The Coming New Old Deal?
Although much of the gloom and doom emanating from the Right about a Barack Obama presidency is hyperbole, audio clips like this 2001 radio interview do provide justifiable reason for pause. He seems genuinely disappointed that redistributionist policies didn’t come from the Warren Court, but is hopeful that we can “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution”. In particular, Obama suggests focusing on more “community organizing and activities on the ground” to put together coalitions which will bring about redistributionist policies.
If this were just one interview alluding to such things, it might be possible to write it off as an anomaly. But these comments fit far too nicely in a lengthy list of such comments, making it foolish to write them off as an aberration or exaggeration. It seems readily apparent that Obama does share the classic anti-capitalist, redistributionist philosophy accepted as the end goal by many on the Left.
If there’s something to be praised in Obama’s philosophy, it’s that he seems to recognize the proper place to carry through redistribution is through the legislative process, and not the Courts. On the other hand, one person often identified as a candidate for an Obama Supreme Court nomination – Cass Sunstein – does believe in a Constitution which reads all sorts of economic “rights” into the Constitution, and who sees the document outlining more positive liberties, not just negative ones.
I don’t want to portray Obama’s comments or views as ignorant; far from it. But it’s Obama’s eloquent and intelligent delivery and defense of classic Leftist economics which make him simultaneously respectable and dangerous. I praise him for elevating the conversation, but fear he is winning it in the minds of the public…at least for now. Who on the Right can counter it with equal eloquence and depth of intellect? Certainly not John McCain or Sarah Palin.
19 Responses to “The Coming New Old Deal?”
I’d put Mike Huckabee on the short list to be elevated to the top of the GOP power structure — good speaker, strong following among the social conservatives. However, economically, I don’t believe he’s too far off from Obama – Christian duty to help those less fortunate and all of that.
“On the other hand, one person often identified as a candidate for an Obama Supreme Court nomination – Cass Sunstein – does believe in a Constitution which reads all sorts of economic “rights” into the Constitution, and who sees the document outlining more positive liberties, not just negative ones.” If the article that you link to there is accurate, then this sentence of yours isn’t. From the article: “the “Second Bill of Rights” is only a metaphor because Sunstein does not advocate an actual constitutional amendment. If they aren’t enforceable and aren’t written, what they amount to is a conscious commitment to make these rights part of our conception of America, with the expectation that doing so will force the political system to make good on that commitment.” So it sounds like — in this book at least — Sunstein is advocating a political view, not view on proper Constitutional interpretation. It sounds like the history of the supreme court figures into his discussions there mostly as a way of making it sound less “unamerican” that we should have such a commitment.
And this is a bit confused: “the classic anti-capitalist, redistributionist philosophy”. One can be in favor of a particular view of distributive justice in which some amount of redistribution is necessary, without having to be in the slightest opposed to a fundamentally capitalist arrangement of the economy. That’s just a completely mainstream, moderate view, and to reject it is to reject things like Medicaid and the EITC. If you want to paint Obama as a radical, you’re going to have to do a lot better than “redistributivist”, because there’s simply nothing radical about redistributivism per se.
(An analogy would be if someone attacked McCain for his “fascist, pro-military conception of the state”. Even if the former is typically the latter, one can be the latter without being even remotely the former.)
Words do matter here.
For two years I’ve taught theology in a place where I am surrounded by “social justice” ideologues on the faculty, and I still can’t for the life of me figure out how Christianity supports redistribution of wealth by the government. The whole stumbling block seems to be that pesky insistence Christianity has that the good that we do come from our voluntary choice. If God were interested in the kind of social justice advocated by the Left, then He would have forced all of us to sell what we have and give it to the poor, rather than merely beckoned us to do so in the form of a frail Jewish guy.
From the article:
Recalling FDR’s proposal for a “second of bill of rights” protecting basic human needs, Sunstein urges Americans to recognize a new list of constitutional rights, including access to a good education and health care, and the opportunity to work at a fair wage–in essence, economic rights in addition to the largely political rights enshrined in the country’s founding documents.
I got an entirely different impression from from reading this, and from reading Sunstein’s other works, than you did. He recognizes that such views may be unenforceable in current Courts, but he appears to wish that they were – and that if he were on the Court, he would recognize them. So, he is not merely advocating a political view, but also a Constitutional one. Here’s an additional paragraph summarizing Sunstein’s views:
Second, there is nothing about American constitutional law that would preclude the recognition of these rights. True, these rights are not mentioned in the Constitution. But the Constitution also has nothing to say about gender equality, and as originally understood, it did not prohibit segregated schools. This has not prevented the Supreme Court from recognizing these rights. Despite conservative arguments for narrow constitutional interpretation, Americans do not seem ready to tolerate segregated schools or limits on the fights of women merely because they were accepted at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, it would not be necessary to actually amend the Constitution in order to give economic rights constitutional status.
