Deirdre McCloskey and the Leftist Narrative of the State

I have been reading about the moral defense of capitalism, through the writings of Deirdre McCloskey. (H/T The Tarquin). On the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians (tag line: Free Markets and Social Justice) McCloskey responds to criticism of market failures by demanding that those argue for government intervention first prove that government intervention is going to do a better job at solving the supposed market failure than the alternative. Government, being instituted by imperfect human beings is after all, subject to the same failings that sometimes plague the free market; greed, deceit and lust for power. She asks those on the left to consider that their facts might be wrong:

But anyone who after the 20th century still thinks that thoroughgoing socialism, nationalism, imperialism, mobilization, central planning, regulation, zoning, price controls, tax policy, labor unions, business cartels, government spending, intrusive policing, adventurism in foreign policy, faith in entangling religion and politics, or most of the other thoroughgoing 19th-century proposals for governmental action are still neat, harmless ideas for improving our lives is not paying attention.

She goes on to provide a devastating critique of the failures of these forms of statism. Please read the whole article, it is thoroughgoing; but I provide one more paragraph to give you a taste: In the 19th and 20th centuries ordinary Europeans were hurt, not helped, by their colonial empires.

Economic growth in Russia was slowed, not accelerated, by Soviet central planning. American Progressive regulation and its European anticipations protected monopolies of transportation like railways and protected monopolies of retailing like High-Street shops and protected monopolies of professional services like medicine, not the consumers. “Protective” legislation in the United States and “family-wage” legislation in Europe subordinated women. State-armed psychiatrists in America jailed homosexuals, and in Russia jailed democrats. Some of the New Deal prevented rather than aided America’s recovery from the Great Depression.

Indeed, it is hard to think of examples where direct state intervention in the economy has yielded a superior outcome. Best for the state to ensure a level playing field by enforcing contract law, and prohibiting violence and let the market work its magic.

The Intellectual Defense of Freedom

Recent events reminded me of the need to put forth a full intellectual and moral defense of freedom and liberty. First up is Mary Anastasia O'Grady's article on how left wing students have wrong footed the conservative government of Sebastian Piñera, despite excellent economic growth of 6% in 2011.

How this can be in Chile, the poster-child of liberal economic reform, is at first a puzzle. The answer—and this is a cautionary tale for Americans—may lie in Chile's political and intellectual climate, which is desperately short of voices able to defend the morality of the market and the sanctity of individual rights.

Specifically, the problem in Chile has its roots in the for profit system that gives the wealthy greater access to college education and also the fact that private school graduates get better test scores than their public school counterparts. The difference in test scores impacts admissions. Rather than celebrate the fact that private for-profit colleges increase the supply of education, students are protesting for free state run education. And of course the leader of the protests has close ties to Cuba, which should wreck her credibility, but seemingly does not.

Meanwhile a German version of Mein Kampf is set to come out in print. I applaud the decision to let the German people read for themselves the genesis of the great evil that befell their country. Hitler set the bar for evil in the twentieth century, and people sometimes forget that he put it all in writing first. Kind of reminds me of Ahmadinejad in Iran. Evil is alive and well, and people the world over need to be exposed to American ideals. Why?

. . . versions of the unexpurgated book have been best sellers over the past few years, including in Palestinian areas and in Turkey. Local popularity of this book is a useful data point to identify worrisome cultures.

That's only because the Israelis are racist.

Meanwhile, I guess the Occupy movement will be protesting along with the rest of the communists tomorrow. It's always a sure sign that a movement has allied itself with the second most evil political philosophy in history when they choose May 1 as a day of national protest. I remember that the open borders/amnesty types did so a few years back. There is surely a political rule that all May day protests are in league with forces of darkness. The Occupy protestors had a single valid complaint buried beneath their socialist clap-trap, that some of the banksters had enriched themselves through federal largesse, either in the form of Federal Reserve pay outs or from the U.S. Treasury. As a tea partyer, I can be sympathetic to that complaint; but they piled on with so much socialist b.s. and they behaved in such an abhorrent manner that no one could take them seriously. Finally, where is the political leadership that is arguing against them? I want to hear a conservative politician state that inequality is the fair and proper outcome of a free society, because some people are more talented or hardworking or both and deserve to be rewarded. It is fair and just. Finally, I wish we could just remember that socialism is the opposite of freedom.

