Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Walter Russell Mead Calls for a Vision of a Better American Future

    Posted by Lexington Green on June 18th, 2014 (All posts by )

    walter_russell_mead

    The always interesting and often brilliant Walter Russell Mead has a post titled The Right Wrestles with the Inequality Debate. It is mainly an analysis of the disparate views within the political right about income equality. First, he correctly notes that people on the conservative and libertarian side generally don’t object to inequality, to the extent it is earned by people who create value.

    by giving free rein to the talents and ambitions of the strongest, we are setting in motion a process which over the long run will make everyone better off. The talented will invent new technologies, discover new drugs, make compelling art and otherwise enhance the general human storehouse through their own unfettered pursuit of happiness. Any heavy handed government efforts to keep the talented from becoming too successful will slow down the pace of innovation and change that historically has seen living standards for average people skyrocket over the last three hundred years. This idea isn’t going away anytime soon and the reality that three hundred years of capitalist development has in fact raised living standards to unprecedented levels in much of the world suggests that there may even be some truth in it.

    Mead does not focus on the question of resentment against unearned wealth. Where political connections are the source of wealth, that wealth does not benefit the public or create value. It is zero sum, parasitic.

    Mead devotes most of the piece to a historical discussion of the cultural divide among white voters in the American South, between an oligarchical elite and a populist majority that did not object to Federal spending for its own benefit, such as benefits to farmers to prop up rural incomes, and as rural electrification. Mead sees this cleavage echoed in the current conflict between the populist Tea Party and the GOP establishment. He sees ambitious GOP politicians trying to create a master narrative that will lead to party unity and political victory. Mead notes that the liberal narrative on this point “sees the ancient path of righteousness as the trail blazed by FDR and the New Deal.”

    As we noted in America 3.0:

    Very roughly, the aspirations on the Left are a revived 2.0 model with government, unions, and corporations restored to solvency, providing a secure life for the general population through stable employment mediated by regulation and union borrowing power, generating a cash flow through taxes and union dues automatically deducted from regular paychecks. It is more or less an idealized version of the US economic structure of the 1950s with Progressive personal values and family relations.

    Mead then notes “the conservative narratives look farther back: to the economic and social ideals of pre-New Deal America.” This is correct. American conservatives often hark back to an idealized vision of an older America, which we call America 1.0. Mead refers to this as “a right pining for the 1890s.” But I don’t believe this is correct. It is much more vague, idealized and incapable of being pinned down. The conservative nostalgia sometimes focuses on the Founding era, sometimes on the frontier. However, sometimes the nostalgia is for fairly recent times, postwar America, when times were better for new business formation and smaller businesses. Still, Mead is right about the large element of nostalgia.
    Mead describes the two version of the Conservative “inequality story” as tales of a fall from grace. One is an “economic jeremiad”:

    America once lived by the true faith, the economic conservatives argue, but we have turned aside. We have embraced the hell-spawned alliance of a large corporate establishment and a powerful central government. We have deserted the shrine of true liberal economics to worship the false idol of crony capitalism. Rent seekers have driven true entrepreneurs out of the temple; corrupt elites in politics and corporate life swap favors and powerful interests have captured the mechanisms of the regulatory state to buttress the power of the rich and well established.

    The other is focused on social and religious issues:

    In this vision, our economic troubles and especially inequality result less from errors in economic policy making than from a national moral collapse. Social conservatives tend to see a series of threatening social changes that are eroding the institutions and beliefs that have made America work. A culture that looks on human sexuality as a recreational pursuit rather than an encounter with transcendence inseparable from monogamous marriage and childbearing has, for many social conservatives, lost touch with the values that any society needs to stay healthy and prosperous long term. The decline of the two parent family, the rise of a culture of instant gratification, the pornography explosion, the acceptance of homosexuality: for many Americans, these developments are the harbingers of the decline of our political and economic life. Unless Americans return to the spiritual and personal values that marked our society in earlier times, we face inexorable decline – our society will become less just, less free, less equal, less honest, less safe and less rich.

    Mead suggests these can be “”blended into a kind of unified field theory of conservative populism”:

    Traditionally, one can argue, the United States was guided by a culture that combined the love of small government, free markets, religious faith and strong family values. That culture is under assault today, and as it loses its power, we face an ever growing sea of troubles. Weak family values lead to children growing up without the ability to build strong families themselves or earn good livings. More and more children grow up in economically and socially insecure single parent households. This in turn creates a culture of dependency; people are willing to cede more power to the state in return for more handouts. The bloated state becomes increasingly dysfunctional, imposing higher taxes and regulatory costs on an increasingly sluggish economy. Greedy rent seekers flock to Washington, diverting ever larger masses of wealth into their own hands and further distorting economic processes. The Hollywood and Wall Street elites, amoral to the core, reap ever greater rewards as in their different ways they continue to undermine the foundations of American social stability and economic prosperity.

