Whither Economic Populism?

Do we actually want a situation in which the free-market ethos held by Republicans and libertarians has been completely driven from the sphere of public debate, and the only remaining argument is over which government interventions in the market should ultimately win out? That’s the question Jonah Goldberg poses in his latest Bloggingheads with Peter Beinart. And like Beinart, I must deliver a hearty “Yes!” in reply.

Goldberg seems to assume economic populism boils down to nothing other than panders to certain demographics, and that its embrace by both parties would create a “race to the bottom to determine which groups should be the winners and the losers.” By his lights, economic populism holds to no substantive or objective principles, and so if economic libertarianism were ever destroyed as a counterbalancing force the result would be a divisive politics of interest group one-upsmanship. This may be the state of economic populism now, but there is no reason (and here I hit a drum Daniel Larison has been beating) that this should inherently or inevitably be the case. The reason economic populism (or per Larison, populism writ large) seems to have no coherent framework of principles could very well be that no one has bothered to give it any. And the reason no one has bothered with that project, at least in the last few decades, is the overwhelming inertia of the neo-liberal free market consensus.

Not everyone can get what they want all the time, but it seems to me an economic approach which provides for the flourishing and good of everyday people is quite within our intellectual grasp. It’s just that almost no one currently seems to consider such a project legitimate. The free market consensus, which Republicans and libertarians only complain about in that it doesn’t go far enough, is concerned purely with producing as much wealth as possible at any given moment. Right now, not everyone can get what they want because we are determined to insure the continuance of that wealth creation, which means doing everything we can for the few at the top, and everyone else will be provided for using whatever is left over.

I am not saying the free market is a zero-sum game, but I am saying the current concentration on deregulation, unfettered wealth creation, and avoidance of wealth redistribution brings the market far closer to a zero-sum game than it otherwise would be.

Populism, as I understand it and I think as Larison means it, entails government truly and intelligently engaged with the needs of the many. (Which does not necessarily mean it would be popular.) I think it is fair to say the current Republican economic agenda, and to a depressing degree the Democratic agenda as well, does not represent that goal. Which isn’t to say I would completely agree with Larison on what economic populism would entail – I imagine what to do with entitlements would be a major sticking point, as would immigration – but I do agree it would involve a coherent set of principles, geared towards the good of the many, argued over in those terms and recognizing that not all good things can be made to go together.

In fact, Goldberg’s formulation is telling: The discussion would be reduced to which interventions we want. He assumes that means “which interest group or demographic wins the tug-of-war,” but it could just as easily mean “which interventions are smart and which aren’t.” By Goldberg’s own description, the current contribution of economic libertarianism to the debate is neither of those things, but merely the claim that interventions are bad on principle, simply because they’re interventions. Which is an unhelpful notion at best and pernicious at worst.

I also second Beinart’s point that there is little evidence the economic libertarian elements in the GOP have succeeded in restraining the culturally rightwing or “Buchananite” elements in a manner beneficial to the concerns of liberals and the left. In fact, when prompted to point out tendencies that have been restrained, Goldberg lists Buchanan’s endorsement of such things as caps on CEO pay, expansions of entitlements, and greater protectionism. The blockage of these things by economic libertarians is something economic liberals in the Democratic party (as opposed to free market neo-liberals) are supposed to be grateful for? Huh? The only thing Goldberg brings up that left/liberals might genuinely object to is Buchanan’s call for Italian and Irish racial quotas - effectively, affirmative action for working class whites. But even this notion, I think, would provide the Democrats with a productive lesson were they ever forced to confront it. They might have to admit that racial injustice, at this point in our history, functions largely as a subcategory of economic injustice. I’m familiar with Pat Buchanan’s stances, and many of them are absolutely horrific, but if those are the only points Phil Gramm and the Club for Growth currently rein in, then I say let the Republicans embrace the man.

Finally, I think Goldberg’s prediction that the death of economic libertarianism would mean a more economically populist and culturally rightwing Republican party, and a socialist and much further leftwing Democratic party, is more or less on the money. I also think he’s right that the Democrats would lose the Reagan Democrats and the Jim-Webb-type votes, thus shrinking their political clout. Meanwhile, the socially liberal and economically conservative types (libertarians writ large) would simply become an even larger swing vote than they are now.

So, yes, such a shift could be bad for the party with which I currently align, assuming they played their cards poorly. But I think it would be better for the country as a whole.

ADDENDUM: I do not know by what lights Goldberg describes a Republican party more in line with the politics of Pat Buchanan as “nationalistic.” Buchanan is, among other things, the author of a book entitled A Republic, Not An Empire. Even more bizarrely, what Beinart describes as “internationalist” during the discussion – the belief that America should be the world’s imperial policeman and should maintain its seat at the reins of global finance – is precisely what I would call “nationalist.” An internationalist would be someone who believes America should cooperate with other nations and international institutions, seeing itself as simply one country among many, which would be the exact opposite of a nationalist. Under my scheme, Buchanan is probably best described as an isolationist. There’s some weird word usage going on here.

~ by Jeff on October 21, 2008.