Despite their promises of massive protest, I doubt that most people will be seriously inconvenienced by #occupy tomorrow. But they will get lots of free media.

What Ails Us - Part II

Would he rather work in America? Does our freedom still attract? Why do we need to import this man?

In his State of the Union speech the President alludes to the challenges facing the nation due to globalization and rightfully calls on our nation to rise to the occasion. He then proceeds to lay out small beer as to how to meet the challenge, with government "investment." He skirts the real issues facing our nation. He share the left's fascination with 19th century technology - trains, as if that's the wave of the future, our "sputnik" moment. The fact is, government investment is not what made this country great, nor will it cause us to meet the current challenges. Our problems are not easy to solve, but they are simple to diagnose.

Education

Our schools are being strangled by 19th century methods of instruction and 20th century unionism. In spite of computers and multimedia technology, little has changed in our schools curricula for over 100 years. We have not applied scientific knowledge about brain function with new technologies to change the way our children learn. Why? Because innovation is stifled by massive government control of our schools and union resistance to any innovation.

But just like telecommunications innovation didn't really start until the AT&T monopoly was broken up, so education must be freed of government control. But without government standards, we can't guarantee a quality education for our kids, some argue. Really? The inner city schools of our country have already lost a generation that we may never retrieve. Internationally, kids taught with the same techniques that we have used for decades, but with more intensity, are of course doing better on standardized tests. I don't think those tests necessarily prove that any particular group is more ready to face new challenges, because the tests are necessarily backwards looking. But if they are the only measure, what does it mean that we are falling behind? Innovation will only come from competition. Time to make huge changes to our school system.

Human Capital and Freedom (Personal and Regulatory)

Traditionally, many of our greatest innovators have been immigrants. Why do they come to this country? It isn't because of our love of diversity, but because our way of life, with its greater freedom that so many foreigners have come to call Americans home. Further, the immigrants are much more likely to start up new businesses than the native born. Even now, our nation is still much less regulated and less corrupt than most of the rest of the world. It means that entrepreneurs can keep the fruits of their labors. It means that immigrants won't be jailed for criticizing the President, unlike Russia for instance. Immigrants with drive and education are a source of strength.

To continue to attract immigrants, our regulatory regime must be simple and understandable. This administration is moving in the wrong direction, granting the Secretary of HHS vast new law-making powers under Obamacare, for instance. I grant that some regulation is desirable to prevent harm from coming to individuals, but our approach is out of control. We opt for the complex when the simple will do. Some easy examples:

• To deal with the less than 15% uninsured, we overhaul everyone's health insurance, rather than just dealing with that group.
• We perform elaborate "stress tests" rather than just saying the larger the bank, the larger its required capital reserves.
• We license professions, like those who braid hair, for which there is no rational basis.
• We propose an elaborate cap and trade system, rife with potential fraud (or actual fraud in Europe) rather than a straightforward carbon tax.

Immigration Policy

We desperately need skilled immigrants to counter the deficiencies in our education system and to balance our demographic profile. But because we haven't secured the border we actually have large numbers of unskilled workers as our actual immigrant population. You can argue whether low skilled illegal immigrants a net positive or not, but who would argue that we wouldn't be better off if those were replaced with engineers with advanced degrees or doctors?

The failure of our immigration policy prevents a rational discussion about opening up programs like H-1B, that would increase the inflow of accomplished individuals. Further, by increasing these inflows, we would halt outflows of jobs due to offshoring, because it makes more sense for the other members of project teams to be colocated with the most productive members of the team.

That's most of it. I also agree with KT that lack of intact families is an even more fundamental cause of our problems, but that isn't tractable by government policy. But the President didn't really address any of it. Judging by the snoozefest, no one was excited by trains either.

