-
Romney’s Education Choice
October 13, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Mediscared Silly
September 8, 2012 | 0 comments
-
How to Replace Obamacare
August 23, 2012 | 29 comments
-
Medicaid Freedom of Choice
June 2, 2012 | 0 comments
-
The Road from Serfdom
May 1, 2012 | 0 comments
Buy the Book
The Moral Case Against Serfdom
Arthur Brooks makes the winning case for free enterprise.
By Arthur C. Brooks
(Basic Books, 214 pages, $25.99)
THOUGH THE SUICIDAL EDITOR of this magazine has written in his new book, The Death of Liberalism, that Liberalism is no more, I’m not so sure. The question still confounds some of us conservatives: If we’re so smart, why aren’t we winning? I’m still waiting for a good answer, though some clues at least are contained in Arthur C. Brooks’ The Road to Freedom: How to Win the Fight for Free Enterprise.
Part of the problem lies in the old cliché, which, like most, actually contains a modicum of truth: Liberals think with their hearts and conservatives with their heads. This may make liberals wrong most if not all of the time, but it also makes them appear big-hearted. And it gives them a leg up because, after all, they begin debates already standing on the moral high ground.
Conservatives, on the other hand, talk up GDP growth and incentives and individual rights and pulling one’s self up by the bootstraps and (yikes!) Capitalism. Barack Obama is the master of caricaturing what conservatives believe. Mitt Romney wants no regulation of the drinking water or Wall Street; John Boehner favors “a system where everyone is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules”; Paul Ryan is so cruel that his budget proposal would take away health care from “babies with Down syndrome.”
Mr. Brooks asks: Isn’t it about time for conservatives to charge up the hill and seize the moral high ground when defending free enterprise, the Constitution, low taxes, less government, and business? Hell yes. But how? First, to win the policy battle we must understand the game leftists are playing. They aren’t trying to socialize 50 or 60 percent of the economy overnight. “In America,” Brooks reminds us, “the road to serfdom doesn’t come from a knock on the door by a jackbooted thug. It comes from making one little compromise to the free enterprise system after another.” So true. It was George W. Bush, after all, who gave us prescription drug benefits and No Child Left Behind. To seem compassionate, Mitt Romney endorsed an increase in the minimum wage—a policy that is economically imbecilic and inarguably harmful to the poor. Romney also agrees with Barack Obama that we need more subsidized loans for college students. This isn’t going to win Mr. Romney the election.
Next, conservatives need to realize it is not money that makes one happy and fulfilled, but the feeling of earned success—that is, a purpose. People who are handed money by the government, a family member, or even a winning lotto ticket are not much happier over time than everyone else. Brooks’ own studies have found that those who work the hardest tend to be the happiest. Small business owners earn on average about $50,000 a year, barely more than the median income. But they are happier. One reason that free enterprise is morally superior is that it links hard work with financial and spiritual reward.
Further, we must recognize that capitalism, not socialism or progressivism, is fair, because it provides equality of opportunity and creates the most prosperity for society. Seven in 10 Americans believe that in America most people can succeed. More than 6 in 10 say that success is determined by “hard work”; fewer than 2 in 10 credit “lucky breaks.” That is to say, most Americans still believe this country is a meritocracy, and for the most part they are right. There is considerable income mobility in America over time, and growing up poor doesn’t consign one to be poor; just look at the immigrants who come to this country with nothing and end up with everything.
Moreover, capitalism is morally superior to socialism because the poorest citizens are better off materially in free enterprise countries than more statist ones. Per capita GDP is $2,000 per person in nations that are least economically free, almost $8,000 in nations with average freedom, and just under $12,000 in the most economically free nations. Now, where do you want to live?
As for those who fall through the cracks due to physical or mental disability, bad luck, or lousy parents and schools: Yes, they deserve help in a rich nation. It’s not a kid’s fault that his father is a creep or that she had to grow up in the rathole of Detroit. So how best do we create opportunity? Brooks shows that $1 of charitable giving can increase output by as much as $19, whereas $1 of government welfare spending increases GDP by at most $1.50. This suggests an idea: Get rid of all welfare and just require Americans to give, say, 10 percent of their money to the charity of their choosing every year, an idea roughly similar to what Charles Murray has recommended.
