Neither did private equity
In a pluralistic society such as our own, government represents our least common denominator: it is the only institution that looks out for the common good; the only place where nobody gets left behind based on color, creed, gender, birthplace, income, sexual orientation, and so on. Each of us who chooses to be part of this nation must honor our mutual responsibilities to the other members. Government is how we determine and administer those responsibilities — the conditions for joining the American club — as well as the benefits that membership bestows upon us. Government does not create our society’s material or cultural wealth, but it provides the foundation for society’s productive capacity to be utilized. And government makes sure that everyone has the ability to both enjoy and contribute to that collective wealth.
Or, at least, that’s how liberals like myself see it. I hear that positive vision of government and its underlying social responsibilities when President Obama makes statements such as this:
There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me—because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t—look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.
So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President—because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.
Conservatives, of course, see it differently. Government is evil; a necessary evil, in some cases, but evil nonetheless. Instead of a symbiotic relationship with society’s wealth, government expropriates individual initiative and creative capacity. The dependent are rewarded at the expense of the independent.
Neither perspective is entirely representative, nor is either entirely accurate. Liberals recognize the failings of government while (non-Tea Party) conservatives accept its essentiality. But even on areas of political agreement, the two visions seem to be mutually incompatible. Obama’s above remarks serve as somewhat of a political Rorschach test, sorting us into our separate ideological camps — even here on this blog.
The president’s statement is a perfect partisan razor because his underlying point, stated another way, would draw near-universal endorsement: “Successful entrepreneurs and business owners benefit from public support in education, infrastructure, and research.” Until the Tea Party, those had been the areas of federal spending that received the most bipartisan support. Mitt Romney even made the president’s very same point yesterday. Yet the remarks have a special ability to draw visceral reactions on both the left and right.
Liberals have been energized by Obama’s spirited defense of government, which many feel has been under siege since Reagan without a strong Democratic rebuttal. Obama’s wording was notable because it mirrored, almost verbatim, this statement from Elizabeth Warren that went viral last September. At the time, Warren’s comments drew an unflattering contrast with Obama, whom liberals accused of appeasing the Tea Party during the debt ceiling negotiations. Warren instantly became a liberal icon and has raised prodigious sums for her Senate race. Obama’s adoption of the same message has been an important part of his rapprochement with the most ardent 2008 supporters.
Conservatives, on the other hand, have met Obama’s statement with contempt. Rush Limbaugh, characteristically, said the statement proved Obama’s hatred for America, and the RNC has already packaged his words into attack ads and snarky photoillustrations (see top photo.) But even equanimous conservatives reacted viscerally. Tyler’s link to Will Wilkinson yesterday revealed that they both bristled at the president’s rhetoric, even though each generally supports Obama’s position on the policy he was advocating, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the top 2%.
Since the substance of Obama’s argument is not disputed, the polarization must come from how we perceive the president’s tone and emphasis. Conservatives hear him degrading individual initiative and success. Wilkinson, a technocratic center-right blogger for The Economist, took umbrage with Obama’s phrase, “give something back,” assuming, by implication, that Obama did not respect the progressive tax rates that the wealthy already pay. The rest of the GOP has targeted the poorly-constructed sentence, “If you have a business, you didn’t build that,” even though the sentence prior clearly identifies “roads and bridges” as the antecedent of “that” — not “business,” as Romney and others have insinuated.* Nevertheless, many on the right read into his words a genuine hostility to wealth, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise.
From my perspective on the left, the president’s statement was neither anti-rich nor anti-business; in fact, he was talking about strengthening the market system by increasing access and fairness. I, like him, have been frustrated with the perception among many that the Invisible Hand allocates wealth and status only according to hard work and talent. Those factors are important, but luck and privilege play as large — or perhaps a larger — role, and I write this as someone who has been endowed with more than my fair share of both. Your starting position in life, namely how wealthy your parents are, is the single strongest predictor of future earnings, and it is nearly impossible to climb from the lowest income quintile to the top quintile in a lifetime. The president is not demeaning individual initiative — he says so explicitly in this statement and many others — but rather ensuring that it is rewarded fairly through the collective provision of opportunity and prosperity to all who work for it. We should honor and encourage success, he says, but also accept that individual wealth is self-evident proof of society’s providence, not merely through the supply of essential goods and services, but for the creation of “this unbelievable American system… that allowed you to thrive.” The most successful among us are, by definition, those that have benefitted most from that system. They, therefore, have the greatest responsibility to those who have worked hard but have not received the same rewards, as well as for the largest share of the down payment on the success of future generations, just as the bequests of previous generations planted the seeds for their own prosperity.
