JONATHAN CHAIT NOVEMBER 9, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
President Obama delivered a speech praising India for, among other things, its transition away from a planned economy. Wall Street Journal columnist Brett Stephens is gobsmacked:
[W]orth pondering is how a president who used to routinely inveigh against Bangalore for stealing jobs from Buffalo, who defended the "buy American" clause in the stimulus bill, and whose health-care legislation comes with its own de facto licensing raj, can suddenly talk so much sense. Maybe it's pure double-speak, or maybe the president has emerged from his midterm shellacking with a new religion. India tends to have that effect on strangers: The sensible among them have been known to lose their minds, but the senseless often find their grip.
Mr. Obama, plainly, is a leader who needs to find his grip. In describing the domestic achievements of India, he has at last alighted on a formula that can work for the U.S. while saving his presidency in the bargain. A man who has so often promised to listen to the world rather than preach to it might do well, this time, to listen to himself.
Stephens is exhibiting a common tendency among conservatives to view capitalism as a completely binary issue. (This tendency is on full display in American Enterprise Institute president Arthur Brooks's book.) I think many conservatives genuinely fail to understand that liberals can believe in free markets and free trade in general while also supporting limited government intervention to correct market failures like a recession-induced liquidity trap, adverse selection in health care, global warming, or skyrocketing inequality.
Buy-American provisions were in the stimulus because it's designed to promote consumer demand in the United States. It was clearly not a signal of rolling back free trade. There is nothing in the Affordable Health Care Act that remotely resembles the central planning that once ruled India's economy, unless you think that any kind of government regulation is like every other kind of government regulation. Come to think of it, Stephens probably does think that.
3 comments
The buy-american was not simply a way to stimulate the American economy, but rather to protect American jobs that were be off-shored due to drastically lower wages offered in India and other places. This is a problem that both so-called Liberals and Conservative thinkers have actually no real solutions. For Liberals the solution is re-education, ignoring the fact that more and more technical skilled jobs are going offshore, while Conservatives argue that offshoring will create more skilled jobs, ignoring the fact that most layed-off professionals are being forced to accept lower paying replacement jobs. There seems to be no solution in sight, the middle class is stagnating if not disappearing.
- jneuberg
November 9, 2010 at 11:10am
This is an excellent post, Jonathan. One finds this sort of binary thinking present in many conservatives. We have that in extreme form here in rationale, who I think took a wrong turn somewhere and is hallucinating that he is at the Nation magazine's website.
- liberal reformer
November 9, 2010 at 2:03pm
Chait was almost rational. Almost Liberal understanding of markets is limited, but their ability to discern market failures appears unlimited. Worth more discussion. Lets remember that this current economic situation was driven by Gov intervention to promote a positive externality -- home ownership.
- mr_rationale
November 10, 2010 at 12:15am