Mr. Brooks’ book is stocked with many other such nuggets of wisdom. He notes, for example, that regulation is obviously not always in the public’s best interest, no matter what Elizabeth Warren, Mr. Obama’s onetime financial meddler-in-chief, might think. For example, the Dodd-Frank law includes hundreds of pages of regulation, all intended to prevent another mortgage meltdown. We also spent at least $200 billion on mortgage modification programs, and a big percentage of recipients eventually defaulted later anyway. But Brooks has solved the mortgage crisis with one sentence and not a single penny of taxpayers’ money. “Lenders could simply require a 20 percent down payment on any residential housing loan.” This doesn’t need to be mandated. But for a homeowner to take a mortgage deduction or receive any federal guarantees, the 20 percent down would be required. It’s brilliant, and never again would we have a nationwide foreclosure crisis.
Mr. Brooks is a fan of a flat tax, and he’s right that it can and should be defended on moral and economic grounds. A fair tax system is one in which everyone pays the same rate. If you make 10 times more than me, you pay 10 times as much. Not 20 or 30 times more. If we live next to each other, and we both earn $75,000 a year, we both pay, say, $10,000 in income tax. But you shouldn’t pay less than me because you’ve got an energy efficient refrigerator, invest in municipal bonds, or donate to the Sierra Club. I agree wholeheartedly with Brooks that the way to counter the Buffett rule, a proposed income tax surcharge on millionaires, is not by defending the current corrupt tax system, but by advocating a new, simple flat tax that makes everyone play by the same rules.
This moral case for free enterprise is necessary. I’m not persuaded it’s sufficient. For example, Brooks argues that it was, in the end, the moral depravity of communism that brought the Soviet Union down, not the material depravity. I’m not so sure that the Russian people weren’t sick of seeing America’s riches and yearning for a taste of a prosperous lifestyle. The Chinese turned to capitalism not because of its moral superiority, but because they wanted to rule the world, and you can’t do that under collectivism. But we need both arguments. If conservatives are to succeed, we need to convince people in the U.S. and around the world that capitalism makes them richer and freer. Given the mountains of evidence on our side, why is it so damn hard?
About the Author
Stephen Moore is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Stephen Moore
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/01/the-moral-case-against-serfdom
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 10:47AM
It's kind of funny because I found the opposite is true: Most liberals and intellectual marxists are the most ruthless, callous, cold people I've ever come across. Or perhaps it's useful to say they are in love with themselves and their own self-importance and association with liberalism. They view the victims of their ideology as necessary eggs to be sacrificed for the omelette and besides, the victims have it coming for getting in the way of "caring" people such as themselves. It's like they view running over pedestrians on the way to work as acceptable and not really bad after all.
In other words, they're psychopaths. I can actually see it in their eyes when I go from being their friend to a heretic. At that moment, something clicks in their brains.
Of course, these marxists are now a fraction of the elite and demographics of modern leftist parties here and even in Europe which could care less about ideology but instead care only about welfare and racial entitlement perks or even leftist capitalist cronyism (Remember the Concorde?) This is all useful to remember when debating with them: You could produce a smoking gun that proves them wrong and they'd look at you and change the subject or say "so what?" To them, it's only about winning elections and not being wrong. That's ALL that matters to them, folks!
JD| 8.1.12 @ 11:47AM
Hitler thought of himself as a hero, too. No one thinks that he himself is a bad guy.
John Navratil| 8.1.12 @ 4:19PM
JD,
I liked your thought experiment yesterday regarding liberal utopias and inequality so much that I pasted it into an email for my friends. Thanks!
Kwan| 8.1.12 @ 12:00PM
Although psychiatrists have not put a name to it these people may actually be experiencing some form of obsessive-compulsive disorder. They may actually believe that if citizen "A" has 25 cents more wealth than citizen "B" that it creates a distortion in the space-time continuum and must be remedied by draconian government redistributive policies. As there is no rhyme or reason for such a belief it confirms the fact that the left's ideology is based on insanity.
PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 12:18PM
Kwan, I chuckle when you talk about this notion of "spreading" the wealth. One leftist I argued with is a government worker bragging about his perks and simultaneously referring to republican private industry workers as "trailer park trash" while in the next breath saying he's defending "the middle class".