But that’s just my take. I’m guessing half of you see it differently.
*More evidence that spending on education — particularly grammar — is important.
Jake
Tyler
The argument between conservatives and liberals is not one between roads and bridges and chaotic anarchy. It’s not an argument between good, wonderful government and no government. This is a blatant dishonesty that liberals have been foisting upon everybody for far too long. Conservatives have long supported roads, bridges, schools, parks, a social safety net, the rule of law (which allows capitalism to exist and thrive), and countless other legitimate functions of governments at varying levels. I’m sick and tired of leftists declaring themselves the only supporters of these things.
You even admit that there is broad, bipartisan support for government’s role in funding infrastructure, research, and education. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with the substance of Obama’s speech. This speech had no substance at all. To the extent the President extols the virtues of roads and bridges, he does so by falsely conflating those things with massively expanding government in decidedly non-infrastructure ways (see: the ACA). To the extent the president extols research, he does so by falsely conflating private investment in technology to his own venture socialism (see: Solyndra). To the extent that he extols funding education, he does so by falsely conflating the good of our education with that of public school teachers’ unions.
We’re not having an argument on whether or not to build, repair, and maintain infrastructure. We’re not having an argument about whether government should fund universities where research is conducted. We’re not having an argument about whether the government should support public education. The vast, vast majority of this country agrees on those things.
What we don’t agree on are these things:
Conservatives believe that the government is here to enforce the fundamental laws that promote and maximize private ordering. Liberals believe a government of experts should order things. Conservatives believe that the public interest is best served by a combination of voluntary associations among people like churches, local communities, etc. Liberals believe that the government is the only one who looks out for the public good. Conservatives believe that the individual should be exalted and praised for his achievements and successes. Liberals believe that the individual, and thereby her success, is nothing but a product of the state’s benevolence or others’ sacrifices.
Those are the real arguments and those that Barack Obama refuses to have.
P.S. – Even if I agree that how much money one’s parents have is the determining factor in one’s life success, I can’t imagine that the answer is to simply redistribute that which the rich parents have earned. I know that you (and Tyler) will respond that its fundamental to democracy (American as apple pie, I know) not to have some sort of intergenerational moneyed aristocracy, but what good is having democracy if 51% of people can vote themselves the money of the other 49%? Might as well just have a dictator . . . oh wait . . .
If, from time to time, our blog gets a little stale, it’s good to know that we have our old pal Rush around to cut through the torpidity.
Rush, if I read this most recent jeremiad correctly (and forgive me if I didn’t — I zoned out around the fifth mention of liberals’ substanceless-ness,) you underscore the very point I was trying to make in the post.
Obama’s statement, if taken at face value, is innocuous. You admit as much when you say there is broad consensus that government should fund infrastructure, education, and research. However, it obviously set off a visceral reaction that, I argue, was dictated by his emphasis. As I noted in the post, you read his statement as a diminishment of the individual. Despite the fact that Obama says, “we succeed because of our individual initiative,” you hear, ” the individual, and thereby her success, is nothing but a product of the state’s benevolence or others’ sacrifices.”
And that’s fine. You’re not alone. Even Tyler, whose conservatism you often draw into question, had a similar reaction. But I heard a much different emphasis, one that was shaped by my own philosophical and psychological associations. I tried to spell it out in the post.
So what’s happening is that we’re looking at the exact same ink blot — a set of policies that have broad consensus — but the viewer’s prior associations create one of two diametrically opposite interpretations. It seems that you have added more support more my hypothesis.
