Entry
Why Liberalism? (Part Three)
March 2nd, 2009
Looks like I'm averaging one post a month these days. At this rate, it will take me a whole year to finish this blog series. Oh well. Today is the continuation of my series entitled Why Liberalism? (See Part One and Part Two.) Since the tax season is upon us, I've decided to devote today's post to my feelings on taxes and why I don't mind paying higher taxes for worthwhile social programs.
I'd like to start with a passage from George Lakoff's interesting (albeit dated) book Don't Think of an Elephant (2004). Lakoff is a professor of cognitive science at UC Berkeley who is interested in mapping out the cognitive metaphors that unite conservatives and liberals. In this book, he argues that the difference between Republicans and Democrats are the metaphors they use linking the nation to the raising of a family. He postulates that conservatives operate under a strict father model:
The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world. The world is also difficult because it is competitive. There will always be winners and losers. There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong. Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right. Therefore, they have to be made good.
What is needed in this kind of world is a strong, strict father who can:
- Protect the family in the dangerous world,
- Support the family in the difficult world, and
- Teach his children right from wrong.
The rationale behind physical punishment is this: When children do something wrong, if they are physically disciplined they learn not to do it again. That means that they will develop internal discipline to keep themselves from doing wrong, so that in the future they will be obedient and act morally....
Such internal discipline has a secondary effect. It is what is required for success in the difficult, competitive world. That is, if people are disciplined and pursue their self-interest in this land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self-reliant. Thus, the strict father model links morality with prosperity. The same discipline you need to be moral is what allows you to prosper. The link is the pursuit of self-interest. Given opportunity and discipline, pursuing your self-interest should enable you to prosper.
[The strict father model] is very clear about the connection between the strict father worldview and free market capitalism. The link is the morality of self-interest, which is a version of Adam Smith's view of capitalism. Adam Smith said that if everyone pursues their own profit, then the profit of all will be maximized by the invisible hand---that is, by nature---just naturally. Go about pursuing your own profit, and you are helping everyone....
In this model there is also a definition of what it means to become a good person. A good person---a moral person---is someone who is disciplined enough to be obedient, to learn what is right, do what is right and not do what is wrong, and to pursue her self-interest to prosper and become self-reliant. A good child grows up like that. A bad child is one who does not learn discipline, does not function morally, does not do what is right, and therefore is not disciplined enough to become prosperous. She cannot take care of herself and thus becomes dependent.
When the good children are mature, they either have learned discipline and can prosper, or have failed to learn it. From this point on the strict father is not to meddle in their lives. This translates politically into no government meddling.
Consider what this means for social programs. It is immoral to give people things they have not earned, because then they will not develop discipline and will become both dependent and immoral. This theory says that social programs are immoral because they make people dependent.
While I don't totally buy into his description of the nurturing parent model he says is used by liberals, I feel that Lakoff's description of the conservative position is actually fairly spot on. It's easy to see how under this model, taxation is a form of "affliction" in the sense that it punishes the people who are wealthy and successful (the "good children" who learned "obedience" and "self-discipline" and maximized their "self-interest"). And social programs are the worst kind of permissive parenting in which the lazy and the poor (the "bad children" who failed to learn self-discipline) are rewarded for their bad life choices.
I personally disagree with many of the fundamental assumptions of the strict father model when it is applied to politics. (I reject it as an effective method of parenting too, but that's for another post.) As I've stated elsewhere, I don't really buy into the notion that righteousness translates into wealth and prosperity. Poor people don't live in destitution simply because they made bad choices.
Arnold Schwarzenegger expressed it well when he said: "I used to go around saying: 'Everybody should pull himself up by his own bootstraps---just like I did!' What I learned about this country is this: not everybody has boots." Most people are born into socioeconomic circumstances that make success and prosperity much more difficult to achieve. I was born to a white, middle-class, Mormon, American family with parents who nurtured my success and helped me get a good education and a good start on life. I was born with a huge head start. Sure, I could have messed up my life by making some really bad choices, but the odds I would succeed were heavily in my favor the day I was conceived. There are millions of other people who were not born with those same advantages. (I've articulated this argument a little bit better in a past post entitled The Truth About Economic Mobility, so I'd invite you to read that for more of my ideas on this concept.)
