Category: Political Science

France is finding is hard to pass a stiff carbon tax, though of course they already use lots of (non-carbon) nuclear power:

Details are finally emerging about the country’s planned “carbon tax,” to be put in place next year. And the idea is anything but popular.

The center-right French government wants to levy a tax of 14 euros per ton of carbon dioxide starting in 2010; carbon taxes are popular with many economists and business leaders because they are seen as easier to implement than carbon-trading plans, which France also belongs to.

In reality, France’s carbon tax is basically just a gasoline tax–and a tiny one at that. The electricity sector, overwhelmingly powered by emissions-free nuclear power, isn’t part of the plan [TC: Duh!], Prime Minister Francois Fillon told Le Figaro. The tax will basically fall on liquid fuels–raising pump prices 3 euro cents a liter (that’s roughly 15 U.S. cents a gallon).

In theory it will be revenue-neutral but most French voters are nonetheless opposed to the measure.  Here is further information:

Large CO2 emitters, such as oil refiners and steel makers, will be exempted from paying the new tax. The government will propose special compensations for fishermen, farmers and truckers…

I've already done What is Progressivism? so here is another installment.  This isn't what conservatives today necessarily believe, it's a retranslation of a mishmash of conservatism into a language which I can understand and, in part, present to others.  Here goes:

1. Evil is real and there exist evil nations in the world; the relatively virtuous Western powers require strong states to fend off such evils.  This distinct from "big government" in the sense advocated by modern liberals. 

2. In international affairs, in the twentieth century, the United
States in particular has been unselfish to a remarkable degree.  We
therefore should trust the United States with unprecedented power.  In
fact we have no alternative.  Some cultures really are better than
others.

3. The spread of nuclear weapons, and other forms of WMD, to irrational, evil and undeterrable
powers is the number one foreign policy issue.  It runs the risk of
equalizing the balance of power between virtuous and evil agents in the
world.

4. On the domestic front, education is the keystone issue.  Societies succeed if strong family structures support an emphasis on learning and acculturation.  While this does not rule out public sector education, if public sector education works the credit is not to be found in the public sector.

5. When in doubt, side with the laws and customs that have, over time,
been associated with the Western powers and their growth into powerful
and durable societies.  It's hard to judge a lot of customs using pure,
unadulterated reason, as Oakeshott and Hayek have suggested.  Defending traditional values is an enterprise which itself requires a mix of law and custom.  If you're focused mainly on "policy proposals," you are missing the point.

7. We do not have either the resources or the norms to remake society in the direction of a fully-comfortable-for-everyone social democracy.  We do need welfare states to keep a polity in running order, but we should be modest about what such regimes can accomplish.  They cannot overcome a fundamental lack of proper values as found in many poor or disadvantaged communities.

8. Fiscal conservatism is part and parcel of conservatism per se.  A state wrecked by debt is a state due to perish or fall into decay.  This is a lesson from history.  States must "save up their powder" for true crises and it is a kind of narcissistic arrogation to think that the personal failures of particular individuals — often those with weak values — meet this standard.

9. For conservatism, small government is a means, not an end.  It is a means to the values which lie behind Western civilization and it is a means toward the prosperity we need to live well and defend ourselves.  Capitalism is important but capitalism itself relies upon particular values held by the citizenry.

10. Responsibility is a more important value than either liberty or equality.

Here is Julian Sanchez on what such exercises might mean.  I don't know exactly what they mean.  For me they are a means of thinking through ideas.

Addendum: Arnold Kling comments.

A loyal MR reader writes to me:

I love when you think through counterfactuals, so here’s
one that’s been on my mind.  Imagine John Kerry wins in 2004.  What are
the implications for the 2006 midterms and more importantly the 2008
presidential election?  We probably pull out of Iraq without ever attempting the
surge, and leave the country in chaos.  But more importantly, the housing
bubble collapses on a Democrat's watch, not [a] Republican's.  Regardless of what
anyone says, the housing bubble was going to burst.  Maybe the collapse takes a
different path under Kerry than Bush, but it still happens, leaving his administration
to deal with it.  Does he win re-election?  Is McCain still the Republican
candidate?  And what becomes of a little known back bencher named Barack Obama?

I am sorry to disappoint such an excellent reader but I genuinely do not know what would have happened, if say Kerry had been more personally appealing to more voters (that counterfactual more or less holds constant other factors which are more directly political).  I do know this is a reason why I think it is very hard to forecast the net impact of a single election.  Do you remember the furor and then the agony from 2004?

My hunch is that consciously or subconsciously, the urban residents of
China are not thrilled by the idea of a pure democracy that would
effectively turn the country over to the rural poor.

That's Scott Sumner and the post is interesting throughout.

