Both
liberals and conservatives want socioeconomic fairness but they approach it in
very different ways due to different definitions of “fairness”. I will argue that the philosophical and
empirical force for socioeconomic fairness is on the side of conservatives, not
liberals.
President
Obama and many liberals have repeatedly said that the wealthy need to pay their
"fair share" and pushed for certain policies
in the name of fairness. For instance,
Obamacare, Gary Bauer (2012) wrote in his Politico
article "'Obamacare': Fairness vs.
Justice",
concerning fairness and the Constitution:
Many conservatives and others have accused Obama, a
former constitutional law instructor, of being profoundly ignorant of the
Constitution. But he may just believe
that “fairness” supersedes constitutionality in the hierarchy of legal values.
[…] Obama has called access to free contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs
for all women a matter of “basic fairness” and a “core principle” that needs to
be balanced against the constitutional rights to religious liberty and free
speech.
Another
example of liberal policies under the mantra of fairness is the House bill H.R.
4170, the Student
Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012
introduced by Democrat Representative Hansen Clark. This bill’s explicit purpose is:
To increase purchasing power, strengthen economic
recovery, and restore fairness in
financing higher education in the United States through student loan
forgiveness, caps on interest rates on Federal student loans, and refinancing
opportunities for private borrowers, and for other purposes. (emphasis added)
When it
comes to socioeconomics, liberals define “fairness” and “justice” in terms of
equality. For liberals, socioeconomic inequality
is a form of injustice; what’s fair and just that is everyone has their fair share of wealth or
enough of it so that social justice is achieved. Therefore, affirmative action, graduated
(progressive) tax-scales, redistribution of wealth, single-payer healthcare, etc.,
are just because these are fair.
Regardless
if individuals believe such things (e.g., redistribution of wealth or
affirmative action) are unfair or violate their individual liberties, if these
actions create or potentially create
an egalitarian society, then those actions are justified because the interests
of (liberal) society trumps all other considerations. For liberals the collective (i.e., society)
is more important than the individual because, in the context of American liberals,
“fairness” is a higher-order ethical value than upholding the Constitution.
Turning
to conservatism, first I will examine the philosophical side of the
conservative position.
When it
comes to fairness, conservatives define socioeconomic fairness upon the idea of
a meritocracy, the idea that people
get in life what they’ve earned by what their actions merit. If there are individuals who work hard and
become successful, then they are reaping what they have sown. If there are individuals who are lazy and end
up living in poverty due to their own laziness, then they too are reaping what
they’ve sown. Under a meritocracy there
will be societal inequalities that no amount of government intervention can
change or rectify. Not everyone is equal in the sense that not everyone has
the same talents, skill sets, work ethic, ambitions, dreams, etc. Some will simply work harder and use their
talent more in life than others. This is
self-evident.
Despite
these inherent inequalities, social classes are necessarily fluid and dynamic
simply given the nature of a meritocracy.
However, if someone is kept in their social class, especially the lower
classes, simply due to race, gender, social class, or unwarranted
discrimination, this is unfair, unjust, and unethical because such individuals
aren’t able to earn what they’re actions merit.
Under these circumstances, government should intervene to rectify injustices,
which explains why Republicans/conservatives have consistently voted
affirmatively for various civil rights bills.
A
necessary contrast point is that individual’s interests aren’t always trumped
by egalitarian considerations.
Conservatives believe that upholding meritocratic practices is a
higher-order ethical value than egalitarian fairness. A small and limited government because
individualism and individual liberties are essential for a fair and just
society as Richard Stroup (1976) argued:
Restraints on government, however, are
the key to freedom and fairness. Few
would dispute the need for restraints to maintain freedom, but the restraints
on government are necessary for fairness as well. Why?
Individuals are not equally endowed with effectiveness in market
earnings, nor in the market for political influence. […] Thus a government with the power to prevent
arbitrary abuse of some people by others, but with sharply limited power to
coerce others directly and in detail, is likely to provide maximum freedom, and
hence maximum prosperity and fairness as well. (405-406)
I
believe Stroup’s argument explains why American conservatives uphold and defend
the Constitution because it necessarily limits the power of government, but it
doesn’t weaken government to the point that it can’t maintain civil order and
justice.
If the situation of individuals depends on collective
claims for contribution to the well-being of others, that situation is insecure
and their liberty is threatened. If the
very definition or conception of what a person’s situation is depends on
collective claims directed at collective goals, including collective goals
about fair distribution, the distinctness of the concept of liberty is undermined. To put the issues crudely at the outset, if
everything about an individual—his person or his product—is available for
redistribution, then individuals are not free.
