Statism and free markets

The term "statism" is objected to by some modern political thinkers because they think it's too judgemental, too blunt, too misleading or too something, just an unpleasant word that brings up visions of Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini and other bad guys, but "statism" is a perfectly good word to use when there's no reason to beat around the bush. I don't use it as a smear word, just a descriptive term appropriate for U.S. governance. I think the reason some people don't like the word is that it's specific -- it's not an Orwellian mask that disguises reality.

 

Ayn Rand wrote in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal --

The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.

Wikipedia gives this definition of statism:

    

Definition: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of government often extending to state ownership of industry.

Statism reached its highest point in the centrally planned fascist and Stalinist countries, but exists in varying degrees in every country in the world ^[4] including capitalist countries like USA. Between the end of World War II and the fall of the USSR many Western European nations ran 'mixed' (10-45% public) economies, and in some Asian countries such as Singapore, 60% of the GDP generated in Singapore comes from government-linked companies. State-run industries are part of the public sector, sometimes referred to as the state sector.

  

 

I don't buy the spin coming from people like Daniel Larison and Will Wilkinson --

 

...“statist” is a somewhat useless designation, since at some point almost everyone accepts that there must be a government, and opposition to a centralized state as a matter of principle or “dogma” is a position held by relatively few people and many of them would not call themselves conservatives. Suffice it to say that when Will Wilkinson accepts the moniker “statist,” its value as a pejorative insult has been exhausted. 

It's not about how much perjorative value the word has, it's about applying a perfectly good term to a reality we face in this country. And to say we are all statists because some form of government is necessary evades the sine qua non of statism -- "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of government..."

 

Statism can be present in a democratic country. In the U.S., there is government control over the economy. This putative fact can't be denied, so there's no reason to reject the word "statism". 

Edward Crane, in the article linked below, writes:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10158

 

 Pres. Barack Obama is not a socialist. He is a thoroughgoing statist, perhaps the worst in American history. And with Wilson, FDR, and LBJ, he's got some serious competition. Republicans in Congress lack the leadership to challenge the president's audacious power grabs. More important, they lack any serious philosophical basis for doing so. The acronym RINO is an oxymoron, for the name "Republican" in fact designates someone with a commitment to nothing more than maintaining political power. The purpose of maintaining that power is to, well, maintain that power.

There is a reason sales of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged are going through the roof. The book is nothing if not prescient. The "Troubled Assets Relief Program" is straight from its pages. Monday's New York Times front page suggests Atlas may be starting to shrug. "Doctor Shortage Proves Obstacle to Obama Goals," laments the headline. Hmm. Wonder why there would be a doctor shortage in the face of nationalized health care? Perhaps bright young people considering a career don't want to work for the federal bureaucracy?

Time for those conservatives serious about limited government to re-read Goldwater's Conscience of a Conservative. Strategically, conservatives have made three major mistakes. The first was to follow the advice of supply-side guru (and big-government Democrat) Jude Wanniski and not talk about spending cuts, much less the proper role of government. Economic growth replaced individual liberty as the rallying cry of far too many GOPers. Second, the neocons — mostly statists themselves — should never have been accepted into the fold. All they give us is a war against a country that never attacked us and schemes for "national greatness" like going to Mars. Enough. Finally, conservatives should jettison the social agenda of gay marriage, flag burning, and school prayer, and focus instead on federalism. Politics is about man's relationship to the state. That relationship, to be healthy, should be minimal.

Statism in America is based on lies and misconceptions starting during the later part of the 19th century when the idea developed that government should intervene in the economy to establish stability and prevent industry from centralizing its power and oppressing the common man and woman.

Actually, government malinvestment and land grants to railroad companies caused problems in the free market, then railroad companies tried to pool together to block competition, and when that failed, the companies sought and received state protection. It was dishonest and cowardly businessmen who started statism in earnest, at a time, ironically, when government could have been the virtuous actors and refused protection. The problem wasn't monopoly, but too much, and too excellent, competition for the big crybaby companies to handle -- everyone screamed STABILITY, but what they meant was "save us from competition!"

Read Gabriel Kolko's historic account, Railroads and Regulation, for a revised narrative based on facts rather than American mythology. Modern political pundits will tell you that all this is interesting, but nobody cares about the 1800s -- it's the 21st century, baby, and the state is now more vital than ever.

Hardly. Statism is an old, worn-out idea that fits the 21st century like the infamous glove on O.J.s large hand.