Floatopia and the Local Nanny State

Look, I don't like public drunkenness any more than the next person, but the booze ban at the beach isn't just stupid, it is a violation of my rights. There, I've said it. So when the Floatopia protest/booze fests started I was of two minds. First, I was encouraged that students and other protesters were making a mockery of the stupid law. However, I didn't like the fact that many of them would inevitably get drunk and reinforce the negative stereotype that led to the ban. (Full disclosure, Waynok participated in a floatopia, with my blessing, though he did not necessarily drink.)

Now the San Diego City Council is considering banning future such events as follows:

The report proposes to extend the language in the original ban to define “bathers” as “a person floating, swimming, wading, or bodysurfing, with or without the use of a floatation device, including, but not limited to,… a surfboard, …innertube, life preserver…” Lastly, the amendment proposed to extend the ban of alcohol consumption of bathers to the city’s legal limits- three nautical miles from the coast (3.45 miles).

Well, this is certainly a crisis that needs to be addressed by our city fathers.

Thinking about the root cause of how we came to be in this situation, I think it is alack of shame. There was a time when a young man or woman would have been ashamed to be drunk in public, at least after the fact. There was a stronger sense of propriety among the public that didn't require the police to arrest that many people for such a crime to make enforcement and effective deterrent. What has been lost is a shared sense of public propriety. I don't think we drink any more today, see Wes Clark's Avocado Memories discussion of patio culture in the 60s. (One of the best blog posts of all time.)

Today we are less mindful of our behavior overall and are filled with resentment at all manner of constraint. The result is that each new constraint is met with more resentment and attempts to break out of stultifying straitjackets on behavior. It is as if most adults have entered a never-ending adolescence and the only authority remaining is the policing power of government. It is a recipe for disaster. It makes me a criminal when I drink my one or two beers at the beach. It displaces the responsibility for maintaining societal norms from individuals to the government and that is untenable. Contrary to popular belief, a strong sense of shared morality does not subvert freedom, but makes freedom more possible, because we need fewer laws to maintain order in society. (And don't get me started on what those shared values are; Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Atheists agree on all manner of morality, including the impropriety of indecent exposure and public drunkenness.)

What is to be done? We should recognize that more and more laws to regulate behavior are actually counter-productive. Too many laws, and ridiculous ones at that, and people lose respect for the law. Look at how often the speed limit is violated. But fewer laws are insufficient of themselves. People who do stupid things need to rap the consequences of their actions. So, if someone is drowning due to excess alcohol consumption, they should pay for their rescue, as a modest example. Finally, we all need to just pitch in and let those who behave badly know, that their behavior is not welcome, nor will it be tolerated. A little shame isn't such a bad thing.

Now I think I'll have a martini.

There Is Still A Difference

Mark Steyn had this to say about the incident in Quincy video'd above:

The same day that Mayor Newsom took his bold stand, I saw a phalanx of police officers doing the full Robocop — black body armor, helmets, and visors — as they marched down the street. Goosestepping? No, it’s actually quite hard to goosestep in those steel-reinforced kneepads. So just regular marching. Naturally, I assumed they were Arizona state troopers performing a routine traffic stop. In fact, they were the police department of Quincy, Ill., facing down a group of genial tea-party grandmas in sun hats and American-flag T-shirts. They were acting at the behest of President Obama’s Secret Service, who rightly recognized a polite knot of citizens singing “God Bless America” as a clear and present danger to the republic.

If I were a member of the Quincy PD, I’d wear a full-face visor, too, because I wouldn’t be able to look myself in the mirror. It’s a tough job making yourself a paramilitary laughingstock.

And there in lies the difference. In the U.S. peaceful demonstrators can still embarrass jack booted paramilitary types into backing down. We know how things ended in China. (No para about those military tanks in Tiananmen Square.)