A few concluding points:
1) You are upset that liberals mischaracterize conservative beliefs, often taking reasonable views rooted in common values to illogical (and extreme) conclusions, e.g. “chaotic anarchy.” I agree. That’s unfair. But do you not see that you did the very same thing just a few lines later in your “liberals believe this…” paragraph? Liberals think that government has a valuable role to play in supporting and regulating the private sector, but that does not mean that we are statists, socialists, leftists, Marxists, or any of your other favorite epithets.
2) We are arguing over funding for infrastructure, universities, research, public education, etc. They were all slashed in the Ryan budget and by numerous Republican state legislatures.
3) Please don’t make insinuations on this blog that Obama is a dictator, even sarcastic ones, unless you’re willing to back them up with evidence. We welcome your views — which, believe it or not, I often look forward to reading — but only the ones that are made in good faith.
In context, President Obama’s words are anything but innocuous. The words themselves are innocuous, but from the mouth of a man who is committed to expanding government well beyond its current bounds (not to mention its Constitutional moorings), they are hollow. When he says “we get there by individual initiative, but . . .” he’s either moonlighting as Captain Obvious or suggesting that individual initiative is given too much credit. There’s no point in saying this unless there’s a different meaning that just the idea that no man is an island. Everybody gets that and agrees with it.
The visceral reaction comes from the recognition that Obama’s words bear little relation to the policies he’s espoused and the ideology he represents, not from the philosophical differences between conservatives and liberals. I know you want me to take his words at face value, but how can anyone do that?
“Liberals think that government has a valuable role to play in supporting and regulating the private sector, but that does not mean that we are statists, socialists, leftists, Marxists, or any of your other favorite epithets.”
I believe that I made perfectly clear that conservatives believe in a valuable and important role for government in supporting and regulating the private sector. The support and regulation are the same; i.e., enforcing fundamental principles of law that support private ordering. I *know* I just said that. Again, we’re not arguing about whether government has a role in regulating anything. We’re arguing about what type and how much regulation. And I didn’t make any indication that anyone was a Marxist, Socialist, Leftist or statist. Nonetheless, I don’t think I’m being terribly hyperbolic when I suggest that liberals envision a government that governs society by technical expertise, rather than one that upholds principles of law and allows private ordering to govern society. Have I been unfair to liberal viewpoints in my life? Damn skippy, but I daresay I turned it way down for this one.
As to the Republicans’ slashing, I wish it were true. Even if they were, it’s not a disagreement about whether government should or should not pay for roads and bridges. It’s an argument about how much can and needs to be spent on these things. My point is that liberals often wail that conservatives are anti-infrastructure because we happen to be a little more thrifty about it.
Finally, I’ll start by saying I thought George W. Bush operated in a pretty imperialistic manner with his protracted military engagements and questionable “interpretation” of his AUMF. Nonetheless, his actions in these areas pale in comparison to the extra-constitutional actions that Obama has taken. Unilaterally granting amnesty to certain illegal aliens? Deciding not to enforce the DOMA? Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform? Even if these were good policy choices (and I certainly think DOMA is bad law), rewriting the law with his own pen reeks enough to make a joke.
And I forgot to say this the first time, but Orville and Wilbur built their airplane with private investments in their company. Even though that’s not Private Equity, it was pretty much private equity . . . just sayin’ . . .
We’re saying the exact same thing. You agree that Obama’s words are innocuous. Given a different speaker (Mitt Romney, say, when he made an almost identical statement) and a different tone, your reaction would have been much different. That’s my point about how this comment is particularly incisive for revealing our previously-formed associations about the president and government in general. I found that interesting enough to write a post about. I’m not arguing against your interpretation of the quote.
And it may just be the nature of this forum, but I’ve noticed your tendency to define your own positions in contrast with those of liberals. You seem to think I was trying to do the same when I wrote, “Liberals think that government has a valuable role to play in supporting and regulating the private sector.” That statement didn’t imply that conservatives believe the converse, that the government has no role in the private sector. As you said, it usually comes down to a matter of degree. You’re absolutely right that Congressional Republicans want to cut many of those areas of funding Obama mentioned, but they don’t want to eliminate them. The reason I made a less-than-nuanced statement is that their purpose, in my mind, is to reduce the size of government rather than to increase thrift. That’s why the proposed cuts have been somewhat indiscriminate and the spending levels arbitrary. However, that’s a different argument, one that’s rooted in close observation of the 112th Congress, and not a blanket condemnation of all conservatives.
