Imagine two parallel horizontal lines, one representing a philosophy of greater government intervention in people’s lives, and the other a philosophy of lesser intervention, but both applying their philosophy equally to everyone. The higher line could be called the social community philosophy, the lower the individual autonomy philosophy. Or imagine two points of view on what constitutes the good and moral life, one material, one spiritual. Those holding one point of view could be called the new Athenians, and the other the new Israelites. In that case I could respect either philosophy or point of view. Neither of these divisions, however, and indeed no universal philosophy or ideology at all, describes the Republican or Democratic parties today. Rather than two sets of principles of what is best for everyone, these parties for the most part represent two sets of interests seeking a better deal for their insiders at everyone else’s expense, and at the expense of the future and the younger generations who will live in it. The parallel lines are in fact vertical, not horizontal, with some feeling entitled to more out of government and others left with less, some forced to contribute more to government and others avoiding similar contributions.
It is said that we have a limited government, but what is it limited to? Some even argue for “less government,” but what do they want less of? Every year, more and more people and groups ask for more and more public services, public funding, public protection from economic and social change, public regulation and control of personal or businesses activities. That is, control of the activities of other people, and of other businesses. And while some are asking for expansions of government services and restrictions, others are seeking exemptions from the burden of paying for those services, or living within those restrictions. Indeed, the very same person or group can be on both sides, asking for more funding for themselves and more restrictions on others on one day, and asking for fewer burdens and fewer restrictions on themselves, for the benefit of others, on another day. And, of course, subsidies, bailouts and breaks become more or less appealing depending on who requires them.
To address those competing demands we have two competing political parties and, in theory, two competing philosophies. Democrats and liberals, it might be assumed, are in favor in greater demands on individuals for contributions to society – by everyone, greater restrictions on organizational behavior – on everyone, and more public services provided and guarantees made by society to each individual – to everyone. Republicans and conservatives, it might be assumed, are in favor in smaller demands for contributions to society – by everyone, greater restrictions on individual behavior – on everyone, and fewer public services and guarantees made by society to each individual – to everyone. One might expect that these two points of view would end up compromised in the middle – with everyone required to make a moderate contribution, required to accept moderate restrictions, and entitled to expect moderate services and guarantees, with the actual extent of these depending on the results of the last election.
That is not, however, the way the compromises seem to work. To keep the cost of government down to a level Republicans and their influential backers will accept, Democrats often agree to very little in the way of services and guarantees for some, while insisting on extensive services and guarantees for others, others who matter more. To keep the amount of services and guarantees high enough for Democrats and their influential backers to accept, Republicans often agree to high taxes on some, while pursuing extensive tax breaks and exemptions for others, others who matter more. Often, in fact, those nominally in one political party are on the other side, with Republicans pursuing additional funding for some, and Democrats handing out tax breaks and exemptions to others. Inequity increases in a fiscal cycle, with the benefits handed out in booms (when those not benefiting are less likely to realize they’ve been robbed because they aren’t immediately hit with the cost), and general service and benefit reductions and tax rate increases imposed in busts (as an “inevitable” result of “circumstances beyond our control.”) The boom time deals are seldom if ever taken back, no matter how tough times get.
The possibility that governments would get into the business of dispensing special favors has always been a concern, and at a more enlightened point in our country’s history something was done about it. Consider Article 3, Section 17 of the New York State Constitution, which prohibits “granting to any person, association, firm or corporation an exemption of real or personal property.” It also forbids “granting any person, association or individual any exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever.” Then there is Article 16, Section 4 which states “there shall be no discrimination in the rates and method of taxation between such corporations and other corporations exercising substantially similar functions and engaged in substantially similar businesses within the state.” The state constitution also prohibits exempting public employees from taxes, and foisting debts on later generations without a referendum. All these provisions were presumably put in for a reason, but apparently lack the all-important “and we’re not kidding” clause, because here in New York, they are routinely ignored.
At the federal level, inequality has been rising, and hypocrisy increasing, since the 1994, 1996, and 2000 elections. In 1994, the Republican Party took Congress after portraying “big government” as a sinkhole of special favors for the undeserving poor, minorities, immigrants, and those living in older central cities. The Democratic Party responded by agreeing to substantial reductions in government funding for these very groups, whether deserving or not, as a strategic move to preserve funding for those who really matter to the Democratic party – the elderly and producers of public services, either in government or in government-funded health, housing and social service non-profits, and the senior citizen voters they felt the need to compete for. Traditional liberals – who wanted more government spending, protections and actual services for everyone – were outraged, but the Democrats knew that the losers were unlikely to turn to the Republicans, who despise them. “Liberals,” in effect, agreed to less public money and services for some people, to preserve more public money and perks for, well, themselves.