This has been a fruitful dialog.  Two days ago Matt Yglesias made a list of how progressives should respond to the public choice critique of big government:

– This is why it’s important to be a civil libertarian and to be much
more skeptical than the political/media mainstream is of the idea that
what’s at stake in these debates is really a “balance” between a
“security” imperative and some airy “values.” It is overwhelmingly
likely that various secret police powers are simply going to be abused,
rather than put to some productive-but-liberty-infringing use.

– This is also a reason to be skeptical of ideas about discretionary regulatory fine-tuning. You always could
improve outcomes by abandoning rigid rules (with “do what you want”
counting as a rigid rule) but in practice you probably won’t.

– I think this also counts on a reason to prefer systems that rely more on career civil servants
and less on political appointees. Bureaucrats have their own
distinctive psychopathologies, but they’re different, and it’s helpful
to have them in more tension and balance than exists in the United
States.

– It’s also important to have in place systems for effective
monitoring of elected officials. A Canadian voter elects one federal
official–a Member of Parliament. An American elects four–a President,
two Senators, and one Representative. Americans don’t have four times
as much time as Canadians to pay attention to what politicians are
doing or to learn the issues; our politicians are just being monitored
less. When you consider the proliferation of things like independently
elected school boards, district attorneys, sheriffs, etc. keep in mind
that this diffusion of responsibility is a good way for the egomaniacal
to evade responsibility.

– If that leaves us with too few veto points, the thing to do is not to have additional houses of legislature, but Swiss-style (as opposed to California-style) direct democracy, where the actions of a unicameral legislature can be checked by the voters.

I agree with much of the list (for one thing, however, I think voting for a fewer number of politicians will have a very small beneficial effect in terms of voter attention); the question is what should be added to it.  "Smaller government" is a question-begging answer even if you favor that outcome.  It's a list of what will get you to better governmental outcomes, whatever you think those might be.

Matt Yglesias writes:

At the same time, I’ve come to be increasingly baffled by the high degree [of] cynicism and immorality
displayed in big-time politics. For example, Senators who genuinely do
believe that carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to a global
climate crisis seem to think nothing of nevertheless taking actions
that endanger the welfare of billions of people on the grounds that
acting otherwise would be politically problematic in their state. In
other words, they don’t want to do the right thing because their
self-interest points them toward doing something bad. But it’s
impossible to imagine these same Senators stabbing a homeless person in
a dark DC alley to steal his shoes. And what’s more, the entire
political class would be (rightly!) shocked and appalled by
the specter of a Senator murdering someone for personal gain. Yet it’s
actually taken for granted that “my selfish desires dictate that I do
x” constitutes a legitimate reason to do the wrong thing on important
legislation.

Making it all the odder, the level of self-interest at stake isn’t
all that high. Selling the public good down the river to bolster your
re-election chances isn’t like stealing a loaf of bread to feed your
starving children. The welfare rolls are hardly stocked with the names
of former members of congress. Indeed, it’s not even clear that voting
“the wrong way” poses particularly serious threats to one’s
re-election. But even if it did, one might assume that people who
bother to dedicating their lives to securing vast political power did
so because they actually wanted to accomplish something and get in the history books, perhaps, as one of the big heroes of their era.

I don't intend any particular point about cap and trade, but viewed more generally it's stunning how true this is.  (In fairness, note that the title of this post is my framing, not necessarily Matt's.)  Many people — especially those who become politicians — really do want fame and power and it is amazing what they will talk themselves into to get there and to stay there.  They don't even want fame in the sense of being recognized, in the longer run, for having done the right thing.  They want more personal influence and power now.

Are blogger attacks on the Republicans counterproductive at this point, at least from a "left" point of view?  Is not the relevant signal telling Obama he can safely move to the center without losing much support?  The blogger voices are in essence signaling that a broader public must stand behind these attacks, or that a broader public is being convinced by these attacks, and therefore that Obama need not fear defections and he can continue to ignore campaign promises.

An alternative scenario is that the attacks turn some of the still-undecideds against the Republicans and bring them into the Democratic camp.  Is that a relevant margin?

At this point, how many people say the following: "You know what honey, I was just reading those blogs this morning.  I used to like Sarah Palin but this time she has really gone over the edge.  I don't know about her any more.  Maybe we should think about voting Democratic."

How about: "Honey, they've called off the death panels.  We can support the mandates now."?

The funny thing is, a lot of people do think like that, I'm just not sure they are the ones reading blogs.

The general point is that if you are not a pivotal voter, announcing your true preferences and views does not necessarily help you get what you want.

Those who blog about primary challenges to Democrats from the left, or the need to deliver concrete results before the next election, may be serving up better rhetorical strategies.  But of course that is also less fun.

Picking up my previous request, Matt responds:

I think libertarianism is best understood as a kind of esoteric
doctrine. There’s strong evidence to believe that people who
overestimate their own efficacy in life wind up doing better than those
with more accurate perceptions. It follows that it’s strongly desirable
for society to be organized so as to bolster myths of meritocracy. This
will lead to individual instances of injustice and to a lot of
apparently preventable suffering, but over the long-term the aggregate
impact of growth (which, of course, compounds) on human welfare will
swamp this as long as we can maintain the spirit of capitalism.

