My problem with conservatism, even principled conservatism
Even though I frequently disagree with Andrew Sullivan's positions on issues, I enjoy reading him a lot. He identifies himself as a conservative, but he disdains much of what is popularly identified with conservatism today (neocons, what he calls "Christianists"). Rather, he touts what he calls a "conservatism of doubt," which I take to be in the Burke/Hayek tradition. "Conservatism of doubt" aims to respect the organic way that societies have evolved to operate, and is therefore suspicious of non-organic means -- particularly by the government -- to reform societies. Government projects to take on tasks can upset a working order of things and have bad unintended consequences, so goes the argument.
That's certainly a lot more appealing to me than most incarnations of conservatism that have come to characterize, say, the 21st-century Republican party, and a worthy factor to take into account when considering desirable policy. The big problem with it, though, is that it's hopeless at addressing when an organically-grown traditional society perpetuates injustice. Or unintentioned but severe material deprivation (the normal state of almost the entire world population up to about 1800).
I bring this up now because there was a post on today's Andrew Sullivan blog that nicely encapsulates this flaw of "conservatism of doubt." Sully's been a big Obama supporter, and a conservative reader calls him out on the fact that Obama wants to tax capital gains at the same rate as wage income, in part because Obama deems it to be unfair that a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower marginal tax rate than a secretary (although it bears noting that Obama's actual proposal appears to fall short of correcting this altogether). Both Sullivan and his commenter see Obama's concern for fairness as a negative thing, too characteristic of what I guess they see as the social-engineering reflex that inheres in liberals, so abhorrent to conservatism.
Thus is the poverty of the conservatism of doubt. Failing to see that the fabric of the economy they deem to be organic in some way is actually the product of state-chartered corporations and federal securities regulation, failing to realize that by invoking a policy argument against Obama that they're actually buying into the utilitarian aspect of liberalism they would otherwise claim to disdain, they reveal that skepticism about unintended consequences of various enterprises is a worthy thing, but as a guiding principle for policy analysis it neglects other important values at the same time that it's forced to integrate past innovations that prior incarnations of it would have opposed.
That's certainly a lot more appealing to me than most incarnations of conservatism that have come to characterize, say, the 21st-century Republican party, and a worthy factor to take into account when considering desirable policy. The big problem with it, though, is that it's hopeless at addressing when an organically-grown traditional society perpetuates injustice. Or unintentioned but severe material deprivation (the normal state of almost the entire world population up to about 1800).
I bring this up now because there was a post on today's Andrew Sullivan blog that nicely encapsulates this flaw of "conservatism of doubt." Sully's been a big Obama supporter, and a conservative reader calls him out on the fact that Obama wants to tax capital gains at the same rate as wage income, in part because Obama deems it to be unfair that a billionaire hedge fund manager pays a lower marginal tax rate than a secretary (although it bears noting that Obama's actual proposal appears to fall short of correcting this altogether). Both Sullivan and his commenter see Obama's concern for fairness as a negative thing, too characteristic of what I guess they see as the social-engineering reflex that inheres in liberals, so abhorrent to conservatism.
Thus is the poverty of the conservatism of doubt. Failing to see that the fabric of the economy they deem to be organic in some way is actually the product of state-chartered corporations and federal securities regulation, failing to realize that by invoking a policy argument against Obama that they're actually buying into the utilitarian aspect of liberalism they would otherwise claim to disdain, they reveal that skepticism about unintended consequences of various enterprises is a worthy thing, but as a guiding principle for policy analysis it neglects other important values at the same time that it's forced to integrate past innovations that prior incarnations of it would have opposed.
Labels: conservatives
posted by honestpartisan | 10:27 PM
2 Comments:
Sullivan's commenter complains about using fairness regardless of economic effects, as the major metric for judging capital gains. That doesn't speak to whether fairness overall is a good or a bad thing, but that analyzing it in isolation is foolish, and even more particularly using a disliked group as a scapegoat is bad policy when a much bigger question is being raised.
I happen to think that hedgefund managers should indeed pay similar taxes on the money they receive as anyone else does. If all, or even a majority, of a change to the capital gains would just effect hedge fund managers I probably wouldn't have anything against it. However that is simply not the case. Hedge Fund managers, rich as they may be, are only a tiny portion of the capital gains tax, and attacking the problem of inequality of taxation on hedge fund managers with this method is crazy.
Capital is of course is different then labor in terms of its current and future effects on the economy. Because of these different effects, it seems to me likely that an optimal capital gains tax rate would not be the same as an optimal income tax rate.
Hedge Fund managers, rich as they may be, are only a tiny portion of the capital gains tax, and attacking the problem of inequality of taxation on hedge fund managers with this method is crazy.
One of the big problems with a preferential rate for capital gains income is that rich people can manipulate their earnings to be characterized in ways that get more favorable tax treatment. Hedge fund managers personify this problem, as they can, probably more readily than other earners, choose to characterize their income as capital gains or wages.
Capital is of course is different then labor in terms of its current and future effects on the economy. Because of these different effects, it seems to me likely that an optimal capital gains tax rate would not be the same as an optimal income tax rate.
The rate should be different because they are different. Kind of a circular argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home