The lazy Babylon

Liberal passivity and failure

By David McIntosh
From the February 2006 Print Edition

As liberal pundits look at this New Year, they stridently proclaim the slow death of American conservatism, scrounging through recent poll numbers and other fickle snapshots of political opinion in a desperate attempt to prop up this forecast. But in focusing microscopically on the rising and swelling of political feuds, scandals, and trends, such pundits forget the larger view. Ideology, the backbone of political movements, matters most — not clever political maneuvering or swelling public opinion polls. When one examines ideology, conservatives have a good year ahead. Economic “progressivism” will never triumph because it perpetuates its own demise.

A couple weeks ago, I scanned the mosaic of newspaper clippings plastered on Top Dog’s wall and noticed a bumper sticker slightly hidden behind the counter. It urged citizens to vote with their wallet, not their ballot. A simple message, but a powerful one. World change results most efficiently when individuals, motivated by their own interests, make decisions. An individual is in the best position to spend money, since he is directly accountable for the effects of his actions.

Politicians have no disincentive to shirk responsibility, spend money imprudently, and deceive the public. Appearances, not actual results, affect their re-election chances. Because bureaucrats spend their constituents’ money, it is not spent wisely. Massive government inefficiency results. Economic progressives tout government intervention as a critical component of a healthy economy, but government does not face the same incentives as individuals to perform, and thus lacks the very foundation of success — responsibility.

Yet progressive thought is mired by more than just abysmal inefficiency. It suffers from a crippling passivism. Government programs such as welfare and subsidized housing are passive solutions to problems. Not only do they encourage recipients’ dependence on government programs, which is antithetical to programs’ professed goal of financial independence, but they breed the notion that society’s problems are best solved by others. Citizens become passive because they believe problems should be shoved aside for someone else to disentangle.

A vote to address social problems is a vote to delay an effective solution. Citizens grow reliant on government to solve their problems, and are less likely to take individual action. It’s all too easy to shun personal responsibility when an expansive government claims to address everyone’s needs. Government responses require consensus. A “war on poverty” thus becomes a propaganda war to win voters, rather than a coalition of volunteers eager to take action. Voters must wait for other voters to take action. Enterprises of great sense and moment whither in a social waiting room. Using the vote in attempt to solve social problems only makes a solution less likely because solutions require flourishing movement, not passive hesitation.

Contrast inherent inefficiency and passiveness with the rigorous individualism of entrepreneurs. Individuals, not governments, are responsible for the wonders of the 20th century. Electricity, mass production, and the Internet were the results of motivated individuals pursuing individual interest, not a large government program catering to the demands of its constituents. When Thoomas Edison saw a need for a reliable light source, he didn’t commission a government program, nor try to convince voters to fund a research initiative. He took active, individual action. He founded a lab, gathered fellow scientists, and solved the problem himself.

The wonders of the 20th century were born from rigorous entrepreneurship. Individuals isolated a problem and solved it themselves. They didn’t wait to create a government program to solve the problem. They seized upon the opportunity, and succeeded. Command economies failed, while the free market blossomed. The secret behind free market governments was not what the government did, but what it didn’t do. When left to their own devices, individuals solved problems far better than a government ever could.

The historically conservative movement to remove government from personal life leaves no room for passivism. No longer can citizens excuse themselves from action because government has addressed problems. Just as the need for electricity was satisfied through private response, the need for food, clothing, and education is best met through private organizations where motivated individuals can help others, without the crippling inefficiencies of government programs.

It’s no coincidence those accustomed to taking initiative in the work place actively help their community. A Wells Fargo/Gallup survey revealed almost 90 percent of small business owners donated money to nonprofits, and almost 60 percent donated their time. Rather than wait for a government solution, small businessmen seize the opportunity to address problems — both business and social.

In the coming year, liberals will hold protests and may win short term gains. But in the long term, protesting is as passive as government programs. Protesting a problem doesn’t solve it — its purpose is to convince someone else to address a grievance. Progressivism lulls citizens into a state of destructive passivism. Only active entrepreneurship can accomplish the miracles witnessed in the 20th century. The future lies in a conservative economic policy stressing a hands-off government. Problems are best solved by individuals, not governments, and thus only individuals can ultimately succeed.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot