Stop the Bad Guys
It’s not too much of a simplification to say that modern American conservatives believe the national government to be ignorant, bumbling, and corrupt when it meddles in the U.S. economy, but sagacious, sure-footed, and righteous when it meddles in foreign-government affairs.
Nor are the boundaries of acceptable simplification breached by saying that modern American “liberals” believe the national government to be sagacious, sure-footed, and righteous when it meddles in the U.S. economy, but ignorant, bumbling, and corrupt when it meddles in foreign-government affairs.
This striking contradiction in political viewpoints has not, of course, gone unnoticed.
I was prompted to ponder this contradiction not long ago after I read an op-ed in the Washington Post by the neoconservative William Kristol calling on Uncle Sam to attempt to influence the outcomes of the recent popular uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East. My ponderings produced a hypothesis: Modern conservatives and “liberals” are obsessively fixated on bad guys (just different ones).
For both conservatives and “liberals” the world is full of problems caused by bad actors—greedy, heartless, power-hungry autocrats who deploy illegitimately acquired power to trample the rights and livelihoods of the masses. Ordinary men and women seek liberation from these tyrants, but—being ordinary and oppressed—the typical person cannot escape the overlords’ predation without help. Their liberation requires forceful intervention by well-meaning and courageous outsiders.
For “liberals” the oppressed masses consist of workers and the poor, and the oligarchs who do the oppressing are business people and private corporations. What encourages this oppression are free markets and their accompanying doctrine of nonintervention by government into the economy.
However, contrary to the “liberals,” nonintervention rests on at least three truths: First, the complexities of modern economies are so great, and hard to discern, that it is absurdly fanciful to suppose that government officials can intervene without causing more harm than good. Even the most well-meaning government is akin to a bull in a china shop: Out of its natural element, even government’s most careful actions will be so sweeping and awkward that the net result will be unintentionally destructive.
Second, even if economic intervention begins with the best of motives, it degenerates into a process of transferring wealth from the politically powerless to the politically powerful. The interventions continue to sport noble names (such as the “Great Society programs” and the “Fair Labor Standards Act”) and to be marketed as heroic efforts to defend the weak against the strong. But these, however, are nothing more than cynical and disingenuous political marketing efforts aimed at hiding from the general public the actual, unsavory consequences of these interventions.
Third, many situations that appear to well-meaning outsiders to be so undesirable that someone simply must intervene to correct them are understood by many of the people most closely affected by these situations to be superior to likely alternatives.
“Unequal income distribution” is perhaps the foremost such situation. While most “liberals” are obsessed with the “distribution” of income and believe that people of modest means must be especially disturbed by the fact that some other people earn more than they earn, in fact the typical American of modest means is far less bothered by “unequal” income “distribution” than are members of the “liberal” academy and punditry. This latter fact only further confirms to the “liberal” mind that ordinary Americans need third-party intervention to save them from their own naiveté; ordinary Americans just don’t know what glories they are denying themselves by acquiescing in the prevailing economic power structure.
Modern “liberals” dismiss these three objections to economic intervention as being fanciful excuses used by the economically powerful—and, even worse, also by the economically naive free-market faithful—to provide (flimsy) intellectual cover for predations by capitalist bad guys. The realistic assessments by modern “liberals” indicate to them that economic intervention is necessary and righteous.
A nearly identical debate plays out on the foreign-policy front, but with the sides switched.
For modern American conservatives the oppressed masses consist of foreign peoples yearning for American-style freedom and political franchise. But these unfortunate foreigners are oppressed by oligarchs who happen to control their governments. “Liberals” (and liberals) who adhere to a doctrine of U.S. government nonintervention in foreign affairs raise the same three objections that conservatives (and liberals) raise against government intervention in the economy.
First, the complexities of foreign governments’ relationships with their citizens are so great and hard to discern that it is absurdly fanciful to suppose that Uncle Sam can intervene without causing more harm than good. Even the most well-meaning intervention is akin to a bull in a china shop: Out of its natural element, even Uncle Sam’s most careful actions will be so sweeping and awkward that the net result will be unintentionally destructive.
Second, even if foreign intervention begins with the best of motives, it degenerates into a process of transferring wealth from the politically powerless to the politically powerful. The interventions continue to enjoy noble names (such as “Operation Iraqi Freedom”) and to be marketed as heroic efforts to defend the weak against the strong. But these, however, are nothing more than cynical and disingenuous political marketing efforts aimed at hiding from the general public the actual, unsavory consequences of these interventions in which corporations such as Halliburton and Blackwater rake in huge, undeserved profits at the expense of the American taxpayer and the foreign populations ostensibly being helped.
Third, many situations that appear to well-meaning outsiders to be so undesirable that someone simply must intervene are understood by many of the people most closely affected by these situations to be superior to likely alternatives. As oppressive as Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi regime genuinely was, it’s not at all clear that merely disposing of this particular bad guy has liberated Iraqis from oppression. Saddam’s rule was very much a result—and certainly not the principal cause—of Iraq’s anti-liberal culture and dysfunctional social institutions, not to mention earlier U.S. intervention.
