The problem with progressives is we are loath to engage those who disagree with us on straight-on questions of values. As a matter of fact when you hear “value voter”, you don’t think of progressives, but some no regulation starve the beast ideology that happens to summon God as further proof of correctness. So what are some of these Republican values that go unchallenged? How did we end up on the defensive after the total melt down otherwise known as the Bush years?
The basic Republican ideology claims that the best way to conduct the economic affairs of society is to give each individual freedom to engage in what they choose, and from this they conclude that regulations only stifle the entrepreneurial spirit and must be fought tooth and nail at all times.
It might come across as surprising but I have absolutely no problems with the first part of this claim. The Classic Liberalism that lies behind much of Republican ideology was truly revolutionary in its day. Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, and John Stuart Mill would all be my heroes if I were living in their times, not because what they say is perfect, but because what they say expanded immeasurably the economic opportunities for more people. Before these folks, economic activity was truly limited. The Feudal societies in much of Europe consisted of a tiny minority of noblemen, rulers and the clergy who saw themselves at the top of the Great (food) Chain that extended straight down from God. What my old heroes said at the time was “bunk”. There is nothing in heaven and earth that should limit economic opportunity for the maximum number of people.
But this is where the problem arises. Conservatives would like to claim that unregulated economies are the most efficient way of providing more to most people. In their view, the Feudalism they so rightly opposed was only one middleman away from becoming the perfect economic system. But without regulation, the beneficiaries of the new more expansive economics become just one more link in the Chain, one more rung in a ladder that has reached its maximum height and is in serious trouble of tipping over if some more rungs are added.
I believe in competition. I believe in fierce competition. As an ideology we don’t have to be result oriented, but if the rules are fair, more often than not we will find ourselves with a situation where more people have access to economic opportunity. If I am beginning to sound a little like a Conservative, its not by accident. I have a simple rule: I will accept all your lofty ideas at face value, but I will question endlessly the conclusions that you draw from those values.
So I will grant that a system where more people are free to pursue their dreams should be our sweet spot for ordering our affairs. But this is where I make a full stop. The Conservative would like to claim that SINCE a free economic system is our best choice, THEREFORE regulation is bad. And I say “bunk”. Most competitions that humans engage in have rules. It is usually called “sports”.
I have an admission to make, one that one does not usually associate with being a progressive. I love boxing. Yes it can be brutal, yes there are long term health effects to the participants, yes some of the fighters might not have chosen a boxing career if they had other viable alternatives, but as a sport, boxing is the most honest form of human competition. Here you have two guys (and some gals) whose only purpose is to pummel their opponent while trying not to get pummeled. For those of you still not convinced, have a look at Hagler-Hearns from 1985. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHqEUX2Vw6k).
So Mr. Conservative, I love competition to no end, as long as I know what the rules are and you know what the rules are. And if there is anything that one might call “the ideology of sports” is this: Every form of competition, even one as brutal as boxing has a set of rules, known to all competitors. The rules call for at least one neutral third party who is not a competitor to interpret and enforce the rules. Moreover, there is a fundamental aspect of fairness in sports that is either assumed or explicitly spelled out, namely that the competitors should be evenly matched up. That is why you have weight classes in boxing, wrestling, and weight lifting, that is why you have people in zebra shirts and whistles telling the competitors that they have broken a rule, and that is why amateurs don’t compete against the pros. A competition where one side has such an overwhelming advantage that his likelihood of winning is almost guaranteed is no longer a competition. Its a rump.
I’d like to ask a conservative who thinks that all regulation is socialism and un-American, what would you do if your kid was playing baseball, and the referee decided to expand the strike zone by a couple of feet when your kid was batting. You would be outraged, and rightly so, because you have a right to expect that the rules of the game are applied uniformly, fairly and without prejudice. But without a referee, those who can will expand that strike zone whenever it suits their self interest. So don’t tell me about watering the tree of liberty and a tossed salad of incompatible isms. Just tell me if you accept my sports analogy, and if not, what is it about economic competition that makes it so fundamentally different from sport competition that no rules are required.
The simple contradiction, my conservative friend, is this: You can not make the selfish man the paradigm of your economic theory and then expect that same selfish man to self regulate. If he could, then he would not be as selfish as we all would like him to be. And to the extent that he self regulates in furtherance of some greater selfish end, there is a word for that. Its called taxes. Theoretically there is absolutely no difference between the purported self restraint of our selfish man and taxes. They are both limits on maximization of self interest, one voluntary and one involuntary. But then we are back to square one. Why would an individual interested in maximizing self interest choose to voluntarily limit himself? He can’t and he won’t, unless there is an enforced regulation that says he can’t.
So let the games begin. But I want a referee, and I want to know what the rules are. Economic competition is analogous to sports competition where there are rules and at least one impartial referee. Indeed the cardinal sin in sports usually involves a referee or competitor who was less than impartial and fair. And if you say the two are not analogous, don’t refer back to your lofty ideals. I already said I agree with those. Tell me specifically what makes this most important of human endeavors less worthy of impartiality, rules, and fairness than watching a game over some beers.
P.S. This is my first diary. I'm not exactly sure about tags, tip jars etc. So if by some cosmic chance you read this, feel free to ad some tags.