Backwards Politics
Most people – most people, that is, who hold political positions with any force – approach politics and policy backwards. Whether consciously or not, the particular policies and positions and political theories come to dominate and take precedence over the ends they were designed to achieve. Policies are not measured against the facts and how well they achieve ultimate ends, but instead the policies, the facts, and increasingly the ends, are measured against some political or economic theory: Conservatism or Progressivism or Capitalist Libertarianism or (elsewhere in the world) Socialism or Communism. Whenever a policy is accepted for being sufficiently Progressive or Capitalist, or rejected for being too Socialist or Reactionary, rather than on the basis of whether it actually benefits society and the individuals it comprises; whenever one of these theories is defended by rejecting the facts which show a policy falling under its aegis is ineffective or destructive – this is a symptom of this problem.
Part of the problem – what makes it so difficult to fix – is that there is still lip service to facts and ends. People talk about facts and ends, but aren't really loyal to them. If my side's policy seems to not be benefiting the common weal, then I ought to re-evaluate and change to a better policy. If facts get in the way of the narrative justifying a policy, then I ought to take time to honestly check the facts and probably change the policy. What in fact happens is that blame and focus are shifted and facts are rejected. If the results of our policy are bad, it's because we didn't implement it radically enough, or it's the fault of some policy on the other side, or bad things are not actually bad, but good, or at least it's better than the other guy's policy. (Or, bafflingly, all of the above, depending on which one seems most expedient at the moment.) If someone presents facts which put the lie to a narrative, then we – rather than honestly researching and checking – go to our favorite partisan on our side, take what he says at face value, and chalk up the disturbing facts to “those biased liars” on the other side.
I'm under no illusions that anything I write will change this. I don't even expect to change any individual minds. If, by some stroke of luck, I have any readers who disagree with my conclusions, I quite expect them to believe that I've got the facts so very wrong, and fault me for adhering to the wrong ideology. I suppose that it's possible that I've got the facts very wrong, so I can't dismiss this out of hand, but if this is your reaction, I encourage introspection. By the same token, you aren't off the hook if you agree with what I say. For that matter, I'm not off the hook here; I'm sure there are some times when I support or oppose something because it seems allied to a position I support or reject, rather than on its own merits, in whether it achieves good ends. Be these things as they may, I hope that I can explain how I think (and honestly, by extension, how I think you ought to think – if I didn't think I was at least approximately right I wouldn't be writing this).
Foundations
I said above that people approach politics in a backwards way, so I should start by outlining what I think is the right way. I think that is best expressed by paraphrasing C.S. Lewis: Morality tells us what ends we should seek, politics (and economics, sociology, etc.) tell us which means are effective and expedient to those ends, ethics constrains us to those means which are acceptable, our politics should be conducted to implement in an ethical way those acceptable means to those ends.
So the first step is to establish the ends. Everything else about our politics must serve those ends. This is not to say that “the ends justify the means” (of course not, I said exactly the opposite above), but that the means are not and never can be the ends themselves.
I think a good example of someone who did just that is G.K. Chesterton. Chesterton (in addition to being a fabulous writer) is very confounding to anyone whose mind is set in contemporary political categories, and this was no different when he wrote a century ago. He sometimes talks like a libertarian: he values the dignity of freedom and the ability to do what one wants with private property, and he hates most of the socialist proposals (not things like welfare, which some people today seem to think is socialism, but things like communal housing and kitchens and so on) of his day, except possibly as emergency measures, because they stifled these things. But he also hates industrial capitalism, for exactly the same reasons. And some of his actual proposals seem radical and even literally revolutionary: he thought that the solution was peasant proprietorship, and that the best means to achieve this was a radical redistribution of property from the wealthy to the impoverished, simultaneously providing some actual property for the poor to do with what they willed and leveling the power differences that had allowed the rich to grow so rich from oppressing them. I highly recommend the chapter “History of Hudge and Gudge” from his book What's Wrong with the World (available for free here). Another typical passage, this time combined with his fiery rhetoric, from the conclusion of the same book:
I begin with a little girl's hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict's; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed.
If you can read that without being moved; without reeling at injustice and half-hoping for Chesterton's promised revolution, then I don't know what to make of you. I doubt if you are human. And whether, ultimately, you agree with Chesterton that “there should be a redistribution of property,” it should be clear that Chesterton is fundamentally right in his approach. You begin with your ends, and the politics follow. You start with what is right, and you work to make what is right the reality. And if the little sheep whose wool has been cut in the winter by cruelty or caprice is freezing, then you don't spend your energies trying to prove that your favorite theory of weather is correct and that your opponents are evil or deluded and there's nothing anyone can do about that poor little lamb that God made. You do your damnedest to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, and if you can't do that, then at least you make it a wool sweater.
