Wilkinson takes on "Obama's Stale New Deal"
Will Wilkinson comments on the liberal lovefest which has greeted Barack Obama's latest pronouncements, in which Obama likens the "ownership society" to Social Darwinism:
In a valentine that appeared on the New Republic website, David Kusnet says that "All Obama did was make the best case for liberal politics in recent memory..." Jared Bernstein of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute quotes Obama, and asks, "Did someone just open the window? Where's that breeze coming from?"
A quick whiff suggests that it is coming from 1935 or thereabouts, which approximates the "sell-by" date of Obama's vintage insights. Kusnet, alongside the New York Times, cheerily steps through Obama's window to the 20th Century, and quotes this passage with admiration:
"There are those who believe... [t]hat the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government -- divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it -- Social Darwinism -- every man or woman for him or herself."
So there you have it: larger tax-sheltered Health Savings Accounts are tantamount to leaving the hindmost to the wolves. Personal retirement accounts -- over which workers rich and poor would gain genuine property rights, and a real stake in the growth of the economic system to which we owe our riches and security -- are akin to shoving the elderly out to sea on an ice floe.
In a similar self-satirizing vein, political theorist Benjamin Barber argued in January that the Bush administration "is trying to seduce us back into the state of nature, where the strong dominate the weak and anarchy ultimately dominates the strong and the weak, undermining security for both." Which raises the urgent question: do America's eminent political philosophers really believe there are mutual funds in the state of nature?
Please do read the whole thing.
In a valentine that appeared on the New Republic website, David Kusnet says that "All Obama did was make the best case for liberal politics in recent memory..." Jared Bernstein of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute quotes Obama, and asks, "Did someone just open the window? Where's that breeze coming from?"
A quick whiff suggests that it is coming from 1935 or thereabouts, which approximates the "sell-by" date of Obama's vintage insights. Kusnet, alongside the New York Times, cheerily steps through Obama's window to the 20th Century, and quotes this passage with admiration:
"There are those who believe... [t]hat the best idea is to give everyone one big refund on their government -- divvy it up by individual portions, in the form of tax breaks, hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.
In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society. But in our past there has been another term for it -- Social Darwinism -- every man or woman for him or herself."
So there you have it: larger tax-sheltered Health Savings Accounts are tantamount to leaving the hindmost to the wolves. Personal retirement accounts -- over which workers rich and poor would gain genuine property rights, and a real stake in the growth of the economic system to which we owe our riches and security -- are akin to shoving the elderly out to sea on an ice floe.
In a similar self-satirizing vein, political theorist Benjamin Barber argued in January that the Bush administration "is trying to seduce us back into the state of nature, where the strong dominate the weak and anarchy ultimately dominates the strong and the weak, undermining security for both." Which raises the urgent question: do America's eminent political philosophers really believe there are mutual funds in the state of nature?
Please do read the whole thing.
posted by Kate Marie | 11:02 PM | Permalink
|
21 comments
21 Comments:
I don't know Kate Marie...I thought Wilkinson's piece was really, really bad. In response to a concise paragraph that equated the ideas behind the "ownership society" with social darwinism we get a page that argues that...markets are "more organic?" they build trust and cohesion?
Even these points are debatable: I don't doubt that we would develop trust if we had to do business together, but I think I would trust you more if you gave me $1000 every month!
More importantly, they are in no way a response to Obama. I would have liked to see an analysis of whether Obama is right or wrong. The "ownership society" has been proposed as a justification for going from systems that function as social insurance to systems that effectively have every man going for himself. Moroever, the traditional justification for such a shift - that systems that function as social insurance tend to be inefficient - has been abandoned for the claim that having every man go for himself will make all of feel more keenly that we "own" parts of the system. What exactly is the relationship between social darwinism and the "ownership society?" Do they intersect at all, does one inform the other?
And the part on Barber is just plain silly: Barber is making it quite clear that he uses "state of nature" to refer to a social order "where the strong dominate the weak." Obviously such a state can include mutual funds or any other trappings of modern society.
