Jerry Muller is a political scientist who has published several books and articles on the historical tradition of conservatism. In this article he criticizes Republicans and Democrats on their approaches to income inequality. The GOP fetish with tax cuts and a smaller government is wrong. The Democratic focus on tax increases to fund more government spending is also wrong. Neither will insure social prosperity and social stability.
Muller discusses the prospects for reducing income inequality and increasing social mobility and he concludes that government should accept capitalism for what it is. The task is to maintain its dynamism so that it can provide increasing benefits for everyone, and also manage to pay for social welfare programs under conditions of rising inequality and economic insecurity. Republicans make the mistake of idealizing capitalism and many of its critics demonize it. Muller believes that we should accept it as it is. We may need to reform our social welfare programs, but we need reasonably generous programs to maintain social stability. On the other hand, we should stop wasting money on government programs to reduce income inequality. They don't work and they may impede the dynamism of capitalism.
Muller's pessimism about the ability of government programs to reduce income inequality is based upon the key role that the family plays in developing human potential. Children who have been born into the right kind of family are educable. The education gap between them and other children only increases as education improves and becomes more available. That results in even greater income inequality and social immobility. Immigration policies in the US also contribute to inequality. We attract the best and the brightest from other countries, but we also accept those with less potential for development.
Some capitalist countries have less income inequality and more social mobility than the US. Muller attributes this to the ethnic homogeneity in those countries. He does not believe the cultural practices that work in those countries are applicable to the US. Maintaining a country's culture has been a basic tenet of conservatism throughout history.
Muller does a good job of tracing rising inequality to broader topics that have contributed it. He argues that the financialization of the US economy has increased income insecurity because business executives have focused on short term goals to manage stock prices. That leads to churning and higher unemployment. Globalization has also eliminated many low skilled jobs that used to pay decent wages, particularly to men, when they were the sole breadwinners for their families. This has affected families in many ways. Divorce is more common, especially among low income families. We have more single parents struggling to manage their children and their jobs. Middle class families have two wage earners, and they can more easily afford childcare and other services that enable both spouses to work. Their children will be more able to benefit from quality education that will lead to higher incomes in our Post Industrial society.
Progressive critics of rising inequality differ from Muller in many ways. They believe that government policies have contributed to rising inequality. Globalization has been poorly managed; tax policies have become less progressive; deregulation has led to self serving management and weak corporate governance; our electoral system has been distorted by the dependence of politicians on campaign contributions from the wealthy; etc. etc. etc.
Muller ignores most of the progressive analyses of rising inequality. He agrees, however, that inequality is likely to get worse rather than better. Progressives believe that inequality can be reduced if the right things are done. Muller believes that little can be done to arrest growing income inequality. Government should focus on managing the impact of rising inequality on social stability.
No comments:
Post a Comment