Thus, after reflection and review of your comment, philosopher, it appears as though my point still stands. (I do, however, concede your second point.)
Ok, I googled around a bit — my word, how did people argue about anything before google? — and came across this article written by Sunstein himself, which surely was based on his work in authoring the book in question:
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/sunstein-economicsecurity.html
And it’s pretty clear there that he is not offering these things as a matter of actual interpretation of the Constitution. It is about, rather, “America’s principles and self-understandings”. In invoking Roosevelt, he seems to specifically _distance_ himself from a literal Constitutional interpretation here: “Roosevelt did not argue that the Constitution should be amended to include the “Second Bill of Rights.” But he did believe that social and economic rights ought to be seen as a defining part of our political culture, closely akin to the Declaration of Independence — a place to look for our deepest commitments.”
So it sure does sound more like a political and philosophical argument, not a literally constitutional one.
I would note further that, even if one does think on reflection that Sunstein is talking about something to do with the actual Constitution, hi talking about “a second Bill of Rights” should strongly suggest that he does not find the rights in question _already_ there to be “read into” the Constitution, but rather something that would require further explicit enumeration, as with the first Bill of Rights.
For two years I’ve taught theology in a place where I am surrounded by “social justice” ideologues on the faculty, and I still can’t for the life of me figure out how Christianity supports redistribution of wealth by the government.
Where’s separation of church and state when we need it
It’s a travesty that scads of people can’t tell the difference between giving and forcing others to give (which in many circles is called “taking”).
And I don’t think Paul’s relief collections for Jerusalem incurred high overhead like that of redistributionist bureaucracies.
philosopher, it seems pretty straightforward to me that Sunstein has expressed a clear interpretation of the Constitution. It’s true that Sunstein focuses most often on effectuating change through other non-Court institutions, but he does nonetheless offer a clear interpretation of the Constitution that is very different from originalism.
Here’s more: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=375622
Also, as a present for Christmas this year I’d like to know your true identity.
Now, hang on — what is the claim that we are debating? I didn’t take it that it was _merely_ that Sunstein is not an originalist. That is certainly true (though I’m not sure why you took the abstract that you linked to to be evidence of that). But the claim you made in the main post is way more radical than that, in particular, that Sunstein “does believe in a Constitution which reads all sorts of economic “rights” into the Constitution”. That is not the same as simply not being an originalist, which simply puts him in the mainstream left of American jurisprudence — it would, if true, make him a proponent of a fairly radical theory of the Constitution. (It is also a theory which the title of the abstract you just linked to — “Why Does the American Constitution Lack Social and Economic Guarantees?” — seems to indicate he simply does not endorse!)
But Sunstein’s philosophy here, though indeed not originalist, is a fairly conservative one nonetheless — indeed, he calls it _Burkean_ minimalism. See, e.g.,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880121
So it seems to me really to do something of an intellectual injustice to Sunstein to try to hang a view on him in the main post that is inconsistent with the views he explicitly defends. If his merely failing to be an originalist is sufficient for the points you want to make here, then by all means make the argument in those terms. But, really, as it stands I think that the assertion you make above just isn’t an accurate reflection of the man’s articulated views.
Also, as a present for Christmas this year I’d like to know your true identity. I take myself to have pretty good reasons to post pseudonymously, so I’m afraid it’ll be coal in your stockings this year.
People just didn’t argue about the legal philosophy of legal minds on random nights during the week before Google, they were too busy watching Night Court followed by Dear John. Maybe the world was a better place then.
Couldn’t it also be dangerous to have an economic philosophy that insits that “a rising tide lifts all boats”? The evidence is overwhelming that bottom wage earners suffered tremendously with the advent of Reaganomics.
Opposition to “redistribution” was the crowning glory of the white leaders of Rhodesia and South Africa.
Under the current “capitalist” philosophy in this country, you can make a ton of money running a company into the ground and then even be rewarded with some more on the way out the door.
The current economic philosophy dominant in the U.S. is more of a “plantation” mentality than of free enterprise.
It may take an adjustment in the distriubtion of wealth to allow people to start the small businesses that “free enterprisers” supposedly cherish.
The lyrics of the last few years have promoted greed in almost every line, not economic opportunity.
Could you cite some of that Reaganomics evidence? You’re singing to the leftist choir there.
Opposition to “redistribution” was the crowning glory of the white leaders of Rhodesia and South Africa.
You appear to be insinuating some association with tyrannies that actually had nothing to do with the lack of vast welfare networks. Apartheid in particular was in large art a system of restraint of trade.
