More On That Note

Jonah Goldberg responds to this post by Ross Douthat on the topic of “spreading the wealth around,” pointing out the difference between viewing such spreading as a necessary result of, or means to, good public policy, and viewing it as the actual aim of public policy – the latter coming genuinely close to a socialist worldview.

Indeed, Barack Obama made it sound like he thinks spreading the wealth isn’t the consequence of good public policy but it is in fact the chief aim of public policy. That was even more clear, I think, when he told Charlie Gibson that he would consider raising capital gains taxes for “purposes of fairness” whether or not they increased revenues. In other words, spreading the wealth is the public policy aim, not the regrettable byproduct of it.

It’s entirely possible this is largely a semantic as opposed to a philosophical thing, but I don’t think that’s the case, which is why I think so many people had an “aha” moment over this Joe the Plumber stuff.

Actually, I think a semantic rather than philosophic difference is precisely what we have here, and if the latest polls are any indication, that was the “aha” moment that wasn’t.

At any rate, I see no evidence that Obama views spreading the wealth as anything other than a necessary means to the end of good public policy. His positions on pork spending, his healthcare plan, and other positions seem to indicate that he does think there are good ways and bad ways to spread the wealth, which would imply he doesn’t view the spreading as an end in itself. I mean, maybe I’m wrong (and maybe Obama’s already said something on this), but if you’re looking for a major liberal politician who might be open to more means-testing, given his temperament I would think Obama would be it.

It’s also telling that Goldberg refers to the wealth spreading which results from public policy as a “regrettable byproduct.” Under this rubric, shouldn’t spreading the wealth be viewed as neither desirable nor regrettable? If your aim is good public policy, then spreading the wealth just is. There seems to be a bit of perceptual asymmetry going on here. Goldberg (and Joe the Plumber as well, I bet) assume Obama views spreading the wealth as inherently good because he doesn’t share their instinct that it’s inherently bad. That’s an instinct which is pretty widespread amongst the American electorate, and responding to that is probably why Obama goes out of his way to speak of “spreading the wealth” in positive terms. You argue with the opponents you have, not with the platonically idealized ones you’d prefer.

As for the “purposes of fairness” comment; If you’ve got a certain collective pot into which everyone throws money, and the government then uses that money to better peoples’ lives, it seems pretty straightforward to insist that everyone contribute to the pot in a manner proportional to the amount of wealth they take in. That’s fair, and it’s precisely that principle which the current capital gains tax regime undercuts. So raising capital gains taxes, even if such increases don’t bring in more revenue overall, are entirely keeping with fairness, and do not necessarily indicate a view that “spreading the wealth” is an inherent good.

~ by Jeff on October 22, 2008.