What Ends Should We Have?
There are obviously many ideals that we cannot actually achieve. We live on Earth, not in heaven, and we have to deal with, among other things, scarcity, sickness, natural disaster, and individual human evil. The progress of science has made the first two more and more tractable, and general societal wealth makes the third subject to some amount of alleviation as well. Even still, we do not at this time have the resources to make everyone fabulously wealthy and subject to no material concerns. So our goals will have to be more modest. Further, there are a few things which policy cannot establish. No amount of beneficent policy is going to guarantee friends or a happy family, and policy cannot eliminate the evil which lurks in the hearts of men (as, no doubt, the Shadow knows ;-) ). Still, we do have the capacity to do a lot, so “modest and realistic goals” is a larger category than we might expect given what has gone before.
There are really two slightly separate categories here, which I alluded to above. The first is the question of the goals we have for the operation of society as a whole, and the second is the question of which of these can be aimed at by policy. We should, I think, hope to have a society where individual kindness and generosity was nearly universal, but it should be obvious that no policy can move us very far in that direction, and that any policy that tried too hard would be at best useless and at worst horrifically stifling and counterproductive. In a similar way, those of us who are Christians would hope for a society of Christians living according to Christian ideals, but coercion in the matter of religious beliefs is not only worse than useless but is ipso facto contrary to those ideals, and official religious favoritism is not much better. I'm going to limit myself here to those goals at which we can direct policy.
Roughly corresponding to four goals mentioned in the US Constitution, here are some such categories of goals.
Tranquility and Stability: Protection from evil outside (via military) and inside (via law enforcement) the society.
Justice: Of all kinds. Penalties for wrongdoing, protection from wrongdoing, recompense for wrongs, fairness under the law and in society.
General Welfare: Safety, health, satisfaction of basic needs, and integration into society for those who for whatever reason cannot provide this for themselves. (If their lack is a result of exploitation, this also falls under the Justice category: we want to prevent such exploitation as much as possible and remedying it when we have failed to prevent it. But this category includes much more.) Ensuring the provision of various positive externalities and regulating to reduce negative externalities, in order to increase the general well-being of society.
Liberty: Insofar as possible, eliminate restrictions on conducting one's life as one wills, whether those restrictions come from government, other individuals and groups, or economic necessity (needing to work 70 hours a week to feed one's family, for instance, is a serious restriction on liberty, because it leaves no time for other activity).
Now, keeping those in mind, let's step away for a moment from the question of policy and answer the question of ends. However provided (via paying with money earned, charity, government, etc.), what should our society ensure for its citizens? (When I say citizen, I mean in the sense of someone living in a society, not the more limited sense of, e.g., 'United States Citizen'.)
1. Safety and protection from crime. Every citizen, no matter who they are, where they are, or what they have done in the past, should have the full protection of the police from crime and full services of emergency response, and recourse for crimes committed against them through law enforcement. They also ought to be treated fairly by the same.
2. Shelter, food, clothing, and cleanliness. Every citizen should have full access to non-crowded living space, including electricity, running water, and whatever temperature control necessary to make the space livable, food to eat healthily, and a way to stay clean, appropriately clothed, and groomed.
3. Leisure. Every citizen should have sufficient leisure time to spend with friends and family, and otherwise do what we would consider the worthwhile things in life. As a rough estimate: It should not be necessary for any individual to work more than, say, 50 hours/week in order to ensure that everything on this list is provided for him/herself and his/her family. No child still in general schooling should need to work for pay at all.
4. Transportation and access. Every citizen should have access, via reliable transportation, to places of employment and community in their area. This could be public (regular and frequent bus/train/subway) or public-private (car on well-maintained roads).
5. Education. Every citizen should have full access (again without compromising anything else on this list) to whatever education and training they need to be productive, an active citizen, have opportunities for whatever career they are capable of, and so on. This does not mean college for everyone, but it does mean appropriate education for everyone who is capable of it.
6. Health care. Every citizen should have preventative, emergency, and maintenance health care, including long-term treatment for chronic conditions (including medications and therapy).