As an American, I don't think of myself as wealthy, but I'm actually in the top 1 percent of the world's wealthiest people. And with that wealth comes an important social obligation: noblesse oblige. I believe that when you have been fortunate enough to have wealth and prosperity, you have a greater responsibility to shoulder the financial burden of maintaining our society. Those who have more money should pay more because they can afford to do so.
Furthermore, I agree with Douglas Dunn's argument that the wealthy should pay more taxes because they benefit most from the public services supported by taxes:
I'd like to bring up one last point about the importance of social programs. Back when I was an undergrad studying to be a teacher, I had a professor named Chris Crowe who delivered a powerful lecture that has remained in my memory ever since. He said: Equality does not mean treating everyone the same. Equality means giving people what they need. The more I think about that statement, the more I've realized it's true. (And I think that's how God defines equality too, which is why the law of consecration is a celestial law and the law of tithing is merely a telestial or terrestrial one.)
Our world is so full of diversity. We were all born into different circumstances with different needs and challenges. Some people have greater needs than others. Some people need more support and care to make up for the poor circumstances which are entirely beyond their control---things that have nothing to do with their personal choices. Things like their race, their socioeconomic situation, their chemical makeup, and their impoverished family backgrounds.
I'm not naive enough to suggest that all social programs are a panacea for all of society's ills. But I feel that it is noble of these programs to try. So, as dooce said in a particularly profound post (be warned it contains strong profanity and lewd imagery), if giving up a portion of my paycheck can help a disadvantaged family get adequate health care or a good education or some sort of comfort in life, then please... take my money.
Comments
Bekah Morrill said on Mar 3rd:
I appreciate the discussion on why the wealthy should pay more taxes--I had never thought of it that way before. Makes sense to me.
Kathryn said on Mar 13th:
Yay for socialized medicine! You have definitely provoked my thoughts. :-) Thanks for the fabulous post.
Leo Ebbert said on Apr 16th:
Hi Alyssa,
As a conservative, here's my point of view:
Conservatives and liberals are not that far apart when it comes to helping the poor. Both sides recognize that capitalism often falls short in absolute terms to the poorest of our nation. Which is why sane welfare programs can be used to address the problem.
The true difference in the two ideologies lies in entitlements to the middle class. So it's either naive or disingenuous of one to argue in favor of liberalism on the basis of helping the not-so-disadvantaged middle class at the expense of the job-providing class of our nation.
The conservative argument is simple. If you want the middle class to have higher wages and better benefits, then create more jobs so that there is a higher demand for their services (i.e. lower taxes). If there is a higher demand for their services, employers will be forced to pay more and offer better benefits. Result: prosperity for the middle class and prosperity for the job providing upper class.
The liberal argument goes more like this: the job providing upper class owes their success to the "disadvantaged" they employed to succeed. Therefore, let's tax them to give the "disadvantaged" what is rightfully theirs. Result: shrinking profits means fewer jobs, lower demand for our workers, lower wages, fewer benefits. Doesn't sound much like noblesse oblige to me. Thanks for the post.
Chris said on Apr 16th:
Leo: Just quick observation to point out possible false assumption in your argument. The upper class does not "create" jobs. Jobs are created from a desire to take advantage of an existing (or potential) demand for goods or services in order to make a profit. This might seem like a minor difference, but it's important. Jobs would not exist if it weren't for a demand. That demand comes from the middle and lower classes. In this respect, upper class citizens owe a great deal to the lower classes and are dependent on their ability to purchase the goods and services from them. Taxing the lower/middle classes makes little sense, as they will then have less money to spend. The best thing we can do for job creation is to raise the standard of living for the lower classes, giving them more discresionary income to spend.