I’ll also agree that Obama has expanded the power of the executive, but through the complicity of Congress and the judiciary. They have the constitutional powers to rein in his actions but have decided not (or failed) to do so. I have a broader theory about this that I may flesh out in a future post. But “constitutional” is a subjective term. I won’t agree that it’s unconstitutional until the Supreme Court declares it so. So far, they have not. I will simply point out that some of your facts are wrong. Obama did not grant amnesty to “illegals,” who are not, by law, criminals. Matters of undocumented immigration follow administrative, not legal, procedures. The only penalty is deportation. Given the huge backlog of immigration cases, Obama, as head of the administration, made a decision of how to prioritize the deportations. Yes, he did so based on a political position, but but those sorts of executive decisions are made every day, and he can continue to carry it out until Congress and/or the courts tell him he can’t.
Also incorrect: the enforcement of DOMA. He decided not to defend it in court, which is much different than not enforcing it. There is still no federal recognition of gay marriages. Finally, welfare reform: he granted waivers to states to give them more flexibility in administering their own welfare programs, a move that was requested by a number of Republican governors and should, if anything, infuriate the liberals who think we should be governed only through centralized, technical expertise.
Finally, private investment for the Wrights would have been considered venture capital, not private equity. They were not bought out in a hostile takeover, replaced by technical managers, and resold at huge profits for the PE execs.
1. House Republicans do want to cut the size of government. That’s the logical answer when government has gotten too big. I seriously doubt that the whole government could not do without 10% across the board. Nonetheless, I see your point. You are fine with more efficient government, but find indiscriminate cutting to be senseless.
2. The complicity of Congress and the Court, indeed. Well, in the first place, the Court can’t unilaterally limit the president’s actions because of that pesky “cases or controversies” stuff. And what’s Congress going to do? Pass a law that says “we hereby restate exactly what we said before, just in case the President bothers to listen this time.” ?
3. Illegal immigration is illegal immigration. Saying it’s purely administrative is like saying the C.F.R. is just administrative and therefore someone who digs up his yard without the E.P.A.’s permission is not a violator of the law, but an administrative offender. Trust me, administrative law is still law, not just administration. And do you honestly believe that he did it just to ease the workload on those poor immigration officials?
4. Refusing to defend the law in court and not enforcing the law is a distinction with very little difference. The only place that one truly enforces the law is in court. Did he unilaterally repeal it? No. But what he did is enough to crack the dictator joke.
5. What he did with welfare form was waive a provision that the statute specifically does not permit waiver. In other words, even if every Republican governor in the world thought it was the best idea ever, the law doesn’t allow waiver. And do you honestly believe that he only did that to decentralize power? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, it’s only because of the way I perceive things and psychology and so forth.
6. That’s why I said it wasn’t “Private Equity” but private equity. Venture capital is private equity in the sense that VC’s invest private capital in companies in return for equity stakes (or convertible debt, etc.). And also if a company can be bought, souped up, and sold a profit, isn’t that prima facie evidence that PE’s add value to the economy? Eh?
I’m sure we could each go 15 more rounds and not feel like the other has laid a glove on us. I’ll suffice it to say that a major part of your problem seems to be with the system itself. The executive branch has wide leeway to make, well, executive decisions, including those involving both administrative and legal procedures. Checks and balances still exist. The problem is that Congress is so log-jammed that it is unable to exercise its checks. Partly by fiat, and partly by necessity, the executive has taken on more policymaking duties because Congress has forfeited its status as a coequal branch.
Just a postscript: 1) If Obama is a dictator, then he’s been an exceptionally bad one. Dictators don’t normally let legislative minorities bottle up most of their agendas. 2) I didn’t make the argument that PE doesn’t add value to the economy. I don’t have a problem with the industry, only with some of its practices (and practitioners.)
Yes, that is the nature of highly polarized politics. We’re more or less on different planets in terms of where our analyses begin and end. The statesman in me hates to see our country so bitterly and harshly divided, but there doesn’t seem to be a place for the twain to meet.