We know that the United States and most other developed nations are in deep trouble if we leave government policy on auto-pilot. And we know the painful day of reckoning will arrive even faster if we continue the Bush-Obama policies of expanding the burden of the public sector.
All this sounds very depressing, but the good news is that we know the types of policies that will solve the problem.
The bad news is that we often don’t do a very good job of convincing people of the changes that are needed.
Part of the answer is that libertarians and small-government conservatives are probably too utilitarian. Not in our hearts, but in the way we talk.
Arthur Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute addresses this problem in a column for the Washington Examiner.
…many who strongly believe in free enterprise steer clear of all public “moral” arguments. This is a mistake and a missed opportunity. A great deal of research shows that people from all walks of life demand a system that is morally legitimate, not just efficient. …Privately, free enterprise’s champions…celebrate capitalism because they believe that succeeding on merit, doing something meaningful, seeing the poor rise by their hard work and virtue, and having control over life are essential to happiness and fulfillment. But in public debate, conservatives often fall back on capitalism’s superiority to other systems just in terms of productivity and economic efficiency. …The dogged reliance on materialistic arguments is a gift to statists. It allows them to paint free enterprise advocates as selfish and motivated only by money. Those who would expand the government have successfully appropriated the language of morality for their own political ends; redistributionist policies, they have claimed to great effect, are fairer, kinder, and more virtuous. …Average Americans are thus too often left with two lousy choices in the current policy debates: the moral Left versus the materialistic Right. The public hears a heartfelt redistributionist argument from the Left that leads to the type of failed public policies all around us today. But sometimes it feels as if the alternative comes from morally bereft conservatives who were raised by wolves and don’t understand basic moral principles. …There just doesn’t seem to be a good alternative to the “statist quo,” and as a consequence, the country is slipping toward a system that few people actually like.
I think Brooks is correct. Most libertarians and conservatives are not motivated by GDP numbers. They believe in small government because it is morally sound (no government-imposed stealing) and fair (you don’t get rich without offering something of value).
During public policy debates, though, we rely on utilitarian arguments.
I offer myself as an example. When the flat tax became a big issue in the 1990s and I started giving lots of speeches about tax reform, I would make dry and technical arguments about marginal tax rates and capital formation. But I quickly learned that much of the support for the flat tax was motivated by a belief in a fair and moral system – no cronyism, treating everybody equally, ending corruption, shutting down loopholes, etc. So I modified my speeches and gave much more attention to the moral arguments.
That being said, there’s no silver bullet in public policy fights. We probably need a combination of morality and utilitarianism. And it’s obviously important to put things in terms ordinary people can understand. That, I believe, is what made Reagan so effective. And it’s what I try to do with this blog (albeit on a much more limited level).
[…] we now have some good evidence that the Washington Consensus led to better results. Simply stated, capitalism produces more growth and less poverty. Too bad the IMF and other international bureaucracies have […]
[…] While recipients express positive thoughts when they get more handouts, Arthur Brooks has explained that depending on others is not a route to a genuinely happy and fulfilled […]
[…] both moral reasons and economic reasons, we should have small […]
[…] both moral reasons and economic reasons, we should have small […]
[…] view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that […]
[…] couple of months ago, I discussed a column by Arthur Brooks, in which he explained that libertarians and conservatives need to make a moral argument for […]
[…] couple of months ago, I discussed a column by Arthur Brooks, in which he explained that libertarians and conservatives need to make a moral argument for […]
[…] view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that […]
[…] view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that […]
[…] view could be considered Randian libertarianism, conventional conservatism, or both. That’s because there’s a common moral belief in both philosophies that […]
Saving fools from themselves is quite a difficult task. As Voltaire said, “It is hard to free fools from the chains they revere.”
When you present them moral arguments of liberty, free choice, negative rights, they think you are too hard and even impractical. When you limit your arguments to economics and evidence, they still gain a very narrow understanding of the entire concept and continue to arrive at false premise.
Yes, so it’s better you use both.
Good comments. I would add that many libertarians and free market thinkers fail to emphasize that in a federalist system, the social safety net isn’t abolished – it’s just administered locally in a system that encourages competition of ideas. Many libertarians, like myself, object to the gross violations of our constitution and believe that a federal government of enumerated powers, leaving most authority vested in the states is the best – and not just because it sounds good. This system does not preclude the states from acting to remediate various problems locally (and within their budgetary limitations – an additional plus). We know that the system like this is more likely to produce better results than a monopoly system, such as we are creating now. I point to Portugal’s experiment with drug decriminalization as an example of Federalism in action – where one state acts on a problem that others are ignoring, and having met with good results, provides an irrefutable example for others to follow – and which provides political cover to politicians who are ideologically prevented from adopting pragmatic ideas. In the US we are developing a bi-polarity in policy where solutions are based on all kinds of political considerations, ideologies, favoratism and crony politics. De-centralization, if you will, of policy is more likely to arrive at workable social solutions given the competition among ideas, as opposed to having the annointed ones dictate from on high, following the precepts of their political overlords.