Grandly Nugatory? Hardly

by Will Wilkinson on July 15, 2008

In the TPM Cafe Book Club discussion of Grand New Party the Nation’s Chris Hayes argues that Ross and Reihan are well-meaning guys, with well-meaning proposals for helping the working class, but their recommendations to Republicans are pointless since they forgot to notice that the guys in charge of the GOP are callous bastards who won’t listen unless there’s something in it for their corporate paymasters. Some oversight!

Frank’s point in What’s The Matter With Kansas is half about the false consciousness of white working class Republicans, and half about the nature and essence of the conservative coalition and the Republican party, which is to advance the interests of America’s corporate class. That is, whatever Republican politicians say, whatever ideas are floated in the National Review or Weekly Standard, what’s going on beneath the surface is a decades long project to gut, wreck or subvert the welfare state and redistribute income upwards.

Chris is an extremely smart guy, but I think this is just silly — sort of the left-wing equivalent of right-wing ravings about how liberals at bottom are moved by hate for the essential awesomeness of America and want to destroy it one abortion at time while taking away our guns so we can’t do anything about it. Yes, many Republicans have views on social and economic policy that they would like to enact, and these view are often in opposition to Democratic views on social and economic policy. And these differences do have to do with fiscal policy and the proper scope and shape of the welfare state. And so the natural interpretation of that is… plutocrat conspiracy?

Ross and Reihan completely wasted their efforts because, as Chris continues, “[T]he Republican party is run by very, very wealthy people and interests that aren’t particularly interested in the plight of the working class.”

Has Chris never heard George W. Bush deliver a Michael Gerson speech positively dripping with with urgent moral concern for the least among us? Why not think he believes it? Because he does believe it. He also has something to do with running the Republican party. I think he really believes that programs to promote traditional marriage are good for the poor and working classes, and so do lots of powerful Republican politicians. Unlike Ross & Reihan, I think this sort of thing is a pretty lame and won’t work. But simply dismissing the other team’s claims to moral conviction is way too convenient.

It turns out that the Democratic party is also run by very, very wealthy people and interests. It also strikes me as lazy to assume that because the GOP isn’t beholden to various interest groups that claim to represent the working classes in the way the Democrats are, then the people with real power in the Republican party ipso facto have no sincere moral interest in the welfare of the working class. Yes, politics is a game of interests and coalitions. But coalitions often form around moral values. And people, even politicians, are moral beings and generally conceive of their interests in moralized terms. Some of this is and some of this isn’t convenient self-deception. But Marx 101 class analysis just doesn’t get you far. The world is too complicated for it. To put Andrew Gelman’s findings crudely, rich people on the coasts are Democrats. Rich people in the South and in the heartland are Republicans. So is the idea that T. Boone Pickens is in it for himself but Steve Jobs really just wants to solve global warming? Or what?

I think Ross and Reihan’s book has plenty of problems, but the problem is not that the bigwigs of the Republican party are too irredeemably corrupt to be worth talking to.

Anyway… I can hardly stand “what our team needs to do” sorts of books. Pretty much all democratic partisan politics is irredeemably nationalist, and I really get tired of largely morally bogus debates about whether caring for poor people means we need to bribe people to get married or to move more money from really rich Americans to relatively rich but not-so-rich-for-Americans Americans, or both. America is a big, exclusive, mostly involuntary club. If you want to fight over which club members ought to get what benefits and pay what dues, then fine. Do that. But none of this really has much to do with caring about “the working class,” most members of which speak strange tongues and are not considered clubbable. Speaking of Marxism 101.

Excuse me while I stab myself with a flag pin.

Viewing 15 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I just started reading your blog and, I must say, I'm really impressed. Each post has been very thought-provoking. You're definately different than the Yglesiases of the blog world.

    Also, I listened to your conversation with Bruce Caldwell and thought it was a superb introduction to the ideas of F.A. von Hayek. You two guys did a wonderful job conveying the continued relevence of much of his work, and the conversation led me to buy Dr. Caldwell's book.
    • ^
    • v
    awesome post. I agree 100% with every word.

    What I find most telling in the way you discuss this latest episode in dimly stupid partisan warfare is the continued feature of detachment that allows libertarians to view the two mainstream monoliths honestly and without the silly attacks by one side on stereotypes and preconceived motivations of the other.

    Partisan politics is like love: it makes otherwise bright people into total idiots.
    • ^
    • v
    I agree with the praise of the post.

    The problem is that power corrupts. And what works to motivate change in politics are stupid, simple ideas with simple moral narratives.

