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”.