There may be good points to raise in reply to Barber/Obama, but Wilkinson is not raising them.
Hey there, Alex, thanks for your response.
"I don't doubt that we would develop trust if we had to do business together, but I think I would trust you more if you gave me $1000 every month!"
-- *You* might trust me more, Alex, but then again, you might begin merely to depend on me, and your "trust" in my beneficence would be insecure at best. On the other hand, the people that I took money away from in order to give it to you would trust the both of us rather little, I'd say.
Admittedly, Wilkinson is not making detailed policy arguments, but neither is Obama. I think Wilkinson's purpose here was merely to mock Obama's attempt to elevate his own skethcy policy arguments by means of a sloppy analogy. The same is true for Barber. First, Barber doesn't just describe the state of nature as a system where the strong dominate the weak; he also describes it as a system where anarchy dominates both. In any event, I took Wilkinson to be mocking the grandiose terms in which people like Barber seek to couch their policy proposals. I imagine most political philosophers adhere to a particular definition of the "state of nature." Wilkinson's query ("do America's eminient political philosophers really believe there are mutual funds in the state of nature?"), besides being funny, is a challenge to Barber to define his terms, to explain what exactly he means, and how, exactly, any policy proposed by Republicans would "seduce us back into the state of nature."
"Moroever, the traditional justification for such a shift - that systems that function as social insurance tend to be inefficient - has been abandoned for the claim that having every man go for himself will make all of feel more keenly that we "own" parts of the system."
-- I don't think Wilkinson abandons the inefficiency argument in general. He merely adds another component to the argument.
"What exactly is the relationship between social darwinism and the "ownership society?" Do they intersect at all, does one inform the other?"
-- Maybe Obama could answer those questions for us.
"You* might trust me more, Alex, but then again, you might begin merely to depend on me, and your "trust" in my beneficence would be insecure at best. On the other hand, the people that I took money away from in order to give it to you would trust the both of us rather little, I'd say."
On the other hand, if these people knew that they would receive money from us should they fall on hard times - just like we are currently receiving money from them - we might all trust each other a gread deal more than if every man went for himself.
Or we might not. I cant think of a single piece of empirical evidence that points either way. Neither can Wilkinson, apparently, but that doesn't stop him from throwing in facts that don't get him anywhere and pretending he has convincing evidence for his case. Saying that social science experiments demonstrate that more involved games involve more social interaction doesn't get Wilkinson anywhere - here we have to choose between two different rules of interaction (for example, social security vs. private accounts) that differ primarily not in their "degree of involvement" but in their underlying philosphies.
The World Bank study also gets Wilkinson nowhere: even if civic cooperation follows out of institutions that protect property rights, property rates are equally well protected regardless of whether we will have social/security or private accounts. It isn't more property that the study finds makes a difference, its well protected property rights.
So my point is that the arguments Wilkinson offers are not only unresponsive to Obama's point, they are also wrong.
"Maybe Obama could answer those questions for us."
I think he already has, and anyway, his case is fairly straightforward. If we go to a system of any man for himself, what happens to those who do not make it? Who do not manage to save up money in their private account for retirement? If we are going to do nothing for them on the idealogical grounds that doing nothing reinforces the importance of property to everyone else - then we are de facto practioners of "let the strongest survive."
"Admittedly, Wilkinson is not making detailed policy arguments, but neither is Obama."
Sure he is. The bit quoted by Wilkinson was part of a longer speech whose main policy thesis was that globalization required the US to make heavy investments in scientific research and education. This was of course preceded and succeeded with a lot of fluff about hopes and dreams and our valuable children and other such things, but there it is.
"First, Barber doesn't just describe the state of nature as a system where the strong dominate the weak; he also describes it as a system where anarchy dominates both. ...I imagine most political philosophers adhere to a particular definition of the "state of nature." Wilkinson's query ("do America's eminient political philosophers really believe there are mutual funds in the state of nature?"), besides being funny, is a challenge to Barber to define his terms, to explain what exactly he means, and how, exactly, any policy proposed by Republicans would "seduce us back into the state of nature."
