In a recent article headed Obama - is America ready for this dangerous left-winger? Gerard Baker, the United States editor of The Times, makes a powerful and coherent case against Barack Obama as a future president of the United States.
Baker sums up his attack by suggesting that Obama is one of those left-wingers who believe that America should be governed more like France, with an administration combining high taxes, much greater restriction of the free market, and "vehemently protectionist" economic policies.
I am an admirer of Baker, and read his articles, particularly on American subjects, avidly. The following is not intended as a refutation but as an alternative interpretation of the Obama phenomenon.
Though I do not accept Baker’s somewhat morose conclusions, at the same time I do not believe Obama would be moderate or “centrist” in the usual sense. Rather, I believe that his particular form of radicalism simply does not conform to the older nostrums of the left so accurately described by Baker. Nor do I believe that Obama’s radicalism is original (it has precedents in — amongst others — Reagan and Clinton, and runs parallel to certain policy features of Blair, Cameron and Clegg in this country).
The heart of this radicalism is that it accepts that the free market is the great creator of wealth, and to a considerable extent the best distributor of wealth. There are numerous examples of Obama advocating the free market in his book The Audacity of Hope, ground which I have already covered in my earlier posting Can Obama Think? The broader aim of this new radicalism is not to create a high-tax, restrictive, state-oriented economy like France, but rather to adapt or “rig” those powerful market forces to achieve left-wing or liberal outcomes.
The original models, explicit or implicit, for this new radicalism are the classical liberals such as Gladstone, Cobden and Bright. Gladstone, the towering intellect of 19th century politics, combined left wing views (a genuine concern for the less well off, anti-imperialism, Irish home rule) with an appreciation of the virtues of the free market which would make Ronald Reagan seem like a communist. This connection between liberal social ideals and a free market economy was not an historical anomaly, but one which is based in the clearest logic. The fact is that the free market, far from being conservative in nature, is radical and dynamic, and in practice suits those who seek radical change far better than those who seek to preserve the status quo.
How did the free market become associated with the right, with a conservative agenda? A rupture between radicalism and the free market occurred at the turn of the twentieth century with the rise of the Labour Party, which combined left wing radical or social ideas with a strongly statist, centralist economic policy. This contradiction between social and economic policy has haunted British politics for the last hundred years.
In the US, the liberal left took a similarly strongly interventionist turn in economic policy with Franklin D Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Since those times, in a kind of inverse reflection of this rupture between social and economic policy on the left, the centre right has combined a conservative social stance with a somewhat lukewarm and patchy advocacy of the free market. Many classical liberals, unable to countenance the authoritarian aspect of the Labour party in Britain, or a centrist, interventionist Democratic party in the United States, strayed to the right. Despite the influx of proponents of laissez faire into the centre-right parties, significant sections of the right have always been suspicious of the revolutionary aspects of the market. This suspicion of the free market is entirely logical for a genuine and committed conservative, and this in turn leads me to my next point.
I suggest that Gerard Barker, and other distinguished centre right commentators, should become used to the fact of a major realignment of politics which has been taking place slowly and inexorably over the last two decades in particular. Baker thinks that a left wing politician must automatically be opposed to the free market. It is a belief which was reasonably accurate until the latter part of the twentieth century, but it no longer sits well with the facts. To give only two examples, how can this view be reconciled with a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who not only presided over an era of high economic prosperity for America, but one in which the books were relatively balanced? Baker’s more traditional distinctions between left and right must also attempt to come to terms with another major anomaly, a right wing Republican President, in the form of George Bush, who has overseen a massive increase in state spending, a huge bloating of the federal debt, and who has taken the American economy to the edge of recession.
In terms of the new radicalism, however, both these major developments are not only compatible but predictable. As in Gladstone’s day, radicals are reverting once more to stronger advocacy of the free market — though their interpretations of the free market are different from traditional right-wing notions of laissez-faire. At the same time, in America at least, the right wing is returning to its older patterns, in which a somewhat authoritarian moral view of the world, and a commitment to the preservation of the status quo, take precedence over the workings of the free market.
In social terms at least, the centre right is somewhat different in Britain, where David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, advocates a more liberal social agenda, greater tolerance towards minorities and a strongly “green” agenda (“Vote blue, go green” as the Conservative jingle merrily proclaims). It could be argued that Cameron’s combination of liberal social ideas with a small state and a thriving free market places him closer to the classical liberal tradition than traditional Tory policies.
To summarise, then, I submit that an astute younger generation of liberal leaning politicians accepts the predominance of the free market, and instead of attempting to provide a large countervailing state, seeks to work with the grain of the free market to achieve its liberal social objectives. I believe there is plenty of evidence that Obama belongs to this latter group.
If Obama wins the election, let us see to which pattern he conforms. Unlike Mr Baker, I do not fear “this dangerous leftwinger” or believe he will generate an America in the image of France. I suspect instead he is far more likely to follow Bill Clinton in harnessing the free market for a liberal agenda and will place a greater emphasis on balancing the budget than the present Republican incumbent.
Nor, on another contentious issue, do I think that he is bound to bring back the troops from Iraq at the earliest date. His clear opposition to starting the Iraq war gives him moral credit in the eyes of many, but will not prevent him from behaving responsibly and pragmatically in pursuing American foreign policy. And Mr Baker should not forget the extraordinary shift in the foreign perception of America which would result from having a black president. To give only one example, Africa remains an economic basket-case. If anyone can shame and compel the corrupt elites of African politicians into behaving more responsibly and democratically, it will be an American president whose father was a Kenyan of the Luo tribe.
Should Obama become president, be prepared for a radical ride, certainly - including a variety of initiatives to harness market forces for liberal ends and a significantly different emphasis in foreign policy. But, unlike Mr Baker, I personally won’t be worrying too much about America becoming France 2.