A separate issue is the welfare of the world’s poorest. Progressive
internationalists have this kind of dopey vision of trying to make
trade and immigration policy win-win-win for everyone by using
redistributive taxation to ensure that everyone shares in the benefits.
That sounds nice, but it means that in addition to trying to conquer
people’s racist and nationalistic instincts you’re also
engaged in a fight to pry wealth out of the hands of the wealthy and
powerful. As a political strategy, it doesn’t really make much sense.
Why not simply join forces with the wealthy and powerful so
as to create a political coalition that’s plausibly capable of
overwhelming xenophobia and creating borders that are relatively open
to the flow of goods and labor?

That is exactly the kind of response I was hoping for and both points make sense to me.  Here is a related Matt post on progressivism and America.

I would add that Matt's description is consistent with my belief that the United States should be less progressive than the polities of north and western Europe.  For better or worse, most Europeans are more skeptical of claims of capitalist meritocracy and thus it is harder for them to realize gains by internalizing such an ethic.  Furthermore the non-progressive nature of many aspects of America — by encouraging economic dynamism — helps Europe to be as progressive as it is.  That's an argument for American capitalism that both libertarians and progressives ought to feel slightly uncomfortable with, yet in my view it is compelling.

Arnold Kling asks this question, so I thought I'd try a stab at it, but trying to cast progressivism in the best possible light.  Of course my answer is not exclusive to Arnold's, as we might both be right about the elephant.  From an outsider's perspective, here is my take on what progressives believe or perhaps should believe:

1. There exists a better way and that is shown by the very successful polities of northwestern Europe and near-Europe.  We know that way can work, even if it is sometimes hard to implement. 

2. Progressive policies offer more scope for individualism and some kinds of freedom.  Greater security gives people a greater chance to develop themselves as individuals in important spheres of life, not just money-making and risk protection and winning relative status games. 

3. Determinism holds and tales of capitalist meritocracy are an illusion, to be kept only insofar as they are useful.

4. The needs of the neediest ought to be our top priority, as variations in the well-being of other individuals are usually small by comparison, at least in the United States.

5. U.S. policy is not generally controlled by egalitarian interests,  So it is doing "God's work" to push for such an egalitarian emphasis at the margin.  At the very least it will improve the quality of discourse, even if the U.S. never actually arrives in "progressive-land."

6. Limiting inequality will do more to check bad governance than will the quixotic libertarian attempt to limit the size of government.

7. Skepticism about the public sector is by no means altogether unwarranted, yet true redistributive programs are possible and they can work and be politically popular; we even have some here in the United States.

8. We should support free trade, more immigration, and more foreign aid, but the nation-state will remain the fundamental locus for redistribution.  That means helping the poor at home more than abroad; a decision to do otherwise would destroy political equilibrium and make everyone worse off.

9. State and local governments are fundamentally to be mistrusted (recall segregation) and thus we should transfer more power to the federal government, which tends to be bluntly and grossly egalitarian, when it manages to be egalitarian at all.  That is OK.

10. The United States has to struggle mightily to meet the progressive standards of western Europe and we should not equate the two regions in terms of their operation or capabilities.  Yet there is an alternative strand in American history, if not always a dominant one, showing that progressive change is possible.  Think Upton Sinclair and Martin Luther King and the organizers of early labor unions. 

11. The evidence on economic growth is murky and so it is not clear that doing any of this carries much of a penalty in terms of future growth.  In some regards it will enhance the especially beneficial sides of economic growth, even if it does not boost growth overall.

In due time I'll be writing more systematically about why those views are not, on the whole, my own.  But not today!

It would be interesting to see a progressive try to sum up an intelligent version of libertarianism.

We show that these types of international action on child labor tend to
lower domestic political support within developing countries for
banning child labor.

Here is much more.

Mark Thoma says yes (with links to a debate) and I think his analysis is on the mark.  Nonetheless he is leaving out one very strong point in favor of his view.  The Obama administration has done plenty of interfering with the car companies and also with executive compensation.  These episodes make me nervous.  Reappointing Bernanke, who is from an opposing party, is a signal that such meddling won't be applied to the Fed and that the Fed will be allowed to regain some of its autonomy vis-a-vis Treasury.  Not reappointing Bernanke would make the markets very nervous about the future autonomy of the Fed.  (Even if Alex is right more generally about central bank independence, I don't want the current Fed to resemble General Motors or Chrysler.)  There's lots of talent in the current White House, but given how much policy has been run from the White House, it would be a bad signal to look to the White House for a Fed pick.  Many of the other possible picks seem to be largely untested at a major league level.  You can complain about Bernanke all you want but his likely successors probably have the same list of drawbacks that perhaps you are ascribing to him.

So yes, Bernanke should be reappointed.