Foreign countries’ political, economic, and social institutions are too complex and too deeply rooted in unique histories to be adequately grasped by American politicians and military leaders. Therefore American intervention—which is inevitably ham-fisted—adds to this mix only confusion and turmoil.
The two kinds of intervention situations aren’t analogous in all details; differences exist. But these differences are small when compared to the similarities. “Liberals’” confidence that domestic markets can be improved by battalions of bureaucrats charged with keeping bad guys in line is surprisingly similar to conservatives’ confidence that the welfare of foreigners can be improved by battalions of U.S. military troops charged with keeping bad guys in line.
Pingback by Cowboys and Indians on 26 May 2011:
[...] Tales told about good guys battling bad guys. Be The First to Comment Cancel reply [...]
Pingback by Cowboys and Indians | Daily Libertarian on 26 May 2011:
[...] Tales told about good guys battling bad guys. [...]
Pingback by Stop the Bad Guys | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty « Daniel J. Smith on 26 May 2011:
[...] http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/thoughts-on-freedom/stop-the-bad-guys/ [...]
Comment by Stone Glasgow on 26 May 2011:
Brilliant. I had not realized until now how similar the motivations for intervention in domestic and foreign affairs really were. I only realized that liberals and conservatives both want intervention; one in economic matters and the other in morality.
Comment by Prentiss Davis on 26 May 2011:
As usual, Dr. Boudreaux ‘s insightful writing raises issues and provokes thought, but I certainly would like to take issue with one of his assumptions.
The great conservative base is no fan of needless military adventures and nation building. I gather that some members of the ruling class, calling themselves conservatives and also having access to the editorial pages of the New York Times, clearly believe the path to world peace can be paved with American blood and treasure.
We strongly disagree. We support a military establishment second to none and reserve the use of that military to situations where American safety and sovereignty are clearly at risk.
When an autocrat in some foreign hellhole begins blowing up American airliners or targeting Americans at home or abroad be they military or civilian, I believe and most conservatives would agree that person has forfeited his right to inhabit our planet. I suspect these situations can often be resolved without the movement of carrier task forces or army divisions.
Certainly, the decision to remove a foreign ruler should not be taken lightly, no matter his internal abuses of power. Were it conservative policy to remove all the worlds petty tyrants, we would surely start at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Prentiss Davis
Comment by Beth on 26 May 2011:
Just a note here to play devil’s advocate: The constitution did give a degree of permission to stop the bad guys (both foriegn and domestic) militarily while it never gave permission to stop “bad guys” becoming economically unequal.
I am not arguing here that the Constituion gave a full go ahead to rampage the earth militarily. It did set parameters that we can defend ourselves and that sometimes means the military.
There is no permission whatsoever for government to stop the
“bad guys” of income inequality through redistribution etc.
One has to to note that there is some legitamacy to one and not the other at all.
This is not a full endorsement of all U.S. foreign intervention taken. Please do not misunderstand. All I am saying is that one side does have SOME legitimacy. I think comparing the two side’s goals as the same is not completely accurate.
Comment by russell on 26 May 2011:
as has been said many times, there’s not a dimes worth of difference between republicans and democrats. dr. boudreaux illustrates this nicely in this article.
Comment by The Reticulator on 26 May 2011:
Excellent. I have for some time been saying the hubris of Obamacare’s invasion of our health care system is similar to the hubris of George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. I thought I was the only one to notice, but this article explains it a lot more completely than I ever knew.
Comment by Victor on 27 May 2011:
Such a clear observation, where, if I understand correctly, the conclusion must be that liberals are wrong to not let (economic) evolution play out at home and conservatives are wrong to not let (societal) evolution play out abroad. I personally think the opposite; a society must intervene at economy at home and must intervene at problems abroad. Why? Because there are plenty of examples where it does work out and the bull tiptoes out of the China shop and leaves it as a better place. When America saved our ass in WW2, we (in the Netherlands) were overjoyed at your intervention. And the excellent state of the economies of North Western Europe (where similar or even higher economic growth and innovation is achieved without the societal discomfort of a total free market) proves the viability of economic intervention.
Evolution, in an economic and natural sense, is a very powerful force, and guarantees betterment, but evolution in nature is far from optimal, by an intelligent guiding hand the complex ecology in nature can reach a higher optimum faster (see biological journals), just so in economics. Natural evolution is harsh and unacceptable and one of our greatest accomplishments was escaping its murdering and unforgiving grip. Same should be done now with economic evolution. Yes it is amazingly complex, but this is the Age of Information, we can do this.
Pingback by Political blindspots « Pete Collins on 27 May 2011:
[...] think that quote from The Freeman works quite well in British politics too (although “conservative” doesn’t [...]
Comment by The Reticulator on 27 May 2011:
For most of my 60+ years I’ve thought we in the U.S. did right by intervening in WWII. But when I see the U.K. toss out a millenium’s worth of development of the rule of law with things like ASBO’s, proving once again that you can’t have a welfare state without a police state, and when I see the Netherlands euthanizing its citizens whether they want it or not, it makes me wonder just what was the point of defeating Hitler? Why we did we go to all of that trouble if it was going to end up like this?