Now, I
will examine the empirical side of the conservative position.
Liberals,
especially Obama, have argued that economically
America as founded never worked. This
claim is soundly proven false via empirical evidence. Before the United States was founded, according
to his autobiography Benjamin Franklin started out in the printing business and
after much work and personal discipline he became rich, later to become one of
the most influential individuals counted among the Founding Fathers. After America’s founding, J.D. Rockefeller started out from “humble
beginnings” but through diligence and determination, he became one of the
richest individuals in US history.
Rockefeller soon impressed his employers with his
seriousness and diligence. He was very
exacting and scrupulously honest. For
example, he would not write out a false bill of lading under any
circumstances. […] (For all this work,
he was not well paid. But whatever he
was paid, he always gave to his Church and local charities.) […] Rockefeller
was extremely hard working. He traveled
extensively, drumming up business throughout Ohio, and then would go to the
banks and borrow large sums of money to handle the shipments. This aggressive style built the business up
every year.
Another
example would be William Shatner who lost everything but now is
wealthy, successful, and influential.
These are just a few examples.
However,
when presented with empirical evidence showing that socioeconomic
egalitarianism fails over the long-term liberals retreat to a priori ethical arguments for
fairness. To use single-payer healthcare
as an example, Obamacare is touted as “fair”, but when examining single-payer
healthcare systems we can see that have serious socioeconomic consequences.
According
to Edmund Conway (2009) of The Telegraph
states that healthcare costs are going to play a major factor in forecasts that
the UK national debt could quadruple within the next few decades. Thus the financial stability of the UK has
been called into question. Additionally,
Canada, which has a similar system to the UK and considered fair, is looking to private sector
solutions to their health care because their current health care system is bankrupting them. I fail to see how bankrupting and/or putting
the nation’s economy under severe strain is fair.
One socioeconomic
worry that was brought to my attention by a liberal friend is that without a
single-payer healthcare system, bankruptcies due to rise in medical costs will
sky-rocket. Therefore, we need
single-payer healthcare to keep costs down.
This argument is empirically false.
For example, in Canada, in 2009 researchers Skinner and Rovere found that there was a higher
percentage of medical-cost related bankruptcy in Canada than in the US.
Unlike the United
States, Canada has a universal, single-payer, government-run, socialized health
insurance system. Advocates of socialized
medicine argue that the mixed public-private health insurance system in the
United States causes many Americans to become financially bankrupt, and that
this would not occur if the US adopted the Canadian health system. Following this logic, we should expect to
observe a lower rate of personal bankruptcy in Canada than in the United
States. Yet the most recent data (2006
and 2007) shows that personal bankruptcy rates are actually higher in Canada
(.30% for both years) than in the United States (.20% and .27%). Research indicates that medical spending was
only one of several contributing factors in 17 percent of US bankruptcies, and
that medical debts accounted for only 12 to 13 percent of the total debts among
American bankruptcy filers who cited medical debt as one of their reasons for
bankruptcy. (1)
Skinner (2009) states:
Indeed, if we define medical bankruptcies the way
Himmelstein and colleagues did for their study in the United States, we find
such bankruptcies also occur in Canada.
Survey research commissioned by the
Canadian government found that despite having a government-run health system,
medical reasons (including uninsured expenses), were cited as the primary cause
of bankruptcy by approximately 15 percent of bankrupt Canadian seniors (55
years of age and older).
Therefore,
in contrast to single-payer systems based upon “fairness”, the United States’
healthcare system (despite its flaws), which is loosely based upon meritocratic
principles, is fairer from a socioeconomic standpoint than many single-payer
systems.
While
the UK and Canada are only two examples concerning healthcare and I don’t want
to commit the fallacy of composition, I fail to see how this data can be used
as evidence for the “fairness” of liberal single-payer healthcare policies. Liberals can use all of the a priori ethical arguments all they want
for fairness, but those arguments are soundly defeated by empirical evidence.
Furthermore,
socioeconomic egalitarianism only leads to economic destruction; this cannot be
more plainly shown than the Grecian debt crisis, Spain's bankrupt green-energy
programs, and
the decline of the US economy under Obama’s liberal agenda with our out-of-control
debt and record unemployment, despite all of the government
spending on stimulus bills and green-energy jobs.
Conservatives
have the philosophical and empirical advantage because meritocracies work both
in theory and practice. While
meritocracies do have their issues, all one needs to do is examine liberal-run
US states and countries to see the failure the liberal socioeconomic policies
and see that accepting meritocratic socioeconomic policies are the most fair
and just while rejecting the liberal premise that fairness and justice are
contingent upon egalitarianism.