Leo said on Apr 16th:
Chris, no one bought something without it first being produced no matter how high the demand was. Your argument says the job providers can't provide jobs without someone to buy their products/services, therefore let's give the buyers more money to buy with. That argument might work in an economic vacuum, but here's why in practice I believe it falls woefully short. In a word, innovation.
What if in the year 1800 we tried your suggestion? Tax the people who were laying the foundations for the Industrial Revolution in favor of giving more money to the lower classes. Sounds great except you've just disincentivized a class of people that were about to create thousands of jobs and spur countless new industries which would in turn create thousands of more jobs. In return you get a class of people who are now able to pay more money for the same amount of goods and services (inflation). The innovators innovate less and fewer products and services are created, which means fewer jobs are created. But hey, at least the candle makers and horse carriage makers would still be in business!
Again, no one bought something without it first being produced.
Alyssa said on Apr 16th:
Good discussion, Leo and Chris.... Let's keep it up! I'm going to get in on the game by pointing out a possible criticism of my own argument for fun. (I'm SOOOO humble!)
What's funny is that a few days after I posted this, we had some friends over and were having some laughs reading through Christian Lander's humorous blog/book "Stuff White People Like." (He uses the term white to essentially mean "yuppies," by the way.) We happened to read the entry for #62 - Knowing What's Best for White People. Oh man... The best part about his humor is how it hits so close to home: "WARNING: It is essential that you make it clear that poor people do not make decisions based on free will. To suggest anything to the contrary could crush white people and their hope for the future."
Anyhow, I think I'm going to post a follow-up blog responding to some of Leo's thoughts. Perhaps something about how true laissez-faire economics often causes an increased gap between rich and poor (reducing the middle class). And maybe a discussion of one of my student's recent research papers on homeless programs. We shall see.
In the meantime, I suggest people read my post entitled The Truth About Economic Mobility for an example of my train of thought on this issue. In this, I discuss education (a social program that benefits the poor while taking taxes from the rich) and how it indirectly benefits society as a whole.
Hopefully I can get my response out sooner than a month from now!
Chris said on Apr 16th:
Leo: This assumes that money is the only motivation for innovation. As a user of Linux and other open source projects, I know that's not always the case. Some of the best products are created purely for the use of the inventor, who's friends all wanted one too (demand) so he decided to sell it. In fact, I would almost argue that true innovation cannot be motivated solely by money, or else business would be focused on rehashing what already is popular, trying to capitalize on fads and public demand, or try to create a false need for their products... oh wait. :)
So let's go with this inventor scenario. He discovers that he could make some money by selling his invention (the SuperCog®) and hires a couple of people to help him produce them on a grander scale (job creation). He only makes a few to begin with (I'll give to you that demand doesn't exist at this point, but it increases as his products get greater exposure, especially after he hired a marketing guy). Now invertor has become small business owner and now must pay more taxes (dun-dun-dun). Does this cause him to quit? I wouldn't think so, because he's still making money. SuperCogs start selling like crazy and he jumps to a higher taxes bracket which means he pays a higher tax rate on the earnings that fall within that bracket. But he's still making money and will continue to do so as long as demand for his product remains there. Granted, if his taxes are increased substantially, he may have to restructure his business model. But this restructuring is nothing compared to the loss he would take if people just stopped buying SuperCogs.
So this is my point. If we cut this guy's taxes, he will do one of two things. One: Happily pocket the extra earnings. Two: Put the money back into his business (possibly through job creation--I believe this is the option you and most conservatives think would happen). Let's say he chooses the second route and makes 1000 new jobs (yay!). He will not profit from the investment in creating these jobs unless the market for SuperCogs increases as well. If it doesn't, he'll have to cut those jobs at some point. In other words, the market is the primary player in whether jobs are created--not tax cuts.
Add Comment