The Ideological Necrophilia of the American Left
By Dr. Jose Azel
The intellectual folly of centralized economic
planning and governmental economic interventionism
presumably died with the fall of communism that
began with the revolutions of 1989 and the
subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union. And yet,
the American left continues its lovemaking with the
long dead idea of state interventionism in economic
affairs. El Nuevo Herald contributor Orestes
Rodriguez has poignantly labeled this love affair as
ideological necrophilia. The cadavers of central
planning remain unburied in countries like China,
Vietnam, North Korea, and Cuba, but their
intellectual decomposition is evident.
How then do we explain the popularity of
governmental economic interventionism revealed, for
example, by the youthful support for 2016 socialist
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders? The
wide-ranging evidence of the failure of collectivism
is ignored by Mr. Sanders and his followers.
Overlooking all empirical evidence, Mr. Sanders, who
elected to honeymoon in the old Soviet Union and has
expressed admiration for Fidel Castro, is a sincere
believer in an intrusive, coercive, paternalistic
state as a way to advance societal goals.
An explanation of how we often use simplifying
heuristics (something like a rule of thumb) to make
judgments ignoring all empirical evidence is offered
by Daniel Kahneman, who received the 2002 Nobel
Prize in Economic Sciences for his pioneering work
on decision making. Professor Kahneman asks us to
consider Steve; an individual who has been described
by his neighbors as follows:
“Steve is very shy and withdrawn, invariably helpful
but with little interest in people or in the world
of reality. A meek and tidy soul, he has a need for
order and structure, and a passion for detail.”
Is Steve more likely to be a librarian or a farmer?
Most of us recognize in Steve the stereotypical
characteristics of a librarian and will probably
decide heuristically that Steve is indeed a
librarian. In doing so, we ignore the relevant
statistical considerations. If we think about it, we
would probably realize that there are far more male
farmers than male librarians in the United States.
A bit of research will reveal that there are more
than 20 male farmers for each male librarian. Our
biases have led us to decide mistakenly that Steve
is likely to be a librarian when the statistical
evidence is that he is more likely to be a farmer.
Mr. Sanders and his followers, argue
paternalistically that the coercive power of
government must be used to directly address social
problems. Yes, we all want to live in a just
society, but charging government with bringing about
say, a predetermined distribution of holdings, can
only be accomplished by violating individual rights.
The paternalistic expanded government sought by Mr.
Sanders requires diminished liberty and injustice.
Even if it were possible to achieve, for one
instant, a desired distribution of holdings, such a
distribution would immediately begin to break down
by individuals choosing to save in different
measures, or to exchange goods with each other.
Continuous interference with our liberties would be
required to take from one person the holdings that
others choose to transfer to them.
If under the logic of some socialistic felicific
calculus, certain goods are to be guaranteed to some
individuals, then other individuals must be coerced
to pay for those goods. This conception of rights is
inherently unjust requiring that the state treat
some individuals differently from others.
Socialist paternalism also embodies the view that
‘other’ people cannot be trusted to make good
decisions about their lives, thus requiring
government to step in. Notice that it is only other
people that cannot make good decisions. We do not
want government to make decisions about our own
lives.
Idealistic young students demonize business as a
self interest pursuit that encourages and rewards
selfish behavior. It does not follow that business
is about exploiting customers. In a free enterprise
system, profits result, not from harming customers,
but from innovation and creating superior value.
I ponder this as I observe students around campus
wearing Bernie Sanders T shirts, playing games on
their capitalistic iPads, and arguing with their
parents, on their capitalist iPhones, about why they
should be free to spend their parents’ money.