What is the encompassing issue that divides liberals and
conservatives?
Consider, for example, the following debates: socialism
vs. a free-market economy, higher taxes vs. lower taxes, more
regulations vs. deregulation, bigger government vs. smaller
government, federal control vs. state and local control, government
ownership vs. private property, government-run health insurance vs.
private health insurance, or coercion vs. voluntary exchange. All
of these debates are different applications of the same principle.
What’s at the bottom of the difference between each of the two
positions?
The common element in all these debates is this — do we
want power and control to be centralized or decentralized? Should
control be in the hands of politicians and bureaucracies or
individuals and private entities?
For example, think about what actually happens when your
taxes are raised. Your control over your own life is diminished,
the power of politicians is increased, and control is
centralized.
The most commonly used words to describe the two sides of
the divide are liberal and conservative. However, the words
themselves do not accurately reflect what liberals believe or what
conservatives believe. They are not good descriptors. Liberals
aren’t really liberal and conservatives aren’t really conservative.
Those terms do not help either side understand and define what they
believe. The labels “left” and “right” offer even less guidance
than liberal and conservative.
Furthermore, the terms have evolved over time. Those who
would have described themselves as liberal a hundred years ago
would today be called conservative. On the other hand, centralized
and decentralized are words that maintain their meanings relatively
well.
The centralized-decentralized spectrum closely parallels
the tyranny vs. freedom spectrum. Having control over our choices
is essentially the definition of freedom. One of Milton Friedman’s
most popular books was titled Free to Choose. Friedman saw
clearly that freedom is fundamentally about choosing. Another of
his influential books was titled Capitalism and Freedom.
In that book he explained why true and lasting freedom is a
practical impossibility under socialism.
A central difference between liberals and conservatives
revolves around the issue of individual responsibility. The more we
take the power to choose away from individuals, the more we
diminish the meaning of, and opportunity for, individual
responsibility. If you do what you do because you’re forced to, are
you exercising morality? Are you responsible for your actions? The
most insidious result of liberalism is that when control is
centralized, so is morality.
There is what could be called the logistics of information
— having information at the right place at the right time. Leaving
control in the hands of individuals leaves it closest to the
information and incentives required for efficient decision
making.
No one can know as much as you do about your goals and
priorities. Even if you assume that Harry Reid and his fellow
lawmakers are smarter than you are, does it follow that they should
make your choices for you? It’s not very efficient if information
has to make a round trip from you to Washington, D.C. and
back.
Not only is the best information held by individuals, so
are the most powerful incentives. It’s only natural that you will
work harder for your own goals than for someone else’s. This is one
of the main reasons why free market economies are by far the most
powerful generators of prosperity and economic growth.
The Heritage Foundation’s recently released
2011 Index of
Economic Freedom once again confirms the almost
perfect correlation between freedom and economic vitality. Terry
Miller, one of the survey’s authors, confirms that the freer
economies are “more efficient at protecting the environment, better
at improving health, and better… in enhancing life satisfaction and
overall happiness.” Rather than “spreading the wealth” as Mr. Obama
wants to do, we would be better off if we spread the
control.
When making choices with their own money, individuals are
most motivated to make careful decisions that produce the desired
results. Individuals don’t typically spend their own money on
mini-versions of “pork-barrel projects.”
If choices are made for you, you will not automatically
agree with them. Consequently, centralization always involves
force.
Most people have probably not thought about controversial
political issues along the lines of centralized and decentralized.
Nevertheless, it is probably the best way to frame the debate for a
number of reasons.
The centralization-decentralization framework is the most
inclusive way to categorize the issues. Framing the debate in this
way makes it possible to resolve a whole category of issues rather
than countless specific ones and win the debate wholesale rather
than retail.
The framework could essentially be thought of as a compass
when assessing, for example, proposed legislation. Besides asking,
“Is it constitutional?” we could also ask, “Does it centralize or
decentralize control?”
Should we begin calling liberals “centralists” and
conservatives “decentralists”? Although those aren’t words with
much pizzazz, using them, or at least keeping them in mind, would
definitely go a long way in making it clear what we’re arguing
about.
One big advantage of using the centralism/decentralism
terminology is that the words have little or no emotional baggage.
The words liberal and conservative carry with them a number of
assumptions and stereotypes. These are serious impediments to
rational debate.
If you ask, “Are you a centralist or a decentralist?” you
are more likely to start a discussion rather than trigger a
defensive reaction. Maybe it would even add some “civility” to the
debate, if you should care about that kind of thing. It’s also not
a bad question to ask yourself to help determine what you believe
and why.
