The March 22 TNR has a "must read" article by Eliot Spitzer and Andrew Celli (subscription only, unfortunately) about the role of government in the free market. They present a strong argument that I hope will be used by Kerry and the Democratic Party to take the high ground in the argument about the proper relationship between government and business.
According to Spitzer and Celli,
Government should act to ensure that markets run cleanly as well as smoothly. It should prevent market failures and right them when they occur. And it should ensure that markets uphold the broad values of our culture rather than debase them. In this vision, government action is necessary for free markets to work as they are intended--in an open, competitive, and fair manner.
Spitzer and Celli support this point of view with three examples from New York State -- the conflict of interest scandals on Wall Street, air pollution in the Northeast caused by coal-burning power plants in the Midwest, and predatory home mortgage lending in lower income communities. All three cases are convincing and, better yet, none are flattering for the Bush Administration.
They wrap their case up with the following points:
By pursuing policies that are cloaked in free-market rhetoric but fail to facilitate fair markets, he (President Bush) has surrendered to corporate constituencies.
By taking up the mantle of efficient, forward-looking and market-oriented government action, Democrats can more from being a party that simply opposes Bush's tainted version of laissez-faire to one that advocates for the progress that comes with real market freedom.