George Will’s column today describes the extent to which “socialism” is already here:
Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious — destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government.
The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.
Probably as temporary as New York City’s rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War and are still distorting the city’s housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.
In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking — bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.
So can a revitalized GOP break the spending habit and win? This is, again, the essential question. Voters seem to want some spending, particularly on themselves – entitlement programs such as Social Security remain discouragingly popular – but, as bailouts continue, we will learn a lot about how much propping up of business the nation is prepared to tolerate. If it appears to voters that the government is simply shoveling money down a hole to keep big businesses afloat that should fail, there may be a place for conservatives to talk about a return to more of a free-market model.
I think it may be time to reassess whether we want to be the party of big business – of near monopolistic multinationals – as opposed to being the party of small business and entrepreneurship – the party supporting the guy who just developed a more fuel-efficient engine in his garage, for instance – ensuring an economy that is supportive of innovation and ingenuity by backing off “rent-seeking” regulation and tax policy. That approach, I think is much more in tune with the nation’s aspirational character.
Aren’t we better off with a hundred GM’s out there than just one?
