing-British+Columbia+Modern+Homes++Maurer+House++Naramata+Canada-224.html
This is a real estate website which specializes in selling houses of contemperary architectural design.
The house listed is essentially a mid century modern which has been built recently in Canada. I thought the sales person’s attempt at description of a modernist era house design in post modernist terms was so precious that I had to share it:
“The Modern period is now 80 years old and has become a tradition. This house reminds us that Modernity is a philosophy, not a style: It is the style of no-style, the believe in democratic values, modesty, directness, abstinence from fluff and symbols. It says that Art is about creation, not acquisition. It argues the value of rigorous unity of structure and finish, of form and content. It pleads economy, sustainability, soundness, and function. In its light and sketchy elegance and mature use of technology and resources this house makes an important and timely statement.”
K,
That’s a real estate agent saying: “The place is a dump and looks frumpish.”