Last week, newly-elected Senator Webb of Virginia did a lot of damage with his Democratic 'response' to President's State of the Union address. Webb has it wrong when he says that we have economic problems. This sort of continued negative spin on reality will result in bad policy.
Specifically, Webb alleged, like John Edwards during the 2004 Presidential campaign, that America is now two different countries, economically. They allege that part of America is poor, and growing poorer, not participating in the nation's healthy economic growth.
A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by Arthur Brooks suggests why these Democrats view the situation in this manner. To wit, Brooks wrote,
"While just about everybody -- left and right -- agrees that poverty is unacceptable (although policy makers disagree as to whether a minimum wage hike would help or hurt the working poor), conservatives do not share liberals' concern about income inequality. According to the 2005 Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality, self-described liberals are more than twice as likely as conservatives to say income inequality in America is a "serious problem." And while 84% of liberals think the government should do more to reduce inequality, only 25% of conservatives agree.
This is empirical substantiation for the old cliché that conservatives just don't care about the poor, right? Wrong. In fact, the data do not tell us that conservatives are uncaring; they actually tell us that conservatives are optimists. Conservatives are relatively untroubled by inequality, and unsupportive of government income redistribution, because they believe the American economy provides private opportunities to succeed. Liberals are far more pessimistic than conservatives about the possibility of a better future for Americans of modest means.
Consider the evidence. While 92% of conservatives believe that hard work and perseverance can help a person overcome disadvantage, only 65% of liberals think so. This difference of opinion, contrary to the convention, is not because conservatives earn more money. In fact, lower-income conservatives are about twice as likely as upper-income liberals to say they think there's "a lot" of upward mobility in America. If a liberal and a conservative are exactly identical in income, education, sex, family situation, and race, the conservative will be 20 percentage points more likely than the liberal to say that hard work leads to success among the disadvantaged."
The data that Brooks cites matter profoundly. Both Webb and Edwards, and their ilk, are already biased to believe the worst about the economy and our society. They believe that income inequality is a major problem, and that nobody's individual efforts on their own behalf will lift them out of poverty.
Yet, we know from other studies, the exact ones which I do not have at hand to cite at the moment, that the income inequality numbers frequently cited by liberals are static, not dynamic. That is, they do not follow the same people for years, and find continued low incomes. Rather, they observe the lowest category of incomes, and, then, some years later, observe, 'yep, lookie there...some people are still poor." They simply assume the same people stayed in the same categories. In a word, pessimistic, as Brooks notes.
Nevermind that he Reagan revolution led to a broad middle group of politically-left-leaning voters to experience the economic fruits of lower taxes and healthy, low-inflation economic growth. It's as if those years never occurred, Reagan's recovery never happened, and nobody ever gets wealthier in America from hard work and diligence.
Conservatives do care about the poor. We simply feel that low tax rates, robust, low-inflationary growth, and fairness for all maximize everyone's opportunity for self-improvement and wealth-enhancement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, I think optimism is good...and I think that when Chuck Neul suggests that liberals have a pessimistic view of the power of individual perseverance, he is pointing to the unfortunate tendency toward endless relativism on the part of many liberals ( e.g. "If the circumstances were different (i.e. if there were better education for the poor, income redistribution, etc.), then poor people would be empowered to act.") And I do think he has a point: if you take a stand, you really can make something of yourself no matter than circumstances into which you were born.
Neul does not speak to the context that surrounds the endeavor for personal financial wealth/security, however. What are the consequences for the nation as a whole when the game, generally speaking, is "winner-takes-all"? Where does the person who has lost at this financial game go? Well, he goes below that line that all the liberals are freaking out about. What are the consequences of such inequality? Increased crime rates? Perhaps...but I think the most long-lasting impact comes in the form of people who are no longer willing to play the game. They are disenchanted with the system. Over time, belief that all white men are oppressors or that political revolution is the only answer begins to set in. These people need to find a way to regain that energetic optimism that Neul ascribes to the conservative disposition.
Personally, I find Rawlsian social contract theory enlightening (John Rawls; Harvard professor...just died four years ago). Basically, Rawls says that individuals have no reason to take credit for the personal abilities with which they are born. He views them as gifts, gifts whose benefits must find a way to make it to everybody. Rawls constructs a theory of justice as "fairness," based on a thought experiment that uses the notion of "original position" as its starting ground. Among other things, it posits that if you did not know what sort of ability (or lack thereof) with which you are endowed, and you then tried to come up with a social system that you would be willing to take part in, you would invariably choose a system in which the social inequalities (which stem from the disparity among personal abilities) are arranged to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society. Such a social system gives something back to its poorest members, and keeps them in the game. As to what such a system would look like, exactly, I am not sure. I imagine Rawls goes into many specifics. You can check out the summary of his famous book "A Theory of Justice" here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice
I did considerable work on Rawls, including an MA Philosophy thesis. My focus was economics systems and ethics. I have attended a lecture by Rawls, followed by Q&A.
Suffice to say, it was underwhelming as was he, in person.
Chalk it up to foolish youthfulness, a la Churchill. Rawls, like so many liberals, neglects two important facts.
First, the size of the pie can change in a more libertarian, free-market economy. Second, there is always some 'lowest' class. But its composition need not be assumed to be static and, in America, is not. Thus, through lack of research on the time-series experiences of the poorest, over time, we instead simply assume the same people are always "the poor."
It takes about 5 seconds to realize that, in an immigrant nation, there are going to be new influxes of 'the poor,' and they are driven to move upwardly in socio-economic terms.
My opinion is that people want everything to change, become 'fair,' immediately, with no reprecussions with others. Instantly correct social justice in the blink of an eye. But without any dislocations of others' feelings.
Rushing social change only creates anger and resentments among those in society who, while they may, too, abhor current conditions, do not enjoy being forced to endure discrimination and confiscatory social and economic policies in order to create instant 'justice.'
By the way, later on in life, I realize that Nozick was, by far, the better and more insightful Harvard professor, although Rawls got most of the attention in the area under discussion.
Post a Comment