    This version of the story, however, is anathema to the GOP old-timers: “There are lots of establishment Republicans (and Democrats) who are quite happy with a Washington culture of back scratching and favor-swapping. Many of the Tea Party versus establishment battles inside the Republican Party today are about the efforts of insurgents to dismantle a system that the career politicians consider a natural and necessary way of getting the nation’s business done.”

    Mead is being too nice here. There is nothing natural or necessary about the degree of corruption which is going on in Washington now, the amount of wealth which is gravitating there, or the degree to which government power has been harnessed to private greed. It has gotten a lot worse in recent years. People who have been there a long time may have gone native and notice anymore. But there is no excuse for that.

    Luigi Zingales, in his brilliant book A Capitalism for the People: Recapturing the Lost Genius of American Prosperity notes that the return to investment in lobbying is massive, dwarfing the return on improving goods and services and competing in the marketplace. In a genuinely horrifying passage Zingales notes that the awareness of how much inside dealing is worth has only recently penetrated the awareness of American business, and overcome older habits, values and attitudes which pushed against seeking government favors as a primary way of making a living.

    Mead is especially good in his conclusion.

    [B]oth left and right populism in America today are nostalgic; they seek to restore old orders rather than to imagine or build something new. This again is characteristic of eras like ours. The transition from late industrial society to an early stage information economy is hugely disruptive and painful. At the moment, it is easier and more natural for many people to worry about what is being lost than to look forward to the new possibilities that technological progress is creating for our future.
     

     

    At the moment we don’t as a society even have a real vision of what a better, non-nostalgia drenched future might look like, much less a sense of what policies might help us get there faster.
     
    This needs to change.

    It is hard to imagine the America which is now coming into existence. It will be different from anything we have ever known, in many ways. It takes a leap of the imagination to think about what it will be like. And it takes a leap of faith to believe it will incorporate the best of what has come before, that it really will be better. It will take effort as well as imagination and faith to reimagine and repurpose what we have done in the past, make it relevant not nostalgic, make it work for us again, but even better, make the emerging technology serve our values, not be our master.

    Formulating such a vision, and the necessary policies to make it happen, is what America 3.0 is all about.

    Mead’s thinking, in his books, his articles and on his blog, are similar to the ours on many points. He sees the scale of the change now under way. He sees the need for a reformulated politics to address the change. And, unlike most people, he sees that the future can be and should be a great era in America.

    We are eager to hear more from Mead about his vision and proposals.

     

    13 Responses to “Walter Russell Mead Calls for a Vision of a Better American Future”

    1. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Here is the link:

      http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/05/01/the-right-wrestles-with-the-inequality-debate/

    2. Michael Hiteshew Says:

      Very roughly, the aspirations on the Left are a revived 2.0 model with government, unions, and corporations restored to solvency, providing a secure life for the general population through stable employment mediated by regulation and union borrowing power, generating a cash flow through taxes and union dues automatically deducted from regular paychecks. It is more or less an idealized version of the US economic structure of the 1950s with Progressive personal values and family relations.

      I think more clearly and accurately this should have read: >>It is more or less an idealized version of the US economic structure of the 1950s with Progressive personal values and family relations substituted for the values of the 1950’s.

      American conservatives often hark back to an idealized vision of an older America, which we call America 1.0. Mead refers to this as “a right pining for the 1890s.” But I don’t believe this is correct. It is much more vague, idealized and incapable of being pinned down. The conservative nostalgia sometimes focuses on the Founding era, sometimes on the frontier. However, sometimes the nostalgia is for fairly recent times, postwar America, when times were better for new business formation and smaller businesses. Still, Mead is right about the large element of nostalgia.

      My father gave me a book last week, Lost Baltimore, covering mainly the century 1860-1960. Bustling harbor full of sailboats and steam ships, chromium mills, steel mills, ship yards, and the B&O railroad which carried raw materials and passengers to and from the port. A different world, growing explosively, and according to my father, a safe place to live and work, with plentiful jobs – many very difficult, like ship building – and minimal government, especially at the federal level. So yes, there is some pining for opportunity for people again.

      On the other hand, was a the Clean Water Act a good thing? Of course. Was the FDA a good thing? Maybe. Was the Energy Dept a good thing? No. The explosion in social welfare benefits? No. Child labor laws? Yes. Can give we give the baby a bath and not throw out the baby with the bath water? I hope so. Can the GOP, as it currently arranged, do it? No. They lack the vision and the courage. We may have to crash first, as you suggest in your book.

    3. MikeK Says:

      I grew up in much of this earlier era. I graduated from high school in 1956. I went to college that year. I wasn’t thinking much about national politics but, in 1960, I saw that john Kennedy was a celebrity and not a statesman. A girl I knew went to a Kennedy rally at USC and suddenly became a “jumper” as they called the “Kennedy girls.” My family was infuriated when I voted for Nixon. I had taken an economics course, before Marxists took over college economics.