Well, OK. I haven't read the Barber piece he is quoting from. Have you? If not, then I'm not sure how we can know that Barber did not adequately describe and explain his point.
And anyway, it seems to me that its not difficult to reconstruct what Barber means even from that quotation. You are right that State of Nature has a particular meaning that Barber only attempted to briefly summarize. Basically, our response to a state of nature - where we are dominated by anarchy - is the erection of government. Further, anarchy dominates our lives in more ways that was envisioned by Locke. For example, poor weather may result in a farmer not being able to save up for retirement; more relevantly, your job may be part of an industry that gets outsourced abroad;and so on. One way to master the anarchy that runs our lives is to build a structure such as social security - a structure that will guarantee some protection against whatever disasters may happen to you. Republicans, who seek to dismantle such social insurance, want to bring us closer to the state where anarchy dominates our lives, and whatever you can save up in your private account is what you will end up with.
Final note: I should add that I'm not saying I agree with the arguments of Barber/Obama. Frankly, I haven't thought much about the topic since the ownership society thing did not seem to catch on. I'm merely observing that Wilkison's piece offered little except in the way of mocking.
But I like mockery. :) And Wilkinson has lots of papers in which he argues at length and in detail about these issues.
My point is that Obama's fails to describe exactly how an "ownership society" (which doesn't generally mean the dismantling of social security, and usually, as I understand it, refers to the benefits of home ownership, which creates citizens who feel they have a stake in their society) corresponds to Social Darwinism. Is Bush's social security plan *really* "every man for himself"? My understanding of it is that the "private retirement accounts" would be a voluntary feature of the program. Are Republicans proposing to get rid of welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.? Have you looked at the plan?
One may agree with Obama's policy proposals (I don't, and Wilkinson doesn't, obviously) without buying into the overheated rhetoric in which social security reform somehow brings us closer to the "state of nature."
Here is a summary of Wilkinson's paper on social security reform and a link to a PDF of the entire article:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3940
Part of the problem is that Obama and others are mischaracterizing the term "ownership society" and the purpose of social security reform.
My understanding of it is that the "private retirement accounts" would be a voluntary feature of the program.
This is a measure that would easily bankrupt the program. Social security receives more money from the wealthy than it pays them; and pays more money to the poor than it receives from them. If such a measure were implemented, it would be in the self-interests of every wealthy person to choose the private accounts; which would leave the system without funds to pay its recepients.
The conclusion is that private accounts is a measure that would subvert the existing social security and subvert the social insurance that it provides.
"One may agree with Obama's policy proposals (I don't, and Wilkinson doesn't, obviously) without buying into the overheated rhetoric in which social security reform somehow brings us closer to the "state of nature."
But why is it overheated? If "state of nature" is precisely defined as Barber defines it, then any measure which undermines social insurance brings us closer to a state of nature.
"Part of the problem is that Obama and others are mischaracterizing the term "ownership society" and the purpose of social security reform."
Well not so much mischaracterizing - they (and I) merely think that what Bush claims to be the purpose of social security reform is not its real purpose.
P.S. In the paper you link to, Wilkinson makes the point that social security is not social insurance. Most of this is beating around with definition. Wilkinson goes on to conclude that if SS is social insurance, then so is a safety net for the elderly ( I agree). He goes on to propose such a safety net to replace the insurance aspect of social security; I've never heard GWB propose a new safety net to complement his private accounts. And anyway, SS acts to insure for a lot more than Wilkinson suggests; see, for example, here .
Here is something I find pretty funny. The characterization of social security as insurance is one of the "noble lies" from the title of the paper. However, Wilkinson himself admits that according to some definitions, SS may be classified as insurance.
Apparently, according to Wilkinson, people using a different definition from me = people lying. Damn liberals!