Hope and Change We Really Need

The hope and change slogan always annoyed me, but I never took the time to figure out why. Now I have. Instead of the hope of changing America, which is a great country not in need of great change, but rather small incremental improvement, I would like to see a candidate of hope and change with a statement like this:
"I hope to faithfully respect the freedom and best interests of our nation and I pledge to change the culture of corruption in Washington DC by reducing the role of the federal government as dispenser of goodies to favored interests."

The belief that the federal government will solve every problem and allay every risk is bleeding the country dry. Further, because goodies are dispensed to the most successful lobbyists, we have provided incentive for corrupting behaviors, whether or not they are actually illegal. The Republicans could easily reinvent themselves and clobber the Democrats by making themselves the party of small government and reform, which go hand in glove. Unfortunately their track record is abysmal and they are not reaping the rewards of the Democrats obvious bad behavior.

Ultimately, voters are rational. Given the choice between an avowedly left wing socialist party and an incompetent right wing socialist party, they will go with the competence. Time for Republicans to end the earmarks, the porkulus, the special favors that they have been as guilty of as Democrats, and they will be able to win big in 2010 and beyond.

Bumper Sticker of the Day

I couldn't find a picture of the bumper sticker, except on this T-shirt. You can buy great products like this at zazzle.com.

Fruits of Labor and Loss

Dean here. Iraqis went to the polls yesterday to vote for local representatives aimed at creating provincial councils that will control municipal budgets and have the power to hire and fire people.

There was a noticeable lack of violence with tight security including a driving ban in most of the country to prevent suicide bombing.

Nationwide, turnout varied: Some provinces hovered around 60 percent, with Basra, a Shiite-dominated region in the south, still lower at about 50 percent.

There was also some confusion in various areas as to where it was people were supposed to vote and there were reports of people being turned away because their names were not on the voter rolls.

Sound like anywhere else you know?

But a U.N. election observer, Said Arikat, described the election in mostly positive terms. “By and large, the rules were followed.”

Staffan de Mistura, the top U.N. official in Iraq, said, “This is a good day for Iraq's democracy.”

Long may the men and women of Iraq be able to argue and haggle over hanging chads, disenfranchisement and voting irregularities.

And God Bless the men and women of this and other coutries' armed forces who made what seemed an impossibility 6 years ago, a reality.

Freedom Coalition Agenda for the Republican Party - Update 1

Updates will be published at the bottom of the article.

One of the reasons I started this blog was to advance an agenda that would further the cause of freedom. In my experience, being right on the issues isn't enough, one's coalition must pick issues that are winners and can capture the public imagination. Ron Paul provides the negative example. He was right about the current bubble collapsing, but framed his brief in anti-Federal Reserve, "bring back the gold standard" rhetoric associated with the lunatic fringe.

The Republican party has some great opportunities to advance a popular agenda. So here is my proposed Freedom Coalition agenda and a little about why I think these issues are winners. As with any agenda, it should change with circumstances and I will update it periodically.

• Champion Freedom of Speech. We oppose campaign finance reform that protects incumbents and vested interests. Ultimately, these laws abridge free speech. There are so many examples of small groups harassed by monied opponents when they seek to organize to protect their rights. In Colorado, some neighbors who didn't want to be annexed by another city held some bakes sales to raise money for signs and ended being fined thousands of dollars. See Sampson v. Coffman. We also oppose campus speech codes that are intended to silence any point of view except the prevailing leftist orthodoxy. See FIRE article. This issue is a winner because Americans have long rejected the claim that others can tell us how to think and what we can say, especially when it comes to politics. Although they aren't happy about money in politics, it is easy to demonstrate that opposition to free speech isn't the answer. More on the right answer below.
  
• Oppose Eminent Domain abuse. Originally, the concept of eminent domain was meant to prevent individual property owners from holding the government hostage when building a road or other public good. Over time, this right of government morphed into the power to seize your land at the behest of the powerful for any reason, however flimsy. This view was challenged in Kelo vs. New London, but our side lost on a 5-4 decision, one of the most unjust outcomes since Dred Scott vs. Sandford. Fortunately, the appalling sight of the powerful and well connected preying on small business owners and individuals is fueling a backlash. But eminent domain abuse continues and this remains a powerful issue for our side. Here is an example of a hard fought victory n Long Branch, NJ, where officials want to replace middle class households with upper class ones. Frequently, the victims of this abuse are poor minorities. In this case a victorious homeowner was also presented an award from the NAACP. This is real outreach on issues that affect minorities that would benefit the GOP.
  
