Conservative columnist David Brooks in an essay
published by The New York Times, upbraids the 'left' for
embracing elitism. No, it's not the elitism of the meritocrats,
nor the voice of privilege. Instead, our intrepid conservative rails
about the winds of change that demand—you guessed
it—centralization.
He begins the piece, innocently enough, declaring that
capitalism, in the last decade, has produced 20 million jobs, along
with the “greatest reduction in human poverty in history”. (1)
It's a tall claim.
For the sake of argument lets grant the last point.
'Poverty' has been reduced, if you take into account the world
population. But one cannot give credit entirely or, I would argue,
mostly to capitalist genius or generosity. Poverty is a complex
reality and, even brother Brooks must admit, it has been alleviated
by many social programs, from housing, food and energy subsidies, to
educational grants and unemployment benefits. One simply cannot
look at the gross domestic product and declare any growth to be the
result of that wonderful capitalist cornucopia. Take the 20 million
jobs. Twenty million divided by ten averages 2 million jobs a year
which is what, more or less, this economy, or any economy of this
size would be expected to produce given the population increase.
And, one must remember, the base year—ten years ago—puts you at
the trough of the last business cycle when unemployment was the
highest since the Great Depression. The economy, once stabilized,
had nowhere to go but up. One must, therefore, put these claims in
some perspective.
Brooks is a learned man having a difficult time, as any
conservative, learning from experience. He complains that the Green
New Deal proposed by progressives is—horror of horrors—a
top-down enterprise reminding Brooks less of FDR's original New
Deal and more like the wartime economy of the Second World War.
Let's grant, for the moment, Brooks his observations. Again, history
is powerless to instruct, for it was the Second World War that got us
out of the depression.
Personally, I think brother Brooks is overreacting.
Nevertheless, he posits proposals that his conservative colleagues
are ginning up in their several stink tanks as remedies to what he
readily admits is a serious maldistribution of the wealth created by
the growth of the last decade. Pell Grants and the Negative Income
Tax once again make their appearances, “humble” is the word he
chooses to describe them. Humility, in the face of Armageddon, will
lead to defeat.
Brooks has been writing for several years now calling
for “bottom-up” approaches to the nation's, indeed the world's,
problems. But it is strange how, when these strategies become
conservative litany, they never end with the recognition of labor
unions, or the empowerment of workers.
He rails against central control. States, rather than
the Federal government are, to the conservative, the proper petrie
dish in which to experiment. But this overlooks the power of
national economies, not to mention that international corporations
dwarf many nation-states.
It also overlooks another salient fact: the fossil fuel
industries have mineral and mining rights to five times the carbon
that, if burned, will destroy life on this planet. Governments must
be strong enough to see to it that these resources are not extracted
and not burned. It isn't simply that government must subsidize
alternative fuels; but that existing industries must be forced to
adapt or be closed down.
For this, we must turn to the Civil War as the national
historical lesson most appropriate to the time. The antebellum South
was, before the Civil War, the richest region on earth. The
plantation economy held more value in slaves than the North had in
railroads, industry and banking combined. To end division and
preserve the union it was necessary to expropriate the
property of the southern slaveholder. And, because it was a national
crisis, it was necessary that the national government rise to the
occasion. To do that, the Lincoln administration not only introduced
conscription into the armed forces and create a national army
for the first time in our history, but a national currency as well as
a national income tax was introduced for the first time. Indeed, the
central government took the very definition of citizenship away from
the states.
Brother Brooks rails against central planning, but where
else can we turn? Does he really
believe that the states,
counties or townships are going to be able to deal with these crises?
It should be obvious that no practicle solutions lie at those
levels. It took the federal government to intervene and give
protection to workers in order that they could organize the shop
floor and bargain with some semblance of power with their capitalist
overlord. And, perhaps, this is the model we should seek.
Centralized, federal authority delegating where it can, but taking
upon itself where it must, in order to stop the devastation of a
rapacious capitalist order that not only exploits our fellow man, but
pisses off mother nature in the bargain. Therein lies not only
economic justice but
the salvation of the planet.
To the degree our
fellow conservatives fail to see this, is the degree to which
experience is powerless to instruct. Meanwhile, our Caesar Disgustus
runs us into a wall.
“An
Br'er Putin, he jus' laugh and laugh”
Impeach and Imprison.
___________________
- Brooks, David. “How the Left Embraced Elitism” The New York Times. Tuesday, February 12, 2019. Page A23.
No comments:
Post a Comment