Flush with success, traditional “small government” conservatives then started talking about reducing public services, benefits protections and guarantees – for everyone, including middle-income people living in the suburbs and the Sunbelt, and the elderly. They took aim at defense pork, farm subsidies, and high Medicare reimbursements, among other things. It turns out, however, that virtually no one thinks of government money for themselves as wasteful “big government” spending. For swing voters in the suburbs, and many “conservative” voters in the Sunbelt, tax revenues collected elsewhere and spent on themselves is “effective” government. The G.O.P. lost the 1996 federal election, with the blame cast on “extreme” conservatives who were, for the most part, defeated or silenced. It spent the next four years assuring suburban and Sunbelt American that they were in favor of small government for other people, not for them. The “Republican revolution,” it turns out, was limited to cutting spending for the benefit of the poor, minorities, immigrants, and those living in older central cities, and then increasing it for others by a greater amount. It worked. In 1999, 32 states, most in the South and West, received more in federal spending than they paid in federal taxes. President Bush won 24 of those states in 2000.
President Bush has since presided over an explosion of federal spending and a reduction in federal taxes, with the biggest fiscal decisions providing more benefits to those who already had extensive benefits. The income tax, which affects the wealthy and retired, was cut, but the payroll tax, which hits low, moderate, and middle-income workers hard, was not. A prescription drug benefit was added to Medicare, for senior citizens who already benefit from extensive federal health care guarantees, but nothing was done for the rising share of young people (who pay taxes to fund this) and yet are entitled to no government support for health care at all. A few conservative commentators were outraged by rising pork barrel spending, but most were happy with “compassionate conservatism.” That is being compassionate toward our people, and conservative toward them.
And the end of this process, inequality in taxation and public services has increased even further. Things aren’t much better when one moves from the sphere of taxation and public services and benefits to the sphere of criminal justice, after a more than a decade of “law and order” crackdowns on street crime balanced by an unchallenged explosion of white collar crime.
With these compromises and deceptions, what is left of ideologies? What you are left with is two hypocrisies, with contradictory positions and rationalizations buried under shrill rhetoric and appeals to tribal loyalty. The divide that matters today is not between liberals and conservatives (to the extent that these two terms have any real meaning), Republicans and Democrats. It is between those any “persons, associations or individuals” who seek and receive “any exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever,” and everyone else. The former are represented by the Democratic and Republican parties. The latter are, for the most part, not represented at all. In public policy, at all levels of government, the truth is that the real decisions are not about “what.” They are about “who.”
Even among those who think about public policy as something other than a lobbyist, there is far less interest in, and discussion of, what is best for everyone. What appears to have happened to American thought involves the two different concepts of the word “freedom” that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s, one good and the other (for lack of a better word) evil. The good “freedom” might be called freedom of identity, or of lifestyle. For a brief period after World War II, many Americans believed that if you didn’t look like, act like, think like, and live like everyone else, then you shouldn’t be accepted. Think of the children’s TV show “Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer,” in which Rudolph and his companions become outcasts at the North Pole simply because Rudolph’s nose glows, and his friend is an elf that wanted to be a dentist instead of make toys. The idea of America as a land of social conformity is mostly gone, and the old conflicts associated with it irrelevant, but some politicians still try to stay elected by manipulating 35-year-old resentments, with tribal appeals to groups of people who feel aggrieved. Sometimes it still works, because the country is being run by and for those who were already adults 35 years ago, and haven’t had an open mind since.
The evil idea of freedom is freedom from responsibility, which has both a liberal and a conservative version, depending on the responsibilities one does not want to meet. Liberal Democrats have sought to attract votes by telling people that they do not have personal responsibilities to earn their own living, and to take care of their own children. To knowledgeable critics, their excuse for irresponsibility has been “social realism,” the assertion that (for example) single parenthood or spending every dime one has and going into debt is the way people live today (because they are free to live that way), and thus policy “programs” must be designed to make this work. And they have cultivated a sense of entitlement to assistance, causing the poor and others who merely feel needy to feel anger at anyone who dares to make demands on them.