• Support School Choice. We could continue this outreach by taking on the school choice issue at full tilt. I previously blogged where the Arizona school teachers union wants to take away the ability of special needs kids to get much needed educational help through a voucher program. I think the Democrats are VERY vulnerable on this issue. School choice is the real civil rights issue of our day. Bad schools are wrecking the chances of poor and predominately minority students of being successful in college. Even the liberal University of California agrees with me that minorities are educationally disadvantaged. Interestingly, even though the academic literature on the benefits of choice are somewhat mixed, it seems to be that the greatest beneficiaries of school choice seem to be the urban poor. Further, as we experiment with choice we will find the combination of programs and incentives that really work.
  
• Oppose Partial-Birth Abortions. Because the practice is as odious and repugnant as the name suggests. Americans can viscerally understand this issue. How can it be legal to kill a baby 8 months into a pregnancy when that same child if delivered, would be afforded full protection of the law? It is illogical, and even though I am a Christian and hold all human life sacred, I don't have to rest my case on theological arguments. One need only talk to an abortion survivor to understand the horror of this procedure. I blogged about the politics of this issue here.
• Advance Economic Freedom. The recent move to bail out everyone, everywhere who is having economic difficulties is just not going to work and will wreck our country. We need to insist that the loans made to banks and industry be paid back as soon as possible and that we take measures to prevent such loans from being made with such poor oversight in the future. Americans are very uncomfortable with mortgaging their children's future as polls still indicate. The next big battle will be around health care. The Democrats will seek a government system that will slowly drive out private alternatives. There will be fines for big business at first, later for small businesses and finally for individuals. But this approach will wreck progress in health care. We need to do a good job of explaining why such an approach inevitably leads to rationing and bureaucratic stupidity on deciding how much health care you can receive. Dean launched an excellent overview of the issue in light of Ted Kennedy's cancer treatment.
  
• Support Freedom Abroad. Newly liberated peoples the world over have shown a propensity to embrace freedom and markets when the yoke of tyranny has been lifted. The policy of America should be to actively work against dictatorship in allits forms (Islamic, Socialist, Fascist and Communist). We should seek to advance the cause of freedom, not through force of arms, but through steady pressure. Every piece of foreign policy should be weighed against this end. Further, we are also ready to use force of arms in this cause when defense of our national interest requires it. Americans resonate with the concepts of helping to liberate peoples from tyranny, this is a winner.
• Small Government and Reform. These issues go hand in glove. The public loathes the sight of big business getting handout in the form of bailouts, subsidies and tax code preferences. They see the Congress get gobs of campaign contributions and rightly conclude that the money is buying access that tilts the playing field, at best; or buying Congressman at worst. Smaller government means less goodies to hand out. A reform agenda to end earmarks, end subsidies (even for ethanol) and simplify the tax code removes the incentives for business to try to buy the votes of the Congress. I can't find the original quote, but I remember Steve Forbes saying, "If you have a vermin problem in your kitchen, you can set traps and board up holes, but sooner or later your going to have to remove the cake from under the sink."

So that's my proposal. Short, but I hope substantive. I welcome your comments, disagreements, additions and satire. And I'm looking for a better acronym.

B-Daddy

UPDATE 1
Health Care Reform. We have shamelessly taken John Mackey's program and adopted it as our own:

1. "Remove the legal obstacles that slow the creation of high-deductible health insurance plans and health savings accounts."
2. "Equalize the tax laws so that employer-provided health insurance and individually owned health insurance have the same tax benefits."
3. Allow competition across state lines.
   
4. "Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies must cover."
5. "Enact tort reform."
6. "Make costs transparent."
   
7. "Enact medicare reform."
8. Revise tax law to make it easier to donate to those without insurance.