Seamanship Quotation

“In political activity, then, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed destination.”
— from Michael Oakeshott's
Political Education” (1951)

Friday, August 17, 2012

Jeffrey Sachs—a leading liberal quitter


Before the first yellowed leaves of fall, about this time every four years, a world-renowned American intellectual will throw in the towel: this election is a hopeless distraction, a gaudy sport for those without the guts to give up on America.

With the two presidential tickets complete and after barely one week on the road, Jeffrey Sachs tells the world: “America has lost the Battle over Government.” His case in the Financial Times against his home base rests on its fiscal aggregates and it’s two-party system:

“Mr Ryan’s budget is nothing short of heartless in the face of the dire crisis facing America’s poor. It is also reckless, guaranteed to leave millions of children without the quality of education and skills they will need as adults. Yet the sad truth is that the Democrats offer no progressive alternative. Both parties are accomplices to the premeditated asphyxiation of the state.

“Viewed from an international perspective, the constricted range of the US fiscal debate is striking. Total US government revenues (combining federal, state and local governments) in 2011 came in at about 32 per cent of GDP. This compares with an average of 44 per cent in the EU and 50 per cent in northern Europe.

“Only a big political realignment, perhaps spurred by a third party bold enough to campaign on free social media rather than expensive television advertising, is likely to break the status quo. Until then, the demise of public goods and services will continue apace.”

The man’s pessimism is highly selective. 

Sachs found it worthwhile to make a living through the 90s advising post-communist Poland and Russia—and their entrenched bureaucracies—about how to create modern capitalist democracies. 

He’s doing the same today in nearly a dozen states in Africa. 

America, somehow, is different. 

It’s strong enough to keep being poorly governed and too stupid to do anything about it. It’s progressives—Sachs and his unaligned and uncontaminated students—might as well wait for Ryan’s reckless promises to make matters work. After all, there’s no worthy progressive alternative asking for my help. 

Sachs’s macro numbers on public spending prove next to nothing and offer no excuse to give up. Progressive Canada can run an enviable public health care system with almost exactly the same level of public spending as in the US. Furthermore, spending in government (plus or minus a percent or two) a third of the biggest economy in the world still matters, desperately.

Each spender and each decision-maker elected by the people still makes a serious difference.

If numbers bore you and leave you depressed about the USA, recall what happened yesterday in Chicago. Tens of thousands of young people joined a mile-long line to enter the Obama government’s temporary and limited amnesty program for illegal immigrants.

The status quo for those young people still includes the American Dream and terrible dangers. 

Sachs, with his consultant’s notebook, should ask a few of those kids, and a few public health care providers as well, whether the 2008 presidential election mattered and whether this November’s will matter too.

3 comments:

  1. Mr. Horswill, you misread my article. I certainly am not giving up. The two main parties have, alas, given up. The Republicans are surely worse, but the Democrats have dropped a true progressive agenda. In the article I suggested that we may need a third party to break the status quo. Also, you are mistaken about the US-Canada comparison. Canada at all levels of government collected 38.1 percent of GDP in taxes in 2011, while the US collected 31.8 percent of GDP. The US political system is starving the government of tax revenues and then calling for a further downscaling of government from a wholly inadequate level today.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mr. Horswill, you misread my article. I certainly am not giving up. The two main parties have, alas, given up. The Republicans are surely worse, but the Democrats have dropped a true progressive agenda. In the article I suggested that we may need a third party to break the status quo. Also, you are mistaken about the US-Canada comparison. Canada at all levels of government collected 38.1 percent of GDP in taxes in 2011, while the US collected 31.8 percent of GDP. The US political system is starving the government of tax revenues and then calling for a further downscaling of government from a wholly inadequate level today.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm sorry for suggesting that you've given up on America. I when too far and was too harsh. However, my post did allow your own words to speak for themselves.

    We disagree on a significant and urgent issue: the US two party system. I feel having no hope for your two national parties is too extreme and dangerously distracts from the real choice before Americans this fall.

    In social spending, including tax expenditures, Canada is more generous, but not dramatically. Further, as in Canada, your tax system can—and has in memory—been changed, without changing the core values and shortcomings of your major parties. Canadians don’t exist on a different more virtuous planet; tax increases aren’t popular here either. However, conservatives as well as liberals have gotten away with setting up a national consumption tax (GST) and raising provincial payroll taxes to finance widely popular health and pension programs.

    Regarding this fall’s election: one of your parties will entrench universal healthcare and the other promises to repeal it. To my mind, that leaves you with a meaningful choice, a choice between less-than-perfect progress and hurtful reaction.

    Hope we can see more eye to eye in the future.

    ReplyDelete