It's all about the party to them at this point and perhaps that's the most damning thing about socialism: Even if in theory the government could be run by super wise guys to make the world a better place, the political process makes them into monsters and oligarchs. It's ironic that the same guys who are against gun control think power hungry politicians can be trusted with absolute power over everyone's lives. If you can't trust a power hungry monster, who can you trust?
But marxists come in two categories: Either cheerleading wanna be losers OR welfare benefit grabbing scumbags.
Kwan| 8.1.12 @ 3:21PM
The Soviet redistribute the wealth policies led to a massive disincentivization of the population and a stagnant economy. The old Soviet adage, "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us", was making fun of this situation.
PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 3:44PM
I talked to my wife who lived through the former Soviet Union and she has a mixed opinion. During the Soviet times, most people had work, inflation was low (bread for a 10 cents, when you could get it!), a great rail system, long vacations, and an amazing educational system.
In the meantime, in the USA, we have private industry which seeks to hire illegals and H1B's to make decent jobs into low paying ones and then dump the costs of their doing business upon the taxpayer. Isn't that "disincentivizing" as well? Companies engage in massive layoffs and attempt to squeeze 60 hours a week out of the workers. My former Soviet friends refer to the USA as a massive labor camp but the food is better.
So sure, just because socialist scumbags are out to f everyone over in the name of their glory trip or run off to the beach with kickback money doesn't mean that corporate douchbags deserve much more trust.
John Navratil| 8.1.12 @ 4:21PM
PolishKnight,
Of course they don't deserve trust any more than I deserve your trust. The solution is in deregulation.
PolishKnight| 8.1.12 @ 4:36PM
Whatever "deregulation" means. I like the joke about Libertarianism: It makes a lot of sense, but I really like public roads and sidewalks. The problem is that the left takes good and even necessary ideas and regulations and abuses them (and even outright acts opposite) to those interests for their political gain.
I'm going to speak heresy for this forum (as I often do) and this raises doubts in some people's minds that I'm a genuine conservative versus a leftist plant: The wealthy "owe" us. We respect their rights because their existence is supposed to help us with creation of jobs, entrepreneurism, etc. I won't say that they didn't "build" their businesses as Obama does, but I would say that they are a part of society and should think accordingly. If some guy in a trailer park goes to war to defend his country, then it would probably behoove some corporate type to think twice before offsourcing a job and wondering why there's nobody around to defend his rights either overseas or at the ballot box anymore.
Yes, the left usually unfairly vilifies the rich, but they do make it so easy sometimes!
John Navratil| 8.1.12 @ 6:47PM
PolishKnight,
Deregulation means to make it unprofitable for rent seekers. When the government isn't your crony you won't have crony capitalism.
PolishKnight| 8.2.12 @ 9:47AM
This is something I often point out to the great displeasure of leftists. Leftism actually winds up exacerbating crony capitalism rather than reducing it because the size of government and it's complexity makes it easier to hide kickbacks.
However... that being said... that doesn't make crony capitalism ok and pretending it will go away simply by "deregulating". We'll always have regulations (want to let people drive 90mph down your street?) and this may sound like heresy, but I'd say the state should have the right to step in and break up monopolies (even ones that were created without any type of political corruption (even as almost most are.))
One thing I have to hand to the left, when they see an issue, they run with it, exploit it, and then even undermine or make the issue worse to milk out the maximum value of it. That doesn't mean the right should be that way, but they should at least ADDRESS issues rather than just say: "Lower taxes and regulations and more police". It's NOT WORKING anymore!
Nick| 8.1.12 @ 12:34PM
Meanwhile.....in other news:
Boehner & Co. sell the American people down the river, yet again.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07.....ppointees/
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll537.xml
Remember, back in the spring of '11, when the first budget battle was winding up? And, Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy/Ryan were lying to conservatives about cutting $100 billion in the budget deal?
Remember when Boehner & Co. were telling us to wait until Sept., '11, when they could really cut the budget?
Remember when Boehner & Co. promised that if the GOP took back control of the House, they would publish ALL BILLS 3 days before a vote?
Remember, a year ago, when Boehner & Co. sold-out to O'Bama on the debt-ceiling increase, and didn't give us 3 days to read the bill?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Boehner has got to go!
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 6:25PM
What the "American right" is working towards today as a whole is putting flamingly liberal Mitt Romney into the presidency. The right, somewhere, knows that republicans are just as bad if not worse than democrats now, but they can't find the Tea Party of conservatism to save their own lives anymore.