But anyway, regardless of whether or not Obama's criticism can be shown to be right or wrong, and regardless of whether Wilkinson has succesfully done so in other publications, I was just expressing surprise that you would link to that piece, given how it falls way short of proving its main thesis. But the mutual fund bit was funny.
Alex, I linked to the article because I liked its critique of Obama's rhetoric.
"But why is it overheated? If "state of nature" is precisely defined as Barber defines it, then any measure which undermines social insurance brings us closer to a state of nature."
-- I guess I find that to be a fairly trivial point. By that logic, I suppose, the U.S. is closer to the state of nature than Cuba or North Korea. But are Barber and Obama really using those terms in such a narrow, literalist way? Or are they using those terms because their connotations can be expected to get a rise out of all the usual "Republicans are greedy bastards who want to starve poor children" suspects?
" I guess I find that to be a fairly trivial point."
Certainly, its pretty trivial.
"By that logic, I suppose, the U.S. is closer to the state of nature than Cuba or North Korea.
Only if one takes the claims the governments of those countries make at face value. I suspect that for a typical person in those countries, the strong possibility of doing something that will get you shot or shipped off to a camp makes look quite a bit like a "state of nature."
"But are Barber and Obama really using those terms in such a narrow, literalist way? Or are they using those terms because their connotations can be expected to get a rise out of all the usual "Republicans are greedy bastards who want to starve poor children" suspects?"
I don't think Obama has used the term; I think its just Barber. And given that he is a political philosopher, its not at all surprising that he'd use jargon from his field.
Obviously I agree about Cuba and North Korea.
The term I was referring to for Obama was "Social Darwinism," which I would argue is even more read meat for the class warriors than "state of nature."
Oops. Change "read meat" to red meat.
"The term I was referring to for Obama was "Social Darwinism,"
Ah, I misunderstood. Yes, Obama is definetily suggesting that Republicans don't mind if the poor starve. But I don't think this is unduly harsh - surely, when you propose to cut a program which is used by the poor for sustenance, this is the first charge that you should be prepared to answer? And that you should have an answer ready for what, exactly, you'd like the poor to do?
And before you point out that Republicans don't want to cut these programs - let me point out that:
i. Conservatives out of government and in Congress have long maintained that it is desirable to get rid of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
ii. Some of Bush's proposals - in particular, personal accounts and health savings accounts - would undermine these very same programs.
(I've already mentioned why personal accounts have this function, and if you'd like me to flesh out this point for health savings out, I'd be happy to do so)
I think the first answer should be that the poor *aren't* going to starve if we reform Social Security. You say the Bush plan will bankrupt social security (I'm not sure I'm convinced but for the sake of argument...), but so will doing nothing. Why isn't it incumbent upon Democrats to explain why all their jeremiads about children starving in the streets, for instance, under welfare reform never came to pass? *Nobody* wants the poor to starve, and I don't see any evidence that it's more likely to happen under Bush style reforms than groaning under the weight of an unwieldly and ultimately untenable status quo.
"You say the Bush plan will bankrupt social security..."
A minor correction: I said "undermine," not bankrupt. Many factors affect the finances of the social security system and this is only one factor. One factor that will make things worse - but nevertheless only one factor.
"Why isn't it incumbent upon Democrats to explain why all their jeremiads about children starving in the streets, for instance, under welfare reform never came to pass?"
I don't think its unreasonable to require people who are proposing a change to offer us a detailed analysis of the impacts this change may have - Republicans, in this case. The Bush administration has not done this - it has continued to cling to the argument that private accounts will make SS stronger - an argument that sounds like fiction to me.
Certainly, one can find instances where criticisms of the sort that Obama makes were wrong, but I don't think it makes sense to say that that we can conclude that criticism of this sort are automatically wrong. I myself would say that after welfare reform many former welfare recepients found jobs; whereas, the same would not necesserily be true for the elderly, and even if it was, its inhumane to require people in their 70s to work to be able to survive.