Comment by Victor on 27 May 2011:
A comparison between the US and The Netherlands
Murders: US 5.4/100000, NL 0.91/100000
Rape: US 33/100000, NL 11/100000
Prisoners: US 756/100000, NL 128/100000
Abortion: US 20.8/1000, NL 10.4/1000
Drug use, Cocaine US 16%, NL 2%
Drug use, Marihuana US 42%, NL 19%
Life expectancy US 78.2, NL 79.8
Infant mortality US 6.26/100000, NL 4.73/100000
Satifaction with life US 246.67, NL 250
Income equality US 40.8, NL 30.9 (low is more equal)
Suicide US 11.1/100000, NL 8.5/100000
Don’t believe anything that Fox news tells you about the Netherlands ever.
We are a civil, peaceful, pragmatic, empathic nation.
Legal euthanasia, how much your principle mind begs to differ, is a human right worth fighting for.
Comment by Lloyd Lofthouse on 27 May 2011:
Well said. I’ve said for decades that it doesn’t matter which party is in power as they both have different misguided and corrupt political agendas and only want to control the direction the money flows.
However, nothing is new under the sun.
In 141 BCE, Han Emperor Wudi in China set up government monopolies in certain critical commodities such as salt, alcohol and iron, because he felt the wealthy merchants were taking advantage of the poor by charging too much for what was considered essential commodities. His solution was to control the prices of these commodities so the poor could afford them, but this limited the economic growth of the wealthy and powerful, which they resented since most of the rich and powerful only want more wealth and power and are seldom satisfied with what they have.
Wudi’s reign was noted for economic stability and a period of slow but steady economic growth.
When Emperor Wudi died, the wealthy and their political supporters in the Han Dynasty did away with these controls over the economy and the prices went up. Soon after Wudi’s death and these changes in his economic policies, the Han Dynasty entered a period of stagnation followed by an extravagant social life where powerful families sought to manipulate the throne through bribery and other means so another emperor wouldn’t implement social programs for the poor that might slow the growth of their fortunes and power. This led to the collapse of the dynasty and a period of unrest for several centuries known as the three kingdoms period, which was marked by widespread war, chaos, anarchy and famine due to the collapse of the central government.
Therefore, history shows us what might happen to the US down the road. If we study the history of the Roman Empire, we would discover the same thing happened.
Comment by Lloyd Lofthouse on 27 May 2011:
Victor is right. When we start to do comparisons such as apples to apples with other countries, the US doesn’t look so good on almost every front.
For example, poverty. China has lifted more people out of severe poverty than any country on the earth while poverty (about 90% of global poverty reduction has taken place in China the last thirty years) has increased in the US and is about 15% and the economic gap between the wealthy and the working person grows.
Yet, when we read about China in the Western media we seldom if ever hear what the CIA Factbook reports about severe poverty in China—that it is about two-and-a-half percent of the population, while severe poverty in India, the world’s largest democracy, is about 40% of the population and there are no programs in India to deal with this problem.
Also, we often hear about corruption in China which is no comparison to the corruption on Wall Street and the major US banks (with help from both political parties in Congress and from the White House) that brought on the 2008 global economic crash that cost the world more than forty or fifty trillion dollars and millions of lost jobs. We hear about the millions of jobs lost in the US from the financial global crises but seldom hear that China lost about 20 million jobs from the same source of corruption. The Wall Street and political architects of that financial crisis are all filthy rich and no one has been punished while business continues as usual.
Pingback by Must Reads for May 27 | NetRight Daily on 27 May 2011:
[...] Boudreaux: Stop the bad guys [...]
Comment by Charles on 27 May 2011:
I have a couple observations of some of the posted comments here. First, there is hardly a dime’s worth of difference between the elites of either party. No matter what label they go by, elites distrust the masses to make appropriate decisions, so they must step in and make them for us. Elites bargain among themselves with their own beliefs and biases driving negotiations, rather than any belief in individual liberty or confidence in the abilities and intellect of non-elites. It has been so for all of recorded history. Second, definitions of poverty vary depending on who is doing the analysis. The poor of the US today have color televisions, indoor plumbing, automobiles and cell phones. Contrast that with the poor or even middle class of today’s developing nations, or even the US in the early 20th century.
Comment by Jim on 27 May 2011:
Beautifully written as always, Don.
Pingback by Left, Right, or Libertarian? | The Pretense of Knowledge on 31 May 2011:
[...] Stop the Bad Guys – The Freeman: “It’s not too much of a simplification to say that modern American conservatives believe the national government to be ignorant, bumbling, and corrupt when it meddles in the U.S. economy, but sagacious, sure-footed, and righteous when it meddles in foreign-government affairs. Nor are the boundaries of acceptable simplification breached by saying that modern American “liberals” believe the national government to be sagacious, sure-footed, and righteous when it meddles in the U.S. economy, but ignorant, bumbling, and corrupt when it meddles in foreign-government affairs. This striking contradiction in political viewpoints has not, of course, gone unnoticed.” Share this:ShareEmailPrintFacebookTags: Liberty /* [...]
Comment by Caelii on 1 July 2011:
Well mcdaaaima nuts, how about that.