7. Liberty and Property. Every (adult) citizen should have freedom, within reasonable bounds, to live life as they choose. They should have some amount of their own property, which they can call their own and do with as they wish. (That is, the above should not be implemented in such a way that the citizen is responsible to the government or private interests for every use they make and feels constrained in such a way that nothing they deal with seems like it really belongs to them.)
8. Safety Net. No act or circumstance of any citizen, except an explicit and continuous revocation by the individual (for instance, someone who wants to go live in a tent in the woods), and except for the loss of liberty (and possibly transportation/access in case of incarceration) associated with punishment for a particular crime, should result in the loss of any of the above.
It would be missing the point entirely to read the above as a description of a socialist utopia. This has nothing to do with socialism. The point is not how these provisions are made, nor is there some requirement that no one can have more than this. There is very little that directly implies particular policy here; that's kind of the point. All of this is prior to policy, prior to political or economic theory. How best to go about achieving this (and other goals, like “productive work should be rewarded”) ought not to be a matter of ideology, but of a factual question: what will work? True, there may be debate on this. But there ought to be some urgency: it's not important who wins the debate, but that we work towards these goals, and meanwhile, there are the homeless, the penniless, the hungry, the ill, the unemployed who are running out of savings, the overworked mother struggling to make ends meet; in short, there are the poor, whether temporarily or chronically, through past choices, or injustice, or mere happenstance of fortune or birth, who do not have and cannot obtain these things. Perhaps it would be good to keep them in mind.
Practical Issues
The first and obvious question is, can our economy afford all this? The answer seems to be “yes”. A back-of-the envelope calculation suggests that providing every resident of the US with all of these except the first (I don't have a good estimate for that) would have a total cost substantially less than half of GDP; probably much less than a third. (These estimates are hard because one of the biggest costs – housing – depends on the dynamics of household sizes; I can pay rent and utilities for $600/month living alone, but it might cost a family of four in a 2- or 3- bedroom less than twice that. Transportation, too, is cheaper for children. Education is a large cost for those it applies to, but that's going to be only about a quarter of the population. Health care is all over the place, but the young and healthy are much cheaper.) Moreover, it shouldn't require a large economy shift, as most people already have most of these, so only a slight expansion would be required, not any sort of overhaul. I suspect that the biggest change would be the need for a bunch of new doctors and new hospitals to cope with increased demand for non-emergency care. That, and a vastly increased public transit system, if policy went that route. [Note: not an economist here. The calculation is very back-of-the-envelope and I am aware that the situation is complicated. The point here is not that we can snap our fingers and do this, but that it's not an infeasible proposition.]
The second question, but one just as important as the first, is this: is our society like this already? I hope it is clear that the answer is 'no'. There are, in fact, the homeless; there are people with little or no economic security; there are people living in slums; there are people with no access to good education; there are people who are slaving their life away to make ends meet with no time for their families. And with unemployment still high, more and more people reaching the end of their ropes. And because there is no safety net, quality of life is lower for people who are not yet in extreme need – because any bit of worse luck, and they will be, so they live in fear.
So here we are: we know what a just society needs. We know that our society is not like that, but we have enough wealth to afford to be. The question is, what policies do we undertake to achieve these goals? The status quo is not enough. Personal charity, alas, is not and has never been sufficient. We need to enact policy. Which? I don't know; the problem is complicated, as in any kind of direct address, navigating distribution, keeping fraud under control, and avoiding perverse incentives (see: welfare trap, but also problems with providers of housing and services) are all difficult issues.
Conclusion
But I can say what's not going to help. It's not going to help to do nothing. It's not going to help to blame the people who don't have these things for not having them, for not having enough money and time and emotional and social capital to afford them. It's not going to help to withdraw what safety nets we do have and let people fall. It's not going to help to tell the people living in poverty in the richest nation on Earth that we can't afford to help them.
This isn't politics, or at least it shouldn't be. It's basic humanity. It's working for a good society. It's not as though it's the fault of the poor for being poor; after all: the race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. And so what if there are cases when it is? They are still people.
This isn't politics. It shouldn't matter whether you are Democrat or Republican, Conservative, Liberal, Libertarian, Socialist, Capitalist, rich, poor, or whatever. If you're more concerned about whether the policies it will take to establish justice and promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty for your fellow-citizens are 'conservative' or 'liberal' or 'capitalist' or 'socialist' than about how to implement them, you've got politics backwards. If politics are more important than people, you've got politics backwards. Chesterton wanted to set fire to civilization with the hair of a little girl in the streets. If that seems too radical, try setting fire to politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment