I mentioned last week reading an article in National Affairs by Jim Manzi called Keeping America’s Edge. Most of us seem to walk through a great many years of life so close to the forest that we simply can’t recognize it because of all the trees blurring our way. At least I do.
Manzi is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His writing style tells me he is extremely intelligent--and that gives him credibility with me.
I find myself fascinated by people who can see the big picture and reference it by pointing to the individual trees. I felt sort of yanked back to where the forest was actually more than a misty outline.
The Left, the Liberals, are concerned with America’s Social Cohesion. (Oversimplification: government can best respond to our moral obligation to care and provide for humanity.) On the extreme, that’s all they are concerned with, except for the need to destroy innovation.
The Right, the far Right, is concerned with innovation, entrepreneurship and those qualities that allow us to move forward, to be interested and excited. (Oversimplification: a non regulated free market system can best provide for humanity’s empty tummies, provide us all with the good life and our Country with world leadership.) On the extreme, they advocate the immediate removal of all market regulation and most restrictions on behavior; if problems arise, the free market will “self correct.” That’s all they’re concerned with, except for the need to destroy the “cohesives.”
But such deregulation would disrupt and undermine Cohesion which is essential to a just and decent society and which actually produces the kind of citizens that the free market system requires. And, of course, total big brother government would destroy innovation and spirit.
Cohesion absolutely must have innovation in order to survive; innovation absolutely must have cohesion in order to survive. If you think about that, it’s obvious. Yet, the two are in deadly competition against each other. Sounds to me like a mutual suicide pact. They in fact are intent on killing each other out of existence.
The policy makers, the politicians, the movers and shakers in this Country, some of them, seem to know this and realize that the solution is balance. But finding a way or ways to balance these competing forces is extremely difficult and won’t happen overnight. Current policy people seem unable to move (or maybe unwilling?).
Manzi is not only skilled in articulating the problem and revealing it to the likes of me, he is also keenly adept at pointing out particular trees we should be husbanding and, pretty much, how to do it.
Anyone else out there who’s read this? Chime in with your comments.
This from John H.:
ReplyDeleteSteve,
I read that article in National Affairs. I drew points from it.
I agree that we need to strike a balance between allowing enough freedom for market place innovation and providing a social safety net. My criticism is that I'm not convinced that regulation stifles innovation. I get that it curbs risk-taking but, once again, I'm not convinced this is always a bad thing; imagine how the last economic crisis might have been different if the regulations put in place after the Great Depression hadn't been steadily eroded over the last 25 years. Further, what I typically see are the good results of regulation (e.g., insurance mandates, seat belts, food inspections, child labor laws). My heavily biased opinion is that the people who complain the loudest about regulation are those people greedily exploiting someone or something and are trying to extend the amount of time they can do so before a bunch of new rules cuts their bottom line from making a killing to making a living.
I also agree that there is a growing discrepancy in our society between the haves and the have-nots and that this likely an unsustainable situation. My criticism is that the author did not spell out any solutions; he's hardly the first to point this problem out.
Best,
John