Is There Merit to the Populist Critique of Capitalism?

In recent weeks, those who consider themselves members of the intelligent Right have been abuzz with the criticism leveled by usual political allies against one another.

The catalyst for the contention was a broadside against capitalism issued by Fox host Tucker Carlson.

Carlson, a decided fan (like most Fox partisans) of proclaimed populist Donald Trump, criticized the devotion to capitalism at the expense of other value’s important to personal happiness.  Further, he insisted, the fervent supporters of free enterprise simply don’t care about the harmful consequences to people of this economic system.

The contrary position in favor of free enterprise was heralded by National Review writers, making the point that those who’ve suffered under the results of free trade (for instance, lost jobs due to globalization) benefited from lower prices in stores.

Both perspectives deserve intelligent consideration.  But Carlson’s insistence that the subjects of his critique don’t care or lack compassion for the “victims” of capitalism, makes the dispute personal.  That attitude is not helpful to the exchange. [It’s particularly ironic since he regularly receives heated attacks from the left assailing his character and motivation.]

Interestingly, neither side thus far has chosen to delve into particulars.
Yes, as Carlson asserts, the free market system can generate hurtful effects for families.  Or, in his hyperbolic manner, they “are being crushed by market forces”.

But how?  Capitalism generates change by its very nature - think “constructive destruction”.  Here’s an example:  At the end of the 19^th century, horse-drawn vehicles were critical to personal transportation.  Obviously, soon thereafter, the automobile displaced the carriage industry and the demand for draft animals.  So what happened to those connected to those enterprises?  They moved to the location of automobile manufacturing jobs, found other means of employment or simply dropped out of the economy.  Were those displaced, and their families, happy about the changes?  Unlikely.  Was the lot of society overall enhanced by the changes?  Most certainly. 

That does mean that the “victims” of the changes don’t warrant sympathy.  Adaptation, though, is rarely easy.  Perhaps, as Carlson is clearly suggesting, the broader society - the government - should mitigate the disruption.  Would that be economically efficient?  No, but it might contribute to societal stability.

That, in short, seems to be the populist prescription.

Yet, it, too, bears its own downside.  The policies logically resulting will be tariffs, increased economic regulation and government support programs for those displaced.  Such measures risk diminishing the creativity that threatened the disruption.  Economic populism would thereby reduce economic progress for all.  Would social stability, the general happiness sought by Carlson, et. al., compensate for the lower standard of living?

Fair Question.

Here’s another one.  Is the populist prescription at heart a socialist remedy?  Interestingly, the Fox program host seems oblivious to this possibility.  He acknowledges that socialism is a disaster but he predicts it’s in America’s future unless  “the American economy (is reformed) in a way that protects normal people”.

The End of History… Delayed

Thirty years ago was an historically monumental time.  In 1989:

- The Soviet Union was disintegrating,

- The Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing seemingly had the Chinese communists regime on its last legs,

- The Cold War was ending in victory for the West.

The end of history, prominent historian Francis Fukuyana claimed, was at hand.  In his widely-heralded book of that year, entitled The End of History, he announced that progress had achieved its zenith.  The ideas of the West – democracy, respect for liberty, human rights and the rule of law - had vanquished their foes around the world forever more.  Henceforth, history’s tale would be anti-climactic to the sea-change that occurred in 1989.

The enemies’ demise was called prematurely.    

In fact, many in the West are today subsumed by pessimism when viewing what has happened since then.  

          - Russia is run by a dictator who has dreams of returning his nation to imperial glory apparently with broad support from his countrymen.

          - China did not expand the rights of its people

          - America fought in the Middle East against terrorism with considerable success; its efforts to plant the seeds of  “liberal”      democracy were decidedly less successful.

          What happened?  What went wrong?

          We Americans remain largely a naïve and arrogant lot.

          Of course, we know (or should) the virtues of liberal Democracy, freedom, both political and economic, respect for human rights and the rule of law.

          After all, objective reality, reason and history as well, establish that adhering to these values is in mankind’s best interest.

That is true, but so what?  Humans do indeed have reason but human nature places a higher premium on emotional needs -  feelings of security, tradition and habits.

The liberal West, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, is prone to forget that what we consider our values did not exactly bloom all at once with such force that their immediate adoption was a foregone conclusion.

Remember the Magna Carta which was the first successful effort in England to rein in the power of the monarchy?  That was in 1215, eight hundred and three years ago.  The aftermath – and general Western recognition of liberal Democratic values – evolved over the centuries that followed and did not fully blossom until the 20^th century.

So why are so many surprised by the failure of Western values to take root in the arid and infertile grounds of other nations, including Iraq and Russia?  Their heritage is not of evolutionary change stemming from the Magna Carta.  No, their antecedents are all-powerful despots, tyrannical Tsars and totalitarian dictators.

Familiarity with the writings of British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke would have disabused American policy makers of such foolish hopes.

The enemies of the West are re-arming themselves in all sorts of ways.  The hubris of thirty years ago is now clearly out of date.  (Burkean conservatives such as The Sensible Conservative never shared the illusions of the idealists so prominent in President Bush II’s administration.The fight for our values – for the West -- is accelerating.  Will we prevail?

What Kind of Constitution Do We Have?

Left and Right agree that the U.S. Constitution, drafted in 1787, was the foundation of the American political system.  Does it hold the same sway today?

No.  To be sure, the importance of the Constitution is at least given lip service by most.

Those on the Left claim adherence to a “living” (pliable) Constitution.  And others consider the document to contain mere guidance as to the appropriate exercise of federal power.

But such views of the meaning – the purpose – of the Constitution were certainly not what the Founders had in mind.

The U.S. Constitution was designed to limit the power of national authorities by explicit language setting forth powers possessed by the Federal government.

Initial critics of the proposed Constitution complained that it did not encourage the limitations on the government’s authority.  They pushed for a Bill of Rights.

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 6, chided those skeptics by observing that the Constitution did not provide authority to do other than what was set forth.  Hence, a recitation of rights not affected by the Constitution was unnecessary, even dangerous.

“Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?”

Despite Hamilton’s argument, other proponents of the Constitution recognized that without a Bill of Rights addition, the Constitution would not be ratified by the necessary majority of states.  So promises were made, and kept, to approve the first ten amendments when the first Congress convened.

In retrospect, it is clear that Alexander Hamilton underestimated the determination of others to sidestep obvious Constitutional limitations on Federal power, from President Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase in 1803 to proscribing anti-abortion laws in Roe v. Wade in 1962.

So has the Constitution become a hollow shell of its old 1787 self?  Is it like the Magna Carta of 1215 which is honored as an important political event of the day but is no longer really relevant?

Conservatives strongly disagree.  Limited government is freedom’s bulwark.  That is not meant as a lofty platitude only.  To the extent that governmental authority is expanded, the freedom of some – maybe all --individuals is reduced. 

The Constitution – plainly – was not drafted to serve as a guide or as a document which could be ignored if policy makers chose to take action not authorized.

The 240 year old parchment was meant as a fixed restraint on the government.  The provision of an amendment process made that clear.

Thus, treating the terms and contents of the U.S. Constitution with the same respect American law grants contracts is mandated.  The States ratified the document after long and intense debate between its supporters and foes.  The disputes were serious because of what seemingly everyone knew was to be binding upon the nation – the law of the land.  The fight was not over sentiments meant to be words of wisdom or guidance, adherence to which was optional. 

The text of the U.S. Constitution was meant to be enforced.

With a clear conservative majority now on the U.S. Supreme Court, we have good reason to be optimistic that the original meaning of the Constitution will be observed.