Forget the Greek debt crisis. The British are starting to freak me out.
Our closest ally has given us lessons to learn concerning her state of "conservatism" and its impact on freedom.
Prime Minister David Cameron and members of his Conservative Party have recently revealed "Big Society," a government program. Big Society seeks to reinvigorate communities around Great Britain by encouraging individuals and private charities to take on some of the social services that are draining the national budget.
Unfortunately, Cameron's program is founded on the same elitist, central planning premises that have given rise to dependency on government and has led to soaring budget deficits.
At the end of the day, the leader of the Conservative Party has too much distrust of freedom:
"Of course there is not one lever you can simply pull to create a big society in our country. And we should not be naive enough to think that simply if government rolls back and does less, then miraculously society will spring up and do more. The truth is we need a government that helps to build a big society." (Emphasis added. Go to 3:50 mark.)
What could possibly cause the naivety to believe people would "do more" if an intrusive government is rolled back? How could the needs of people be abundantly and freely met, through voluntary cooperation unplanned by government authorities? Upon what could such a trust in a freer society be based?
How about all of recorded history?
As Milton Friedman points out,
"The great advances in civilization, whether in architecture or painting, in science or literature, in industry or agriculture, have never come from centralized government...Government can never duplicate the variety and diversity of individual action." (Capitalism and Freedom)And where does Cameron get the notion that only governments can successfully construct a "big society," closely planning progress by the arm of the state?
Historical examples, please? There are none.
Listen to this opening exchange between Milton Friedman and Phil Donahue:
To add, from Ludwig von Mises' The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality:
"The substitution of laissez-faire capitalism for the precapitalistic methods of economic management has multiplied population figures and raised in an unprecedented way the average standard of living. A nation is the more prosperous today the less it has tried to put obstacles in the way of the spirit of free enterprise.""In the kinds of societies" that distrust and depart from freedom, lower standards of living and, therefore, a higher dependency on government services are prevalent. Ignoring this historical neon sign has plagued societies for years, and Cameron's statement is a clear indication that the willful ignorance of politicians in socialist countries leads to a noxious type of naivety: History holds no lessons concerning freedom and prosperity, and if we keep on trying hard enough with this socialist idea, we'll make a brighter society for all.
It might seem remarkable to the American ear to hear the leader of the Conservative Party in Britain share this fundamental distrust of freedom held by progressive leftists. We should be curious how this came to be in Great Britain and then ask, Can that happen here?
The political realities of the Brits (as well as western Europe) illustrate the unpleasant reality that given enough time and enough government intrusion into society, enough government programs and enough of the population dependent on the nanny state, any so called conservative party becomes very similar to the socialist parties, with little alternatives to offer the public in the ways of reform and freedom.
There comes a tipping point when the best the opposition party can offer is We'll run the nanny state more efficiently than the other party. As Big Society demonstrates, the most substantive reforms that can be mustered by the erstwhile party of freedom assume socialist dogmas distrustful of freedom. At some point the party of Margaret Thatcher stopped presenting real alternatives to the British people, alternatives of free enterprise and free markets. They gave themselves, their party, and the hope of reform over to the notions and premises of centralized progressivism.
We shouldn't beat up on British conservatives too much, for all this is just political reality. To run for and hold office in a country where a majority of its citizens are dependent on some form of government spending, what else is a chap to do?
Can that happen here?
Yes, if we continue tying more Americans and their fates to the discretion of federal bureaucrats and the annual budget and if the two parties become more similar than dissimilar.
But things are different here in America. Politically, things have always been different here. We have this annoying persistence to hang on to our unique political traditions of freedom and all the concomitant suspicions of big government.
With every increase in the scope of government in our lives the past few years there has been a corresponding public push back. We just are not comfortable easing into an all encompassing socialist state. Considering the scale of American public discontent over the last two years---the Tea Party movement, town halls where congressmen are actually asked real questions, and large rallies on The Mall demanding less government---it is evident Americans feel no need to embrace the progressive nanny state. We are just not interested, the most of us.
Politicians' rhetoric and tactics evidence this long standing American attitude: They still feel the need to at least pay lip service to the word, freedom, even when they set about to limit, infringe, or destroy it. Open anti-freedom just does not sell in America. Freedom sells, so to speak, and most Americans buy it come election time.
We therefore have reason to expect the loosely articulated anxiety of the Tea Parties and town halls will can express our deep and long lasting cultural insistence for freedom. The sentiment is there; so long as public expression continues to surface it will more likely translate into actual reality in public policy.
Being it is a republic, getting representatives to understand and embrace our unique political DNA after elections is the frustrating and crucial task. Too often they run as conservatives touting the banner of freedom, then assume office and spend us into greater debt, more government, and a less free society. Tax adverse and debt weary voters are looking for someone to vote for, not once, but come reelection time: We don't want a nanny state run more efficiently. We don't want a nanny state at all.
Politicians are obliged to translate deep, unrelenting public opinion into policy, policy being an echo of public sentiment. As James Madison described it in Federalist 10, in a republic opinion is "refined and enlarged" through representation in government. When the echoes are heard long enough and clearly enough in state legislatures, Congress, and the White House, what is left to stop a policy of freedom?
Prime Minister Cameron claims his Big Society can be called "freedom." I am glad to say government programs like that could not be called so much in America.
Let's not let that happen here.
