What would I want Mitt Romney to tell us

Flying back home after visiting Vancouver and feeling frustrated with Romney's campaign, I started thinking about what I would like him to tell us. So , here it is, a fake speech I wrote for Romney, which, of course, expresses my own frustrations and idiosyncrasies with the situation in the country. I realize that nothing like this can ever be said in public by a politician, and when Romney made a minor remark about 47% which was not intended for mass public and became known only as a result of act of political espionage (I wonder why no one talks about this side of the scandal. If I remember correctly, Nixon was impeached for eavesdropping on his political opponents, and secretly typing Romney's speech at a private meeting is how different?), he was crucified. Well, this only emphasizes that everything what I wrote in my make-belief speech is relevant. So here it goes, let's pretend it is Romney speaking.

My fellow Americans, legal immigrants, and undocumented workers! This year presidential elections will present a watershed in the history of our country as well as in the history of the world. This November the people of United States of America will decide what kind of the country they want to live in. The country, in which they take personal moral responsibility for their own lives, lives of their children and their parents, or the country, in which they delegate this responsibility to governmental bureaucrats. The country of the later kind has been in the making for most of the last 100 years, with several interruptions, so all the structures are in place to complete its construction. President Obama and his supporters will achieve this goal and irreversibly change the very nature of American society shall he be re-elected in November. To fundamentally change America was what he set out to do four years ago, this is what he publicly promised to the forces who brought him to power. The vision offered by the president might appear attractive to many people. After all, who does not want to live in society, in which all the hungry are fed, all the sick are being cared for, all children are given excellent free education, everyone has all they need, the air is free from pollution, the climate does not change, and humans live in peace and harmony with all other living species on the Earth. But what is the price that we are willing to pay to achieve this Utopia?

The common wisdom of pundits and political class is that these elections are about economy and jobs. It is true that our economy struggles and our people suffer from lack of jobs. But I think that our society suffers from a more serious problem and that our economic stagnation is just one of its many consequences. What ills us the most is that the moral fabric of our society is strained to its limit and started showing gaps and holes. Just look around and you see moral degradation everywhere. It can be seen in small actions of individuals and extremely consequential steps of large businesses. Our students do not feel ashamed anymore to cheat on tests, but what is even worse is that some of our teachers find it morally permissible to cheat for their students. And even worse than that, we are not treating this occurence as shameful moral failure of teaching profession, but trying instead to find excuses for them and shift the blame to somebody else. Our bankers do not feel any moral restraints in squandering money of their clients while pretending to "serve" them. And what do we do? We bail them out. Our journalists find it acceptable to fabricate stories to advance their own carriers, and are ready to bend their principles to promote political agendas they are subscribed to. Corruption among our political class reached gigantic proportions. Our young women use their children as a tool to finance their leisure life style with handouts from the government, and instead of admonishing them, we find all kind of reasons why it is somebody else's fault. Our businessmen prefer to use their connections in the government to develop their businesses instead of relying on their brains and knowledge and hard work to offer better products to their customers. Moral erosion, unfortunately, reached all levels of our society, and those who benefit from it will fight till bitter end to keep their privileges.

It did not happen overnight. The forces tearing apart our society have been at work for a rather long time. This moral degradation is one of the unintended consequences of social policies imposed on us by multiple administrations over last century. Over this time period at least a part of our society got accustomed to the paternalistic view of the role of government. We statrted more and more to rely on government for rearing and educating our children, for providing medical services for us, for our retirement planning, for funding our businesses, for assistance in unfavorable business environment. We relinquished our moral responsibilities when we delegated to government to do what used to be our own duty. We stopped taking care of our elders because we entrusted government to do it for us. Equally, we became much less involved in lives of our children because government convinced us that we should trust our children to it. We even stopped taking care of ourselves because we became convinced that it is government's responsibility as well. We stopped looking for better ways to serve our clients and innovate in our businesses because we find it easier to bribe a politician and have him squash our competition for us, or give us a favorable loan, or bail us out, when we make stupid risky decisions. We do not worry about consequences of our decisions anymore because no matter what, the government will come and rescue us. All this is, first of all, the moral failures of us as people, which resulted from our willingness to neglect our own moral responsibilities.