Of course, the nation formally known as Rhodesia now fully embraces redistribution
Under the current “capitalist” philosophy in this country, you can make a ton of money running a company into the ground and then even be rewarded with some more on the way out the door.
Obviously, Joel doesn’t know what “capitalism” means. Capitalism is a system whereby the means of production and decisions over production (what to produce and what not to produce) are owned by private entities acting in a competitive market — capitalism = private commerce.
By contrast, socialism nationalizes both the means and the decisions over production, and fascism (its economic subset) nationalizes or vastly micromanages production decisions.
The problem Joel addresses is one of holding an employee accountable to doing the job he/she was hired to do. That is a universal problem found in all economic systems.
CEO performance is measured by overall corporate performance, thus stockholders, for their own financial self-interest, must come up with an accurate indicator of corporate performance. I hope they’ve figured out by now that stock price alone (**cough** Lucent **cough**) is not sufficient; other factors such as changes in cash flow and changes in debt/equity ratio should be factored in.
Someone more knowledgeable about the market for CEOs can comment on why salaries are as high as they are in the first place.
It may take an adjustment in the distriubtion of wealth to allow people to start the small businesses that “free enterprisers” supposedly cherish.
Joel doesn’t explain how this could possibly work. This 2004 Forbes article certainly seeks a different formula:
“Where should you locate new businesses and subsidiaries?…Kansas came up number one, thanks largely to its respect for property rights: It engages in less income redistribution and attracts less tort litigation than most states. The Kansas legislature is now considering innovative bills exempting custom software from sales taxes and eliminating the state franchise tax for most businesses–a serenade to entrepreneurial ears.”
Link via the (ahem) National Federation of Independent Business.
I prefer this recipe (PDF file).
Alan,
I know what capitalism is and it isn’t what we currently have.
Where’s the outrage local communities, often run by “captialism” embracing government building
Barack Obama has nowhere expressed an interest that I can find in the state owning the means of production, nor does he truly offer ideas
For some Republicans, it seems that there is nothing like a “good” war to allow them to merely give lip service to free market principles while rewarding their politial allies. McCain does not offer proof that Obama is a socialist. He just tosses around loosely worded charges – an echo of Elizabeth’s Dole’s scandalous claim that her opponent is an atheist. Is Obama socialist or just embracing the Biblical word “not to glean to the edge of the field.” Why is Joel Osteen so hugely popular? Because he tells people that there are no tensions between the Bible and capitalism whatsoever. Or that economic justice is about tossing a few crumbs of bread to the peasants.
I think regulated capitalism is best (yes, I think there should be laws against abuse of children in the workforce, laws that provide for worker safety — compare that to the attitude of the value of life that “capitalist” builders of the Hoover dam displayed. Or of those who believe a law firm should be free not hire someone as an associate or member, regardless of their qualifications, if the firm’s clients don’t wish to be represented by women or minorities.
Further, with the exception of libertarian-minded Republicans (and at heart there aren’t very many of them), whenever the biggest businesses, banks, etc. get into trouble that they perceive as substantially threatening the economy, they turn to the government.
The idea that I don’t understand anything about capitalism is just the frequent snotty charge that can be found by so many on the extreme right. It is the same sort of shallow thinking that allows small-minded people to yell “heretic” if someone has a different theological understanding when the charge is often just a mask for their own lack of compassion.
Then there are my legion of friends who proclaim themselves as believers in free enterprise but then contort themselves into all manner of shapes as they defend suspending the notion of free enterprise in order to attract sports tems, Bass Pro outlets, etc.
Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice have both stated that under a completely free market system they could not have gotten to their positions. Barack Obama might do more to save capitalism than to destroy it.
If there has ever been a truly capitalist system in the history of the world I’d appreciate knowing more about it Alan, but people are inherently hostile to actual capitalism, and have, and will, always fight to represent their own interests in an economic system.
Our desire to protect our interests will always be greater than any sort of connection of competition. Businesses will always love a free market system when they are winning, and be resistant to a free market system when they are losing, with the result being a regulated economy.
Bandying about the terms capitalist and free market and so on and so forth, as done by the GOP, is an amazingly simplified way of talking about the American economy, and I’d love to be able to say that either party promotes competition and open markets, but there’s almost no viable evidence to support that statement. It’s great for talking points though.
Barack Obama has nowhere expressed an interest that I can find in the state owning the means of production
With the exception of education – he wants to preserve that leviathan nationalized industry.
Most of what Americans tend to call “socialism” is actually welfare staism. This includes American proposals for nationalized health care, whereby government would become an health insurer and not (as in the UK) a health provider.
For some Republicans, it seems that there is nothing like a “good” war to allow them to merely give lip service to free market principles while rewarding their politial allies.
