“How deep is the rot in America’s banking industry?”
“Public Health vs. Economic Growth: Toxic Chemical Rules Pose Test for Biden”
“How Washington Decided to Rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s Depositors”
The above headlines were all taken from mainstream publications in mid-March. And these are all correct headlines, and key economic issues in current American politics. However, all of these headlines mask a deeper issue that is at the core of one of the biggest debates in leftist and progressive economic policy theory. The Left agrees that the critique of big government from the Right is incorrect and farcical. But beneath the surface of the everyday debates between the Right and the Left is a deeper, more interesting, critique and debate of big government from within the left, one which has profound implications for the future of big government progressivism and economic policy.
Firstly, to set up a bit of context for the argument from the Right. The Right is quick to critique the power of so-called “big government policy”, arguing that the government is best to be as small as possible. They argue that the government should have little business in being involved in the everyday lives of its citizens. They have traditionally supported reductions in tax rates, especially for big business, to promote investment. In turn, it has often advocated for cuts to social programmes from the government, arguing that social security is best left up to individuals. At its core, the “traditional right” or neoliberal thought argues that the government is more often than not a force for harm in the country, and should therefore be reduced, with the reasoning being that the private sector is best equipped to produce the best economic outcomes for society. The Right supports the power of charity over the power of government. The neoliberal right has also argued for “trickle down economics”, with the theory being that giving tax cuts to the richest people and the biggest corporations will see that increased wealth “trickle down” to people in lower socioeconomic classes. One can debate the effectiveness of such policy, and there are profound questions to be asked over the impact of these types of policies, but this is at least the theoretical and foundational grounding of such neoliberal and “classical right” economic theory.
There is a clear critique of this theory from the Left. The Left does not believe in the power of “trickle down economics” as they argue that as the richest people will inherently try to keep the money for themselves and will not just “trickle down” without government intervention. The Left then argues that the best way to achieve this government intervention is with a progressive tax system, and with increases in spending in government programmes. The foundation of much of modern day Leftist thinking is from Keynesian economics, which argues that government spending is the key to improving both economic and social good in society.
However, there is a point where the Left starts to split on the power of government. Almost all the Left can agree that neoliberal economic thought is not conducive to a fair and just state. However, the Left disagrees on where to take their own vision of the state. At the end of the day, there is an irreconcilable difference between two competing factions within the Left.
One faction strongly believes in the power of a big government state to effectively solve societal problems, including for the poorest and most discriminated against groups of people. They argue that big government should be, and is, about improving the lives of the many, through broad based social programmes. Franklin Delano Roosevelt is often considered to be the thought leader of this type of Leftist thinking, with his “New Deal” policies. It is also considered to be a “Liberalism that builds.” This type of progressivism focuses on the importance of large-scale public works projects, that will both provide high paying jobs to people and improve the quality of life for everyone. This includes building more schools, hospitals, houses, and transportation links, among others. Many progressives will agree with the view that more of all of these things should be built.
However, when we look around at many current states and cities with progressive governments, this is not happening. In California, there is an estimated shortage of three to four million housing units. In Chicago, low income households spend, on average, more than half of their income on rent. In New York, the public transit system of the MTA is a disaster, with many arguing that the system needs a complete overhaul. All of these crises are happening in cities with progressive governments. And no, this is not an argument to bring neoliberal reforms to these cities - in the author’s view, this would make the problems far, far worse. But it is the case that the reason for many of the crises that these cities are facing is from the Left itself, and the fact that a faction of Leftist thought has actually set up many systems and processes that stifle progressive government action.
These systems and processes that many in the left have set up to stifle progressive governance were set up with a Leftist vision in mind. This faction of the Left has a critique of government, but for reasons that the government is not a good vehicle for achieving social outcomes, as it could target the poorest and most vulnerable among us. This theory of thought came out of government policies such as redlining and zoning policies, which predominantly targeted Black Americans and priced many out of housing. The theory also came out of the Tuskegee experiments, which tested a drug on 600 black men without their informed consent. This systemic discrimination, both socially and economically, from the government, solidified the view in many Leftists that the government’s power should be mitigated.
From these experiences, this “concerned about government” faction of the Left argued for limits on government expansion, especially at the local level. They implemented more checks and balances on government power at the local level to ensure that government discrimination and targeting of poorer citizens cannot happen. The many “community input sessions” and “general public approval panels” that public works projects are required to undertake were often set up by the Left, to try to enfranchise the groups who had, and continue to be, disenfranchised by society and government systems. These were set up with the best of intentions, and the author would argue that many of them have been needed to ensure that everyone’s voice in the community can be heard.
However, many of the systems and processes set up by this well-intentioned faction of the Left, who were concerned with government discrimination, have actually done nothing but further empower those who already have privilege. This may seem counterintuitive but actually makes a lot of sense once one looks at the systems and processes itself.
Many of the systems that Leftists, who want to be enfranchising those who have previously been disenfranchised, have only helped to serve those already in power and continue to disenfranchise those lowest on the socioeconomic ladder. This is because systems and processes set up by the government are, by their very nature of being more bureaucracy, only accessible to those who already have power in society. For instance, only big businesses and those highest on the socioeconomic ladder will be able to navigate the systems and processes set up by the government. Only those already enfranchised by society will be able to have access to the legal advice, social and community support structures, and time to navigate and successfully use the systems and processes set up by the government.
This is the heart of the Leftist critique of the “concerned about government” faction of the Left. It states that by setting up systems and processes to challenge government from the people, that the government has basically ensured its own downfall in helping the very people it was trying to enfranchise. This is because, again, only those already wealthy and with access to resources will be able to navigate the confusing mess of different government processes, agencies, approval processes, local vs state vs national governments, etc.
As a result, there have been many debates within progressive circles about the success of public information critique systems, many set up by progressives themselves to help enfranchise disadvantaged communities for new infrastructure developments, often designed to help disadvantaged communities. One such example can be seen in the California housing crisis. There have been countless examples of wealthier, often white, individuals successfully using the systems and processes to block further housing developments in their area. The concern from these communities is typically prescribed to be a “loss of culture” in the area (with often racist and classist undertones), and these complaints are often successful. This is because only those already privileged in society are able to take advantage of the government systems that have been set up.
Therefore, many housing projects proposed by governments have been blocked, which only helps to further disenfranchise those lower on the socioeconomic ladder, as the housing prices will continue to increase and there is a lack of availability of affordable housing.
At the end of the day, while many in the Left do not wish to reconcile the difference, there is a systemic disagreement between these two factions. One argues that the government is an inherent force for good, while the other fundamentally disputes this argument. It will be fascinating to see where this debate goes in the years to come.
Inspiration:
This article was inspired by two episodes from The Ezra Klein Show by TheNew York Times, entitled “A Critique of Government That Liberals Need to Hear” and “How Liberals - Yes, Liberals - Are Hobbling Government.”
コメント