Baker sums up his attack by suggesting that Obama is one of those left-wingers who believe that America should be governed more like France, with an administration combining high taxes, much greater restriction of the free market, and "vehemently protectionist" economic policies.
I am an admirer of Baker, and read his articles, particularly on American subjects, avidly. The following is not intended as a refutation but as an alternative interpretation of the Obama phenomenon.
Though I do not accept Baker’s somewhat morose conclusions, at the same time I do not believe Obama would be moderate or “centrist” in the usual sense. Rather, I believe that his particular form of radicalism simply does not conform to the older nostrums of the left so accurately described by Baker. Nor do I believe that Obama’s radicalism is original (it has precedents in — amongst others — Reagan and Clinton, and runs parallel to certain policy features of Blair, Cameron and Clegg in this country).
The heart of this radicalism is that it accepts that the free market is the great creator of wealth, and to a considerable extent the best distributor of wealth. There are numerous examples of Obama advocating the free market in his book The Audacity of Hope, ground which I have already covered in my earlier posting Can Obama Think? The broader aim of this new radicalism is not to create a high-tax, restrictive, state-oriented economy like France, but rather to adapt or “rig” those powerful market forces to achieve left-wing or liberal outcomes.
The original models, explicit or implicit, for this new radicalism are the classical liberals such as Gladstone, Cobden and Bright. Gladstone, the towering intellect of 19th century politics, combined left wing views (a genuine concern for the less well off, anti-imperialism, Irish home rule) with an appreciation of the virtues of the free market which would make Ronald Reagan seem like a communist. This connection between liberal social ideals and a free market economy was not an historical anomaly, but one which is based in the clearest logic. The fact is that the free market, far from being conservative in nature, is radical and dynamic, and in practice suits those who seek radical change far better than those who seek to preserve the status quo.
How did the free market become associated with the right, with a conservative agenda? A rupture between radicalism and the free market occurred at the turn of the twentieth century with the rise of the Labour Party, which combined left wing radical or social ideas with a strongly statist, centralist economic policy. This contradiction between social and economic policy has haunted British politics for the last hundred years.
In the US, the liberal left took a similarly strongly interventionist turn in economic policy with Franklin D Roosevelt and the New Deal.
Since those times, in a kind of inverse reflection of this rupture between social and economic policy on the left, the centre right has combined a conservative social stance with a somewhat lukewarm and patchy advocacy of the free market. Many classical liberals, unable to countenance the authoritarian aspect of the Labour party in Britain, or a centrist, interventionist Democratic party in the United States, strayed to the right. Despite the influx of proponents of laissez faire into the centre-right parties, significant sections of the right have always been suspicious of the revolutionary aspects of the market. This suspicion of the free market is entirely logical for a genuine and committed conservative, and this in turn leads me to my next point.
I suggest that Gerard Barker, and other distinguished centre right commentators, should become used to the fact of a major realignment of politics which has been taking place slowly and inexorably over the last two decades in particular. Baker thinks that a left wing politician must automatically be opposed to the free market. It is a belief which was reasonably accurate until the latter part of the twentieth century, but it no longer sits well with the facts. To give only two examples, how can this view be reconciled with a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who not only presided over an era of high economic prosperity for America, but one in which the books were relatively balanced? Baker’s more traditional distinctions between left and right must also attempt to come to terms with another major anomaly, a right wing Republican President, in the form of George Bush, who has overseen a massive increase in state spending, a huge bloating of the federal debt, and who has taken the American economy to the edge of recession.
In terms of the new radicalism, however, both these major developments are not only compatible but predictable. As in Gladstone’s day, radicals are reverting once more to stronger advocacy of the free market — though their interpretations of the free market are different from traditional right-wing notions of laissez-faire. At the same time, in America at least, the right wing is returning to its older patterns, in which a somewhat authoritarian moral view of the world, and a commitment to the preservation of the status quo, take precedence over the workings of the free market.
In social terms at least, the centre right is somewhat different in Britain, where David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, advocates a more liberal social agenda, greater tolerance towards minorities and a strongly “green” agenda (“Vote blue, go green” as the Conservative jingle merrily proclaims). It could be argued that Cameron’s combination of liberal social ideas with a small state and a thriving free market places him closer to the classical liberal tradition than traditional Tory policies.
To summarise, then, I submit that an astute younger generation of liberal leaning politicians accepts the predominance of the free market, and instead of attempting to provide a large countervailing state, seeks to work with the grain of the free market to achieve its liberal social objectives. I believe there is plenty of evidence that Obama belongs to this latter group.
If Obama wins the election, let us see to which pattern he conforms. Unlike Mr Baker, I do not fear “this dangerous leftwinger” or believe he will generate an America in the image of France. I suspect instead he is far more likely to follow Bill Clinton in harnessing the free market for a liberal agenda and will place a greater emphasis on balancing the budget than the present Republican incumbent.
Nor, on another contentious issue, do I think that he is bound to bring back the troops from Iraq at the earliest date. His clear opposition to starting the Iraq war gives him moral credit in the eyes of many, but will not prevent him from behaving responsibly and pragmatically in pursuing American foreign policy. And Mr Baker should not forget the extraordinary shift in the foreign perception of America which would result from having a black president. To give only one example, Africa remains an economic basket-case. If anyone can shame and compel the corrupt elites of African politicians into behaving more responsibly and democratically, it will be an American president whose father was a Kenyan of the Luo tribe.
Should Obama become president, be prepared for a radical ride, certainly - including a variety of initiatives to harness market forces for liberal ends and a significantly different emphasis in foreign policy. But, unlike Mr Baker, I personally won’t be worrying too much about America becoming France 2.
No comments:
Post a Comment