Do you think that these words are too harsh for someone who hopes to get your votes in November. May be. But in these desperate times those who want to lead must have courage to tell people the truth as they see it. False praises to the greatness of our country and our people will only result in further irreparable decay and destruction. O, yes, our country used to be great, and it still can return to its glory, but we must wake up from the lethargy and see what is becoming of us. I believe that there are still enough people in this country who are seeing the truth, and that there are many others whose minds are open and flexible enough to recognize that the gods they were taught to worship are false gods. I believe that if all good and honest people, even those who might have been misled by decades of brainwashing and propaganda, come together, we shall be able to overcome those who are bent on destruction of this country in order to fulfill their utopian dreams and the thirst for power. I am ready to be the leader of this movement, and this is why I am running for the President. I am positive that there are still many honest, hard working people in this country, who take pride in their own achievements, who find it immoral to get ahead in life by cheating or by taking stuff from others using the power of government, those who do build their businesses, spend sleepless nights studying, inventing, serving in the military, teaching in schools and universities, planting crops, making discoveries, sending shuttles in space, exploring. These people, no matter what the color of their skin is or what their religious believes are, or if they are legally or illegally in this country, these people are mine constituents, and it is for their sake I am running for the President.

President Obama will tell you that I promote individualism and that this is not an American way. He will tell you that we, Americans, always take care of each other. Well, I am an individualist, in the sense that I believe in the power of an individual to make decisions about his or her life without government intervention. I believe that we, as individuals, are capable in most cases come to agreement with each other without "help" from government and freely trade our skills and fruits of our labor. I agree with the president that it is an American tradition to take care of your neighbor, but I disagree with his implicit suggestion that taking care of one's neighbor must involve government bueracracy. Obama and his supporters believe that our communities are not capable of helping those of us who are in need without government involvement. By doing so they are diminishing hundreds of years of charitable work done by many Americans. By giving our communities false hopes that government can help them, they are destroying charitable initiative of our citizens. For some reasons they believe that it is more moral to depend on government for help when you are in need than to accept help from your neighbors. Nothing can be more perverted than this. Government can help only by taking money from other people by force, and how can it be moral to accept funds attained through coercion? Neighbors, on the other hand, help because they feel moral obligation to do so voluntarily. There is no shame in accepting help given with open heart and willingly. Americans are generous people, and they are ready to help those who need help, and they will be happy to do it as soon as government gets out of the way. By restoring morality of our society we will be able to move forward as free succesfull people while providing social safety net to week and ill. To achieve this will be the main objective of my presidency.

Thoughts on Hayek:Notes in the Margins of an Encylopedia.

For the past few months, Lev Deych and I have been intermittently doing battle over Friedrich Hayek.  Lev is a ardent admirer of the Austrian economist whose ideas he finds relevant and applicable to our present day economic problems, while I am, to put it mildly, a skeptic.  First I took Lev to task on historical grounds arguing that the dire predictions Hayek makes in his "Road to Serfdom" simply haven't come to fruition.  Then I presented an article by the well-known historian Timothy Snyder who sees the current right-wing embrace of Hayek (along with Ayn Rand) as evidence of an ideological indoctrination akin to Marxism.   Lev, it's fair to say, found this more than a little bit objectionable and made the point that Snyder (and me by extension) were not dealing with the real Hayek at all, only with a kind of grotesque set of misconceptions with little relation to Hayek's true beliefs.  Perhaps to remedy this shortcoming, Lev posted on Facebook a link to a new article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy that explains Hayek's ideas in a way that meets his approval.   The philosophical lingo made the article a bit tough going at times, but I think it did help me to better understand Hayek's theories.  What follows are some more or less random thoughts that occurred to me as I was reading the piece.