This is bong pipe tripe. Wars don’t advance economic policy. They compete with economic and other policies for attention.
No American president pushes for war as a means of rewarding political allies. Not even Bill Clinton was petty enough to do that – Kosovo was simply an irresponsible act of do-gooderism that destabilized the Serbian province we were trying to help. (Heh, a 60s antiwar hippie bombs a Russian ally – who’d have thunk?) People in this country reward political allies with stuff with a far longer shelf life than wars.
Nobody wants perpetual war. People groove on victory. The people who run wars know that.
The idea that I don’t understand anything about capitalism
That’s not what I said. I said you don’t know what capitalism is. Knowing what X philosophy is means knowing the sum of its central tenets, and not ascribing to X central tenets that X in truth does not embrace.
You mistakenly ascribed “mak[ing] a ton of money running a company into the ground and then even be rewarded with some more on the way out the door” to capitalism. That is not capitalism – that is leeching off somebody else’s assets. CEOs and private-sector unions do it to companies, bureaucrats, politicians, and public-sector unions (e.g. NEA) do it to bureaucracies.
Then there are my legion of friends who proclaim themselves as believers in free enterprise but then contort themselves into all manner of shapes as they defend suspending the notion of free enterprise in order to attract sports tems, Bass Pro outlets, etc.
Yes – eminent domain abuse, taxpayer-subsidized stadiums, artificial tax breaks that cities or states will give to certain new businesses but not existing ones. Unfortunately, not all free marketers are 100% so.
Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice have both stated that under a completely free market system they could not have gotten to their positions.
Uh, generals and foreign policy advisors don’t get their jobs through markets. There’s another term Joel has a problem with.
The unattainability of absolute market freedom doesn’t mean we can’t advance in that direction. We are 80.6% economically free. That leaves lots of room for improvement, some of which are stated in the linked report:
“Property rights have been threatened by the Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London. Congress has been active in raising the minimum wage, which has harmed labor freedom, but inactive in lowering corporate tax rates, unlike most other advanced economies. Most alarming, America’s major political parties have been unwilling to curb growing government expenditures, particularly public entitlements.”
The concept that people in fact want a system that is optimized for efficiency isn’t one that holds much actuality, it being a rather idealistic stance. The large majority of people are plenty happy with a system that is not wholly efficient, as those inefficiencies protect them from the vagaries of the market and from being outcompeted by others.
People don’t stay for long at jobs that require constant attention 100% of the work day, and they don’t really strive for a political/economic system that puts them fully at risk of losing out to competition.
I would argue that that 80% is in a range that is largely acceptable to a large number of Americans, and that moving above that range is not really a viable sell politically. Hence, my belief in the GOP not being able to use deregulation of a largely deregulated system to rebuild itself after their disastrous performance as of late.
Actually, few people are satisfied with that 80%. The Dem base wants more welfare statism, which would drive it down, and conservatives and libertarians want an economy more like Hong Kong’s (90.3% free).
The part of that room for improvement that worries me the most is this (2007 article):
“Taxpayers are now on the hook for a record $59.1 trillion in liabilities, a 2.3% increase from 2006. That amount is equal to $516,348 for every U.S. household. By comparison, U.S. households owe an average of $112,043 for mortgages, car loans, credit cards and all other debt combined.
“Unfunded promises made for Medicare, Social Security and federal retirement programs account for 85% of taxpayer liabilities. State and local government retirement plans account for much of the rest.”
If you are to evaluate a group, for this instance, the American electorate, you would want to look at the whole, and a nice simplistic way to do that is to average it out. Some might want 90, some might want 70, and we get the nice middle ground of 80. It’s a simplified model, but it seems to hold a good deal of truth to me.
And yeah, as someone with a great deal of experience with and in Hong Kong, it’s an extremely silly deal to use HK as an example of possiblities within the US, as they are different in almost every single area that could be compared regarding almost everything.
You appear to be talking about cultural willingness to embrace certain freedoms. I am talking about the freedoms themselves. Hong Kong’s overall level of market freedom would make the US (or anybody other nation) more free and more prosperous. The US does rank slightly higher in business freedom – 91.69% to HK’s 88.18% (see top ten countries chart).
(Business freedom factors in procedures, time, and cost of starting a business, closing a business, and obtaining a license, and the minimum capital required for startups.)
Yes, and HK is also differnt in that it is a city – it has no counterpart to tax-demanding entities such as our DoD or our rural roads. That affects two of the ten freedoms – fiscal freedom and government size.
It is gutless to accept that the overall culture can never be moved to accept more freedom, economic or otherwise, than it does today. Protectionism has waned in my adult lifetime, for instance. I don’t expect some massive quantum leap forward. I would like to see some incremental progress.