But I appreciate you bringing it up. What do you think the story above is? The new better, liberal right. The right went full on liberal in 2012 but were to desperate to win the presidency to care anymore.
Petronius| 8.1.12 @ 12:58PM
"Few men desire Liberty. Most wish only for a just master."
Sinistus
Roman historian
Ronsch| 8.1.12 @ 1:08PM
Mr. Moore,
I am not sure where the statistic you quote regarding welfare spending increasing the GDP by "$1.50" keeps coming from. That $1.00 to start with has been taken from hard working, tax paying citizens, and redistributed to whomever.
It might be true that if the welfare user goes to the store to purchase groceries with his/her food stamps, and may inevitable buy something else with cash, then some money re-enters the economy along with the aforementioned redistributed tax money (welfare, but chances are they are using there cash entitlement to pay for the cash item as well, which is really money taken from taxpayers.)
Would it not be better for the taxpayer to have that cash to start with and invest or purchase what they wish to?
WillyP | 8.1.12 @ 2:40PM
You started off well but then fell into the trap laid by leftists, that just spending money somehow contributes to the economy. Taking money away from one person and giving it to another to spend, is the same as taking it out of one local economy and giving it to another... net effect on the overall economy, zero. Only by creating income that does not take from another person's income do we create a larger overall economy. Investors do that. Business owners, large or small do that by investing in their own economies and those of suppliers, customers, and employees. Unless value is added to the exchange, nothing is created. For example a carpenter could buy some lumber and resell it to a homeowner, and only add the value delivery to the value of the goods. But if he builds a house, he adds the value of the house to the economy of the homeowner, to his employees, and suppliers. There is also the benefits to the town in increased tax revenue, to neighbors in value of property, etc.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 6:20PM
The American right, and freedom will never win. The thing that killed freedom was cultural marxism. It is in the medias, & the schools. The right ignores all of the social issues, i.e., that which makes us a pro-marxist society. The right takes the Mitt Romney approach, to let cultural marxism fester, while going about it as if it is a money issue.
The right will never win a big issue from this day forward. It forfeits all of it's power by handing the win on social issues to the left.
We would need to confront the social issues head on in America, if there is to be any chance of a viable future here, it is not by sweeping what actually killed us under the carpet.
I feel sorry for the right, I do. Because it could have won on every issue, & turned America back into a nation of freedom loving people.
Mark Levin talks about dry rot in Ameritopia, but he absolutely fails to see, as does the whole of the right, that the American people are marxist compliant in very deep & disturbing ways, that the right ignores.
I feel sorry for the right, I do. But America will not survive this way. When the whole of the right believes that freedom is a handout. & requires no work from the American People.
What we need to be viable is the rejection of cultural marxism. A win by a conservative nominee. Mitt Romney is the death of Americas' last shreds of freedom.
Petronius| 8.1.12 @ 8:13PM
On to something here Lib.
The Real Right are Culturally Conservative. While RINO Romney and friends don't care about the social issues We Care about like predation, perversion, and parasitism, it's because he has enough money to insulate himself and his family from people who practice these behaviors which are detrimental to the quality of Our lives and it's not his problem. What he had better understand and refuses to acknowledge, is the fact that we've had all we can take from the trash elements of society. And failing to generate enough wealth to move into the gated communities and get our children into private schools where they won't be terrorized by the offspring of feral lowlife, we want government to cease subsidizing them with Our tax money and force them to conform to traditional American moral standards or banish them from Our shores. These expectations aren't realistic at the Federal level so long as entitlements exist. But inability to sustain them will come. And bloody constraint will follow. No candidate will ever get elected by telling the ignorant, indolent, and incompetent to become productive or take their character deficiencies someplace else. But you're correct to say Republican candidates will lose because they won't.
Libertyinfinite| 8.1.12 @ 6:33PM
Seriously Steve, you have to ask why? The right can't win because the right is not fighting.
The right is afraid to say "marxism" out loud. The right lives under, & by by permission of, the left.
The right is meek in every way. The principals of our founding are no longer understood. Family values are what makes freedom. A thing that the right is silent on in any meaningful, winning way. & you picked the liberal guy. You seriously have to ask why you can't win? Jeez...