Conservative Republicans have sought to attract votes by telling people that they do not have social obligations to their communities, to the less well off, to the rest of the world, and to the future, particularly with regard to taxes and debt, but also with regard to energy and the environment. To knowledgeable critics, their excuse for irresponsibility has been “economic realism,” the assertion that the affluent are self interested and mobile, and if you make demands on them for the benefit of others, or for the benefit of the future, they will take their assets and go elsewhere, leaving you worse off than before. They also cultivate a sense of entitlement, telling the affluent that their position of privilege is the result of their own moral superiority, not social advantages, and that they do not owe anything to anyone.
Democrats appeal to the hostile, irresponsible poor. Republicans appeal to the self-righteous, irresponsible rich. And both try to appeal to the irresponsible, overspending, deep in debt people in the middle. While seeking to spend lots of money, generally on those who already receive lots of government funding, Democrats only dare to propose higher taxes on the “rich.” And while Republicans are always looking to cut taxes, particularly for the better off, they have only been willing to cut spending on the poor. The compromise is to go deeper and deeper into debt, at the federal, state, and local level, while deferring costs and advancing revenues.
What has happened is, in effect, a reversal of the “Progressive” movement of a century ago. Lots of people like to wear the “progressive” label, particularly among Democrats, but have no idea what it means. In reality there were Republican and Democratic progressives, liberal and conservative progressives. All agreed the government had to do at least some things. The liberal and Democratic progressives wanted government to be more fair and efficient so it could do more; the Republican and conservative progressives also wanted fairness and efficiency so government could cost less. But both opposed special deals and favors, and both opposed structures and practices that provided producers of public services and with unearned privileges at the expense of consumers of public services. Both had ideas, though different ideas, of what was best for everyone, and so did most Republicans and Democrats for many years afterward. Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan both believed themselves to have such universal ideals. Both the Goldwater and the McGovern solutions are better than what we have now. No, ideologues are not the problem, at least not ideologues with open minds who are willing to compromise.
In the face of this, I have come to take a simplifying view of policy and politics at all levels of government. I now believe that the burdens of government, financial and otherwise, should be limited to those burdens that the government is willing to impose equally on everyone, or at least on everyone in equal circumstances. I believe that government protections and guarantees should be limited to those that the government is willing to provide equally to everyone, or at least to everyone in equal circumstances. I believe that public services should be limited to those the government is willing to provide equally to everyone, or at least to everyone in equal circumstances, and to those that people are required to pay for, or to make sacrifices in exchange for. I believe that the only circumstances that should be used to differentiate people in order to allocate burdens and benefits are those that are clear, simple, irrefutable, nearly impossible to fake, and do not rely in any way on judgment. I believe that restrictions on personal and business conduct should be limited to those that the government is willing to enforce equally against everyone, no matter how affluent and influential they are, no matter how well paid their attorney is.
Given this standard of equality, it is likely that readers who consider themselves to be “liberals” or “conservatives” will think of me as being on the other side. That is certainly the case among those who know me personally. In some cases, I believe that achieving “equal protection” would require eliminating government services, protections, and guarantees that are not available to everyone, and eliminating business regulations and criminal laws that are not uniformly enforced. In other cases, I believe that achieving “equal protection” would require expanding government services, protections, and guarantees that are not available to everyone until everyone is covered, and increasing the scope and enforcement of business regulations and criminal laws until every violation is aggressively pursued and prosecuted. I am so offended by the rising tide of unequal treatment that in some cases I am prepared to go either the “liberal” or “conservative” route to equal treatment. I may not be in favor of increasing or decreasing the size of government, therefore, but I am in favor of decreasing its scope in order to universalize its application.
More and more, our federal, state and local governments seem to act as if every problem in society is caused by, and can be remedied by, some change in public policy that either adds, eliminates, or modifies a public program or tax. This leads to a complicated series of small initiatives that drain resources away from the basic services that ensure basic needs. Each of these initiatives, grants, programs, and regulations, though irrelevant to most people, generates publicity, which elected officials can use to get re-elected. Each also generates an interest group, highly motivated to participate in the political process and highly focused on its continued existence. The more limited the scope of government, the more likely it is to have the resources to accomplish those things that it must do, not just for those who know how to work the system, but for everyone. Everyone should expect less from the government, but they should actually get what they expect, and to the same extent as everyone else.
How about those who believe that life is rat race, and who want to come out ahead by being the biggest rat? Perhaps that is tolerable, though not laudable, in personal and business relationships, since these are optional and voluntary. The government is neither, so having it become a playing field of competitive advantage seeking and victimization is simply not acceptable. Is it inevitable?