    So otherwise smart people become hacks because hackishness is almost what it means to be an effective political advocate. It's a shame.

    People sometimes start out non-hacky and then when they get some power or attention they turn into hacks. The incentives just point that way.
    • ^
    • v
    "Anyway… I can hardly stand “what our team needs to do” sorts of books."


    But isn't that the walking contradiction that is libertarianism. I've been floating around libertarian blogs convinced the Republican philosophy is bankrupt, and loosing faith in the Democratic party. But I can never find a book or a plan on how libertarians would arrive at whatever it is they want. I mean don't libertarians need a book on what their team needs to do?

    Libertarians seem to be anti-democratic and anti-elitist and these positions seem to have been the only two sides of the debate. You seem to have chosen not to pick a side and that seems to have left you with nothing but good philisophical rantings. From a practical basis that puts libertarianism right up there with commuism which philosphically can be made to sound good as well but doesn't work out in the real world. I'm not sure liberalism even exists in the real world.
    • ^
    • v
    Muirgeo, that is a fair critcism. Personally, I have read at least one book that attempts to spell out what libertarianism is about--Ludwig von Mises' book Liberalism. You can probably find it free online at the mises institute site. Libertarianism, to me, is essentially no different in its goals than that of classical liberalism, or what was derided by interventionists and socialists as "Manchesterism".

    I don't think libertarianism is necessarily anti-democratic like you said. Most (if not all) libertarians believe that democracy is the form of government most compatible with libertarianism as it allows all members of the state to have some sort of say in how it should be managed. The hostility to democracy that you probably percieve must be contextualized against our present democracy. Interest group politics is inherent to democracy; there will always be seperate groups striving to control the state and use it to enact what they deem desirable. The goal is to establish certain limits on how large the state can become, and thereby limit the power and resources that the interest groups can control once they are in charge of the state. To be sure, it's not an easy thing to achieve in that the natural incentives facing the state will always be for it to grow (in terms of power and resources that it controls) and to perpetuate itself. But the goal should be to establish a government that has as little intervention within the market economy and one that has the most limited restrictions on the use of a person's private property.

    Mises' works are peppered with how liberalism would work in the real world, and his scientific contributions to economic theory and social philosophy not only indicate that liberalism is possible, but that it is more desirable than any other socio-political system because of its beneficial consequences for liberty and freedom. Read the classical liberals and read Mises. I bet much can be gained from Hayek too, though I am less familiar with his writings than I am with those of von Mises.
    • ^
    • v
    Beyond simply voicing arguments against individual policies, libertarians can certainly advocate certain policies that would move the world in a liberal direction, e.g. increased immigration, perhaps greater federalism, etc.

    Happily, as near as most of us can tell, the relationship between liberalism and reasonable social welfare functions seems to be monotonic, so any measure toward liberalism is good whether we can ever establish a libertarian paradise. This is a benefit that Marxism doesn't even have in theory.
    • ^
    • v
    "sort of the left-wing equivalent of right-wing ravings about how liberals at bottom are moved by hate for the essential awesomeness of America and want to destroy it one abortion at time while taking away our guns so we can’t do anything about it."

    Hayes "ravings" at least presuppose that those he casts as malefactors are driven by rational, comprehensible, self-regarding impulses (maximize personal wealth; protect financial interests). Whereas the right-wing analogue presupposes only that liberals are possessed by a haphazard assortment of hatreds and resentments. Both stories may be grossly false, of course; but given standard economic assumptions, at least, Hayes' is prima facie the far likelier.

    Anyway, I could go on, but I have to go meet up with my weekly "Burn the American Flag!" discussion group now...
    • ^
    • v
    I have nothing but high praise for any post like this that points out the inherent arbitrariness of our primary two political coalitions while also pointing out that these coalitions tend to unite around common moral values. Of course, this doesn't mean that the political coalitions are inherently good things - just that they're not geared towards the imposition of some sort of totalitarian dystopia.
    • ^
    • v
    Man Will, your blog is so awesome. Keep it up.
    • ^
    • v
    Per the last paragraph: I can agree with your sentiments, and can appreciate a good rant, but like all rants, I think it might get away from you.

    Certainly concern for the poorest members of the society, along with concerns for social mobility and a just distribution of goods, are not always morally bogus--even if they are presented like so in GNP. Nor are these concerns morally dispensable.