P.S. Please ignore what I wrote in my previous post about health savings accounts - it is wrong, I had a different policy in mind.
Well, actually, speaking of people in their seventies, one thing we can do is raise the age at which people are able to start drawing benefits.
Under welfare reform, many who were formerly on welfare found jobs. Under social security reform (with an adequate safety net for older people and hard luck cases), presumably many who were not saving for retirement will begin to do so. A point that Wilkinson has made elsewhere is that the suggestion that some people won't be able to invest/save their money wisely may be true, but it's true partly *because* of social security. When people are treated as dependent and inept, they become dependent and inept. Take away the crutch, and a few will fall (and we should help them), but most will begin to walk on their own.
In any event, I simply don't agree that Obama's "Social Darwinist" rhetoric is reasonable. It occurs in a context in which a faction of liberals/Democrats/what have you routinely conjure a myth of Republicans as greedy, selfish, exploitive, corrupt, lacking compassion for the less fortunate, etc. (take a look at some of the commenters on Crooked Timber, for goodness' sake), and they often rely on that myth to *avoid* constructive debate about domestic issues. If Obama wants to claim that Bush-type social security reform will undermine the social safety net, fine. Let him say so and explain why. But to construct some absurd analogy whereby "ownership society" means "every man for himself" is, it seems to me, more an attempt to feed the myth than engage the debate. [Do Republicans/ conservatives sometines conjure myths about liberals? Sure. I try to avoid that, but I'm probably guilty of it, too, occasionally.]
I finally had a chance to read the linked article, and--forgive my tangent here--it occurs to me that Wilkinson is glib and dismissive because he can afford to be. As much as The New Republic may cheer for Barack Obama, a Democrat giving a speech defending government programs simply isn't news. More to the point, it's also not persuasive to non-believers.
Both parties have a serious echo-chamber problem, but Republicans have capitalized on their opponents' failures and done just enough outreach to win over a few new souls. (They also hawkishly monitor their opponents and their rhetoric.) By contrast, having lived most of my life in the Democratic utopias of the New York metro area and the District of Columbia, I've seen how many Democratic talking points have devolved into dogma that their proponents can't defend logically. It matters little one way or the other whether self-styled conservatives in Kansas or Idaho can defend their beliefs--they have little impact on the rest of the country--but when liberals who live in major power and media centers such as the Northeast can't defend or justify their beliefs, largely because they engage with so few of their critics, then everyone sees--and a few more conservatives are born.
If Democrats regain power, it will be because they capitalize on Republican failures and co-opt optimistic themes, not because they champion social programs. Too many "swing voters," many of them would-be Democrats, can point to their favorite examples of government failure, waste, and corruption. In my opinion, if and when folks like Wilkinson have to respond to Obama-like speeches with greater precision, it'll be a sign that the Democrats are on the rise. It's not happening yet.
Kate Marie,
You may be right - when I started this thread, I had no intention of defending Obama's rhetoric - I only wanted to point out the problems with Wilkinson's critique. After having thought about it a bit, I think part of the problem is is the difficulty in defining "ownership society." What, exactly, is it?
If its a movement to cancel social welfare programs and *replace* them with things like personal accounts and health savings accounts, then Obama is surely correct: if you think this is a good idea, you think pooling our risks together to protect against old age and health problems is a bad idea; you'd rather everyone go for himself, and those who make it, do, and those who dont, well too bad.
On the other hand, if its a movement to augment or change the current system - by tweaking SS and medicare - as GWB claims; or its a movement to replace the current elements of social insurance with (as Wilkinson proposes in his Cato paper) a different, but just as effective, system; then surely Obama is wrong.
It seems, then, that whether you think the "ownership society" is a close relative of social darwinism depends on how willing you are to believe the rhetoric of this administration; and how willing you are to connect these proposed changes with proposals for the cancellation of the safety net that various conservatives have been making since FDR and LBJ.
Post a Comment
<< Home