I recently had a
pleasant discussion with a friend, whom I’ll call Tim. I mentioned to him that
I’d written a newspaper column stating that the 2008 Credit Crisis had been
caused by wretched federal government policies. The discussion immediately became
unpleasant (although we remain friends).
In my observation, liberals, like Tim, believe
that most social and economic problems should be solved by government laws and
regulations. Libertarians, like me, believe that government should be sharply
limited.
After our
conversation, I wrote Tim that, in my experience, liberals usually respond
to libertarian views in the following ways:
They interrupt often, as did you. Liberals
seem to want to prevent people with opposing views from talking.
Liberals quickly turn political discussion
into an argument. The rise in volume and intensity of your voice during our
conversation had this effect.
They mischaracterize opposing statements.
After I said that the federal government caused the 2008 Credit Crisis, you responded,
“What? You don’t want any government?”
There’s a big difference between faulty government policies and no government
at all.
They try to change the subject. Your above
response, “What? You don’t want any government?”
was not only a mischaracterization, it also moved the discussion away from the
2008 Credit Crisis. Later in our conversation, I said that liberals favor the
use of force. You interrupted to say, “So do conservatives.” This changed the
subject from the issue of force.
Liberals promise that government will solve
economic and social problems and help the poor. But they fail to notice that in
the long run, big government has neither solved the problems nor prevented the
gap between rich and poor from widening. The promises and good intentions make liberals
feel like good people. Their self-image is closely tied to their good
intentions.
Liberals are prone to blame social and economic problems on the character,
bad intentions, and greed of business people. I haven’t heard them give other
reasons in support of their views. I doubt they have other reasons.
American liberalism hasn’t reached an
extreme yet, but it may still do so. In the long run, solving social and
economic problems by laws and regulations makes the problems worse. Liberals are
then inclined to pile on more government, causing yet more problems. The downhill
slide could eventually result in conditions like those of Venezuela.
I challenge you, Tim, to explain why the
following statements of mine may be wrong:
--When government is big, the rich gain
wealth faster than the poor, because the rich induce government to help them.
--When government is small, the poor gain
wealth faster than the rich, because the poor are willing to work harder.
--The actual, long-term results of
big-government policies are opposite to the intended results.
How should our conversation have
proceeded? After I said that the federal government caused the 2008 credit
crisis, you might have responded, “Why do you say that?” Then, it would have
been appropriate to just listen. If I proved to be uninformed, you could gently
move the conversation away from politics. But if I proved to be informed, wouldn’t
it be appropriate to listen and possibly learn?
Let’s turn the table: I would genuinely
like to learn why you believe that big government in the long run causes more
good than harm. If you think my statements above are wrong, I’d love to know why.
After you’ve gathered your thoughts, let’s get together again. Or you could send
your views in writing. If you can justify liberalism to me, I would be very grateful.
Published
in the Concord Monitor 5/27/17.