1)  This is a rather strange way to write an encyclopedia article.   Ordinarily I would expect an encyclopedia article to present a neutral overview of the subject's life and career along with a survey of major works and ideas.   This article in contrast is more of an interpretive essay that seeks to advanced a particular position--i.e. that Hayek's rejection of "social justice" was an integral and inevitable outcome of his core ideas.   I was also slightly taken aback by occasional off handed quips that made it quite clear the author was writing from the libertarian point of view.  I thought writers of encyclopedia articles weren't supposed to do that.  Where were the editors?

2)  Hayek, at first glance, comes across as much more moderate and reasonable than his current day disciples.  Even his libertarian interpreter feels obliged to use words like "community" and "common interest" in describing his ideas.  Moreover, it turns out that Hayek had no problem with basic welfare state functions, thought the state had a legitimate rule to play in establishing the "rules of the game" and even believed that citizens should be guaranteed a basic income.  Ouch!  That sounds like socialism!   Hayek's core theoretical teachings on spontaneous order, the limitations of economic knowledge and market price mechanisms also seem reasonable and uncontroversial.  So why all the fuss?  Most of the time Hayek seems to be charging through an open door.  There must be a reason for this...

3)  Hayek's ideas are the ideas of a bygone era.   Hayek died in 1992, the year after the fall of the Soviet Union, and if he felt some satisfaction, even vindication, in his final days at this turn of historical events, it was for good reason.  The entire edifice of his economic theory seems to be directed against Soviet style economic planning.  He spends a great deal of time, for example, talking about prices and why they must be set through the market.  He also makes a fairly compelling argument on he limitations of knowledge: since we can never know enough to predict how an economy will actually behave, it is a delusion to think that government can fully and unilaterally structure and manage all aspects of an economy.  Who would argue with these points in this day and age?  How many governments still think that they can arbitrarily fix prices and plan all aspects of economic activity?   But back in the 1930s, when Hayek came of age as an economist, these ideas were taken very seriously indeed.  Westerners were flocking to the Soviet Union on guided tours and coming back saying "I have seen the future, and it works!"  A theoretical case against the planned economy was an important contribution back then, and Hayek's points, its fair to say, were largely vindicated.  But those were very different times, and its hard to see how Hayek's arguments against economic planning are applicable in the present day.   There is after all, a world of difference between the Soviet planned economy and modern capitalism in which the state acts within the context of the market to regulate economic activity and facilitate growth.  So how can Hayek's ideas be made relevant to the present day?  Hayek's present day right wing admirers have made an attempt, and I'm not all that impressed with the results.

4)   To apply Hayek's thinking to the present day his followers need to show that his criticisms of the planned economy are applicable to any and all government intervention in the market.  This is problematic if for no other reason than the fact that Hayek himself openly endorsed a number of these interventions. (I have to admit, I'm still a little puzzled by this point.  My recollection of Road to Serfdom is that it was addressed mainly to economic planning, but the popular takeaway always seems to be presented as welfare state+government regulation=totalitarianism.  Is this really what Hayek meant?)  So how to separate legitimate government action from improper intervention?  Hayek, according to  author of the article, suggests a distinction between end-directed action, intended to create a specific outcome, and process-directed or procedural actions intended to establish the rules of the game, the framework within which spontaneous order can emerge.   It seems to me, however, that this is really a distinction without a difference.  When are actions ever not to some degree end-directed?  Even purely regulatory measures are promulgated with an end in mind--the existence of a regulatory system which is deemed to be more advantageous than other possible regulatory regimes, and will presumably be beneficial to society.  Hayek's supporters would probably respond by saying that actually they are only referring to a particular type of end-state involving redistribution of wealth--taking from the makers to give to the moochers to fulfill a vision of social justice.  But is that what social justice really means?  I have my doubts.