      In the 1950s, I knew many blacks and actually spent time in black bars playing pool. I wouldn’t do that now.

      Nixon did a lot of the harm when he decoupled gold from the dollar in 1971. After that, inflation caused by Johnson and Vietnam plus the “Great Society” had no tether. The present dollar is worth about 10 cents 1971.

    4. Deep Lurker Says:

      What I see as the problem is social inequality. People having a lot more money than I do aren’t a problem, as long as they’re just “people who have more money” and not “my betters.” Even if they’re of a different tribe, or if it’s unearned money, from an inheritance or from winning the lottery, it’s not a problem.

      The problem is when people are, or try to claim to be, “my betters.” Economic equality that rises from this – people getting rich because they’re the “right people” or because they know the “right people” – is just a symptom.

      One of the charges against liberals/progressives/the left that needs to be pressed harder is that they secretly (or not so secretly) approve of social inequality. That they’re “Aristo-Commies.” That they want to bring back an aristocracy, a class system where certain people are the “betters” of ordinary Joes and Janes. And certainly the “betters” of those slope-headed, low-class, bitter-clinger peasants of flyover country.

      In the minds of the Aristo-Commies, those peasants ought to be happy to defer to their upper-class betters (i.e. them). They ought to be happy as serfs. If they’re unhappy as serfs, if they’re rebellious kulaks, then there’s something wrong with them. And the solution to try first is to wave hands rapidly and talk about economic inequality, as if that were the real problem.

    5. Deep Lurker Says:

      (That should be “economic *in*equality that rises from this” of course.)

    6. Lexington Green Says:

      Aristo-Commies.

      Yeah, I hate that, too.

    7. ErisGuy Says:

      I’ll believe Mead is serious about improving America when he and his wife stop voting for its destruction.

    8. VXXC Says:

      Mead is vested in the hyper-corrupt establishment that is preying on Americans, that’s their core and only business plan. We’re talking in truth around $9 Trillion a year in taxes, extractive regulations [their actual point] and Free Fiat money to banks.

      It can’t and shouldn’t be saved.

      And other than as a card for no more harm in exchange for surrendering power neither should it’s principals or staff.

      They.Gotta.Go.

      Or the rest of us do, a choice they’ve already made.

      Aristo-Commies – good catch [stolen!]. China, North Korea are the actual end state of Communism, Socialism, Social Justice. In the America we call it Washington, the EU calls it Brussels.

      Mead has never faced the corruption, the corrupt are his benefactors. Adam Garfinkle has but he can’t face the solution. What he offers is miraculously sociopaths get religion and become responsible, moral actors. Not even Scrooge had such a turnaround, and Scrooge is of course a fairy tale.

      If that’s not enough remember: they’re all caught not only a nightmarish web of debts and terrifying silent partners but shelter every second of their existence in a reassuring media fantasy cocoon. They’re easily the maddest collection of criminal lunatics ever, Bedlam has no claim on their crown. Only Hell itself could compete with Washington.

      As to solution: no it actually requires no leap in imagination at all. It requires men to grit their teeth and do the necessary.

    9. MikeK Says:

      Jonathan, the comment entry box for the Limits of Expertise post is corrupted.

    10. Teri Pittman Says:

      I learned a way to judge the amount of freedom a culture has, just from looking at a picture of an area. Freedom is messy. Look at a picture of your town back in the 1800s and you will see this. If you look at it today, it will look like an architects drawing. Your freedoms have been reduced. (I picked this up from Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” but can’t give you an exact quote. )

    11. ErisGuy Says:

      “Aristo-Commies.”

      Wasn’t it Robert Conquest who wrote the socialism was nothing less than the attempt to impose a new feudal aristocracy?

    12. ErisGuy Says:

      “What he offers is miraculously sociopaths get religion and become responsible, moral actors”

      Christianity transformed the Greeks & Romans. It can happen. It takes time.

    13. VVXC Says:

      Christianity transformed the Greeks and the Romans…

      I doubt Christianity saved any sociopaths, and turned around no mad Emperors. Neither Greece nor Rome embraced Sociopathic behavior as the models and mores. They couldn’t live up to virtue as much later as former, but they hardly held up debauchery as ideal.

      Never mind teach it in school and call it education.

      Neither Greek nor Roman Culture had pornography in everything, or upheld the coarse or the idiotic, the corrupt, obscene as paradigm.

      We don’t have time, there’s nothing to be gained by more time. What must happen has been obvious for 50 years.

      “It takes Time.” As if eternity could move such. Or move what were once called good men to do the necessary.

      And our problem isn’t Greek, Roman, Christian or Pagan. We’ve rejected all that, or our elites have..

      Even the Cult of Bacchus was restrained next to our popular pron culture.

      Enough.