I recently attended the BB&T Program Chairs Conference at Clemson University where I was part of a panel on why conservatives cannot stop the growth of government. Here is a brief overview of some of the points I made.
The philosophical arguments used by right are the same as the left:
- Greed is dangerous and the cause of many of the crises we face
- Altruism should guide us in our daily lives
These are the normative and philosophical arguments and while relevant and important to the discussion I want to address the economics of where this philosophy leads us and why these policies will continue to allow the growth of the state whether directed by the right or the left.
Public choice theory instructs us to look at the institutions that emerge once self-interest is the motivation and why in the public sector this will lead to institutional arrangements that will allow the state to grow. On the left the public interest theory leads politicians to argue that greed is the problem that free markets are the problem, and that government officials can solve all our problems.
So do conservatives have a public interest view of the world?
I think the answer is yes. They are willing to claim that markets work and that we are self-interested, but argue that our self-interest will create problems if wholly left unchecked. The issue of why the right cannot stop the growth of government is not merely a matter of scale or size, but of scope.I think that James Buchanan in his chapter Beyond Pragmatism in The Limits of Liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan states the problem quite effectively and simply. He writes:
“When something has gone wrong, our response is to fix it up with baling wire and to go on about our business. This baling-wire syndrome presumes, however, that the underlying structure or mechanism is sound and itself not in need of repair or replacement. But, eventually, baling-wire repairs fail, and more fundamental change becomes necessary. When such a stage is reached, continuation of the established response pattern may create more problems than it resolves.
"Politics," by which I mean governmental action, notably federal governmental action, has been the social analogue to baling wire. The identification of a "social need," whether this be real or manufactured, has come to suggest, almost simultaneously, a federal program. Social progress has been measured by the quantity of legislation, and our assemblies are deemed to be political failures when new programs are lacking. Properly interpreted, the succession of New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, Great Society, and New Federalism formats represents the pragmatic and essentially nonideological working of American democratic process. Little or no attention has been paid to the possible interlinkage of program with program, to the ability of the underlying structural system to sustain the growing pressures put upon it, to the questions of aggregate size and scope for political activity.”
Conservatives have a hubris that they also can plan and are not afraid to use government action if it serves their purposes. F.A. Hayek in Why I am not a Conservative notes:
“The conservative feels safe and content only if he assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change orderly. … In general it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purpose”
The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the importance of private property rights and self-interest in human nature. In a post constitutional world not having this correct view of human nature, of property rights and institutions explains why conservatives will continue to grow government.
Posts