5)  It seems to me that in their struggle against "redistribution" modern-day Hayekians are once again battling with Bolsheviks.    Redistribution evokes the image of Leninist calls to "expropriate the expropiaters, exploit the exploiters."  I imagine the scene in Dr. Zhivago when the hero returns from the front to find his family's home filled with gruff and grimy workers.  "Yes, Comrades," Omar Sharif murmurs,  "it is only fair that you should have more and we should have less."   But is this really the way that modern day welfare state programs work?  I don't think so.   I believe, social programs are best envisioned in two ways neither of which involve outright redistribution of wealth.   The first way to think of social programs is as a sort of insurance policy.  I may not need unemployment benefits right now, since I am gainfully employed, but it is important to me to know that should I lose my job, I will receive support so that my family will not face total destitution.  One could view food stamps, welfare, disability and social security in much the same way.  I don't need these things now, but as a member of the middle class all that separates me from destitution is a few turns of bad luck.  Should this happen I'm very glad that there will be something there to cushion the fall and help me get back on my feet.  This is no more a distribution of wealth than my car insurance which takes money from me (a safe driver, I'd like to think) and gives to people who drive like maniacs and get into accidents.  But should one of those maniacs hit me, I'll be awfully glad I paid for the insurance.   "But wait!" the Hayekians say. "taxes are involuntary and therefore using tax revenues to pay for a social safety net is forced expropriation of wealth from the rich to be redistributed to the irresponsible moochers."  But is this really such a coercive set-up?  People who don't want to pay taxes to support social programs do have an option--they can emigrate.  Nothing is forcing them to stay in this country.  I hear there's some great real estate in Mogadishu going cheap.  "Oh, but you don't want to live in a country with no law and order, no infrastructure, no education, where corruption is out of control and dire poverty and misery confront you everywhere you turn?"   Then, pay up!   Paying for a social safety net is not coercive redistribution of wealth; it's the price of admission to a civilized society.

6)  Getting back to my point on social justice, David Schmidtz, the author of the piece on Hayek, drawing, I believe, on the ideas of Robert Nozick, condemns social welfare program on the grounds that they are intended to create some kind of artificial "end state" based on an abstract notion of justice.  Again, it seems to me the Hayekians are substituting Leninist visions of a communist utopia (along the lines of State and Revolution) for the actual functioning of the modern state.  Social programs, as I understand them are designed not to equalize the end result of participation in the market but rather the initial conditions.  To use the 'rules of the game' analogy that Hayek's followers seem to like, the idea is not to weigh the dice, making winners out of losers, but rather to allow as many people as possible to play in the first place.  This is why so many social programs are directed toward the needs of children and young people.  It's about equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.  Social justice does not mean taking from those with more and giving to those with less; it means insuring that the rules of the game apply evenly to everyone involved.  You would never have a baseball game in which one team comes in with state of the art bats and gloves and the other team plays with broom handles and oven mitts.  But when one sector of the population is expected to enter the economic fray of the market having grown up undernourished, undereducated, surrounded by crime and disease, it amounts to the same kind of unequal game.   Granted, it will never be possible to completely level the playing field, and even under the best of circumstances, not everyone will succeed.  But it is clearly in the best interest of society as large for as many people as possible to have the opportunity to participate in the market with a reasonable chance of success.   This is what is meant by social justice.

7)  To sum up, I see Hayek as an interesting and productive thinker whose ideas took shape in the context of the anti-communist struggles of the mid 20th century.  Applying Hayek's ideas to the present day requires certain interpretive leaps displacing Hayek's teachings from their original setting and placing them on new and much more shaky ground.  Present day Hayekians tend to envision a state pared down to almost nothing in which even the most basic public functions such as education, law and order and infrastructure are entrusted to the power of the market.   There is almost a kind of quasi-religious faith that in all cases, under all conditions, the market will find the optimal solution.   We don't really know why this is or how this works (Hayek taught that we could never really know) yet we believe that what the unfettered market produces will always be the best outcome in the best of all possible worlds.  In this regard, I do think that there is a utopian strain to Hayekian/libertarian thought that is comparable (though certain not identical) with orthodox Marxism.  Both claim to have uncovered the mechanism that governs all economic and social relations past, present and future and which, if allowed to function without interference will result in the emergence of an optimal state of existence.   The fact that this optimal state has never actually been achieved, does not deter the believers from seeking its realization in the future through a program of purposeful political action.  We've seen this before.  It did not turn out well....