    I hope then that you don't take your club analogy too seriously. Deciding just economic and social policies are a lot less like currying favor and squabbling over alliances in your college fraternity that it is like it. Put differently, it's not clear whether your indignation is directed towards caring for a ginned-up and manipulated 'working-class' for the sake of electoral advantage, or caring for the working class at all.
    • ^
    • v
    I like Will's blog, but I'm not impressed with this post. Comes across as another centrist, mushy middle, slice the baby in half sort of fallacious rant. Will may not appreciate the stereotype that Hayes is pushing but stereotypes are usually based in some sort of reality and "subvert the welfare state and distribute income upwards" is sure as true about Republicans as "being good at basketball" is true about Blacks. Perhaps not all Blacks are good at basketball but if I'm putting together my Olympic team it ain't going to be very white. And as a liberal I'm certainly am hateful of the idea of the essential awesomeness of America. I think we have to work at being awesome and don't think God Blessed us with awesomeness no matter how many times we ruin the 7th inning stretch with that god damn song.

    Basically I see GNP as the slow ritual leftward shift of the Republican party and Conservative politics in general. The pragmatic left that has guided this country quite well when given the chance will continue to be right about most things, the Republicans will realize it 10-30 years after the fact, and Libertarians will squeal from the sidelines wondering why no one wants to implement their Utopian logic. Get in the partisan game already and pick a side. There's too much to bicker about within the partisan gates to stand outside of them throwing in Cato essays.
    • ^
    • v
    no matter how many times we ruin the 7th inning stretch with that god damn song.

    Take Me Out to the Ballgame?

    I can respect KJ's point, which is that to effect change you have to step into the fray, and politics is wild enough that if you have to become a bit of a hack or a soldier, so be it.

    But the criticism of those "on the sidelines" is a bit over the top. People on the sidelines serve a purpose, and people in the fray serve a purpose. We all seek out the spot that seems best for us.

    I'm heartened that 10-20% of Americans are Independents. I don't know if that could really translate into a movement against pandering, dishonesty and hackishness in politics. Probably not, because even those people are probably pretty irrational.
    • ^
    • v
    According to a study of the candidates' tax proposals by the Tax Policy Center, by 2012 under Obama's proposals the after-tax income of the lowest quntile would rise 5.4 percent, the top .1 percent would fall 12.4 percent, and the 95-99th percentiles' would fall 2.0 percent.

    Under McCain's proposals, the lowest quintile's income would rise .9 percent, the top .1 percent's income would rise 11.6 percent, and the 95-99th percentile's income would rise 5.3 percent.

    Capital is sacred to Republicans, if you get your income in this form, they tax if more favorably than if your income takes the form of wages and salaries. As a result of this policy difference and others, as Larry Bartels has shown, under Democratic administrations the poor and rich gain income alike, under Republican administrations, only the rich gain (and the economy as a whole grows less rapidly than it does under Democrats).

    If Wilkinson means to suggest that unclubble (illegal) immigrant workers are mistreated and exploited, and that this should be a matter of prime concern to us all, I take his point. But if he means to suggest that the working class--the lower half and especially lowest tenth of the income distribution--doesn't fare better under Democrats than under Republicans, I believe that the record demonstrates otherwise, and that, judging from the candidates' tax proposals, this partisan pattern will persist. Under McCain the "working class" will lack the necessary means to exercise their rights in a worthwhile way, and it will seem pointless for them to dream up some relatively long-term plans, because for good reason they will doubt whether they will be able to enact them. But the dreams of the rich, even allowing for the very good run they've had the last seven years, will be fulfilled as never before.
    • ^
    • v
    KJ: I'm not sure what Will's explanation would be, but I'm inclined to believe the reason why libertarianism seems "sidelined" is that it is inherently an anti-political ideology. When you break it down to what actually happens, popular politics is mutual armed robbery, each group taking turns royally screwing the others -- ostensibly "for their own good" mostly, but sometimes nakedly for self benefit. How do you "pick a side" in a game that you personally believe cheats everyone in the end anyway?

    In the short-term, there are things libertarians can do, though most wouldn't be recognized as particularly libertarian because they'd be seen as single-issue advocacy and action. But in the long run, the libertarian goal is the end of politics as we know it. This is the confusion behind libertarianism within the US political system, it doesn't have much success because it fails to realize 1) how radical it is in principle & 2) that such radicalism is not a bad thing. The movement would be more intellectually honest -- and IMO more effective -- if rather than try to accept mainstream politics its adherents split off based on what their number one issue was, presenting (only when asked) the sum of its parts as being "pragmatic anarchism", nothing more, nothing less.
    • ^
    • v
    Long discussion here

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus

View My Stats