No, Actually It’s Because Private Markets Do Many Things Better Than Government

Some impressive commentators are weighing in about whether promotion of small government versus big government is ideologically or practically driven.  Ezra Klein makes an interesting, but misdirected, point that small government proponents see small government as an end in itself — i.e., they are ideologically driven — whereas proponents of more government simply want “larger government in certain areas where it seems to make sense.”

But like a lot of people, I actually don’t have an abstract preference for either bigger government or smaller government. If we made the Defense Department a lot smaller, or reformed the health-care system so that we were getting a deal more akin to European countries, or got the federal government out of farm subsidies, that would be fine with me, even as the government would shrink. A lot of conservatives believe, I think, that their philosophical preference for small government is counterbalanced by other people’s philosophical preference for big government. But that’s not true: Their philosophical preference for small government is counterbalanced by other people’s practical preference for larger government in certain areas where it seems to make sense.

So liberals are sensible, practical proponents of whatever works in the best John Dewey / FDR tradition.  Conservatives are wild-eyed ideologues committed to an end without regard to the real world and the hard work of pursuing what actually works.  It is a narrative that defines the liberal inability to comprehend conservatives. 

Indeed, ironically, this narrative — that conservatives embrace certain beliefs that are impervious to empirical findings while liberals are essentially wide-ranging and creative experimenters — explains how liberals routinely find ideological zealotry where there is none, sinister motives such as racism where there is none, and even threatening and violent inclinations where there are none.  In short, the liberal narrative about conservatives is itself counter-factual and typically impervious to empirical findings.

Conservatives do not seek smaller government simply because government should be smaller.  Conservatives seek smaller government because there are competing institutions for achieving social goods, and government — from the experience and observation of conservatives — tends to be less efficient at achieving these social goods than other institutions.

It’s that simple.  The impulse to use government to achieve a desired social goal is not per se bad — the social goal may often indeed be desirable. But that impulse may well be blind to the ineptitude of government in actually achieving that goal.

I read somewhere recently that a pundit was debating health care with his British friend, and the British friend said, you Americans miss the point about health care: health care is so important that the government must take responsibility for it.  And the pundit replied, no, precisely because health care is so important, we must entrust it to our most efficient delivery mechanisms — and that is private markets with properly calibrated incentives, not the government.  (That’s my recollected paraphrase.)

I remember the nationwide health care debates leading up to the vote on ObamaCare.  I remember my brother in Texas telling me of standing in line at a federal office with people grousing about the inefficiency and incompetence of the federal workers dispatching whatever federal program was at issue, and my brother turned to one of the grousers and said, “and these are the people you want controlling our health care?”

An anecdote, and only that — but illustrative of the actual experience of many conservatives who are skeptical of any claim that government workers will dispense a critical social benefit like health care better than private markets.

How long, literally how many decades, have we been hearing of the waste, fraud, and abuse — amounting to tens of billions of dollars — in the government’s Medicare and Medicaid programs?  Every administration — including this one — resolves to combat waste, fraud, and abuse in these programs.  And you start to get the feeling, after decades, that maybe waste, fraud, and abuse are endemic to government programs.

Conservatives are not “anti-government.”  Conservatives are pro-efficiency.  No private sector enterprise in the history of the planet has ever been capable of sustaining tens of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse.  One thinks of high-profile fraud like Enron — and then one dreams of commensurate retribution for vastly greater government squandering.

Conservatives recognize that private markets are not perfect, that some regulation to redress market abuses is appropriate, and that no market affecting so many Americans — like health care or mutual funds — is or should be free of any government regulation.  But that regulation must be focused on calibrating private market incentives, not on a government bureaucrat dictating what is best for us.

[Also published at The Daily Caller.]


2 Responses to No, Actually It’s Because Private Markets Do Many Things Better Than Government

  1. rfransway says:

    The problem with your argument for handing our tax dollars to business, corporations, or wall street to control is that you won’t get the majority of Americans to believe this. This is because your premise, that private, for-profit business can handle the best interests of the masses better than government is not a fact but a belief, almost religious in nature, that has proven untrue over and over and over.

    Past problems with for-profit industry prove greed run riot does not work. Now that folks who lived through the Gilded Age are all dead along with most of those who recall the depression era, old sociopath Ayn Rand has been revisited and worshiped by shortsighted, avarice-inspired, delinquent youths. Too many of us simply can’t, or won’t, learn from history.

    True creativity will never be squelched by government, big or small, though it is frequently attempted, especially by haters of American government.

    But once you are old enough and experienced enough to understand the true nature of human greed run riot, you will see that this greed, while unavoidable, must be channeled by government of ALL the people to assist the common good.

    If we are all to live peacefully and prosperously as possible, you who are not sociopaths yourselves but only silly dreamers need to put away Ayn Rand, stop cloning each other in media yapping sessions, and start observing the dark side human nature for what it is, and why it must be restrained.

    • An interesting argument, a socialist argument, which I do not intend as a pejorative, simply a descriptive. And of course I take issue with socialism. I do so for reasons very much like your diatribe against “for-profit businesses,” but with, I believe, additional ammunition. What evidently disturbs you about “for-profit businesses” is “greed” and “the dark side of human nature.” Dark and greedy human beings populate for-profit businesses — and of course, dark and greedy human beings populate government. Yours is a simplistic and contradictory notion of human nature: it is dark when the humans do business but light when the humans do government.

      In fact, the same humans, with the same inventories of dark and light, do both business and government. That is why there are so many instances of government agencies doing well and succumbing to bribes, performing honorably and performing horribly, exercising their enormous power responsibly and contemptibly power-tripping — because it is the same human beings you reference doing business and doing government.

      Human beings do not undergo a character transformation simply because they find a job in government. What they are, they are. Some are decent, some are indecent. Your argument presumes that government workers are more virtuous than workers in the private sector, and that is palpably false.

      The difference is that government workers have more power. When they are decent people, that power can work good and modest results. Where they are indecent people, that power can work enormous mischief.

      But you are not primarily interested in whether government works “for the people.” Your website is “Stop Republicans Now.” You care most about demonizing the Republican party. That’s fine. Go forth and multiply. But don’t pretend you’re doing either a history lesson (you’re not) or a civics lesson (you’re not).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: