I almost named this post "In Defense of Capitalism." But since the post is about an article which makes the point, as I have attempted to on many occasions, that capitalism is the best thing that ever happened to raise the living conditions of humans on the planet, it needs as much "defense" as do "sunrises," "joy," or "vodka martinis." Things that are self-evidently glorious need no defense. Thus, capitalism is rather something to be praised, as are those who practice it, as they create wealth
out of nothing and make us all wealthier as a result.
I get ahead of myself. The fantastic article is by the eminent scholar Charles Murray, and it is called
Why Capitalism Has an Image Problem, in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. Mr. Murray eloquently demonstrates why capitalism (something I prefer to label "free market economics") is getting a bum rap, and why modern efforts to treat it as "evil" themselves are destined to impoverish us all.
I could quote the entire article, but that would be a waste. Click through and read it. Then send it to your friends. And tell them to send it to theirs. Everyone should read it, because the article makes clear the choice the presidential election gives us: A return to the complete embrace of the American Dream—that is, to aspire to success by self-reliance, individual freedom, and economic liberty, protected by limited government―or a continued slide toward a new American Nightmare, founded on collectivism, individual constraint and envy, enforced by an all-powerful government.
To get you interested, here is a sample:
[C]apitalism is the best thing that has ever happened to the material condition of the human race. From the dawn of history until the 18th century, every society in the world was impoverished, with only the thinnest film of wealth on top. Then came capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Everywhere that capitalism subsequently took hold, national wealth began to increase and poverty began to fall. Everywhere that capitalism didn't take hold, people remained impoverished. Everywhere that capitalism has been rejected since then, poverty has increased.
Yet . . . "[c]apitalist" has become an accusation. The creative destruction that is at the heart of a growing economy is now seen as evil. Americans increasingly appear to accept the mind-set that kept the world in poverty for millennia: If you've gotten rich, it is because you made someone else poorer.
Mr. Murray doesn't point out here why this mind-set is false, which is because trading in a free market makes
both sides of the trade better off, and capitalism (or free trade) therefore expands the pie rather than re-slices it. But he does identify why capitalism's "image" is weak: primarily, the divorce of economics from morality.
Another factor is the segregation of capitalism from virtue. Historically, the merits of free enterprise and the obligations of success were intertwined in the national catechism. McGuffey's Readers, the books on which generations of American children were raised, have plenty of stories treating initiative, hard work and entrepreneurialism as virtues, but just as many stories praising the virtues of self-restraint, personal integrity and concern for those who depend on you. The freedom to act and a stern moral obligation to act in certain ways were seen as two sides of the same American coin. Little of that has survived.
To accept the concept of virtue requires that you believe some ways of behaving are right and others are wrong always and everywhere. That openly judgmental stand is no longer acceptable in America's schools nor in many American homes. Correspondingly, we have watched the deterioration of the sense of stewardship that once was so widespread among the most successful Americans and the near disappearance of the sense of seemliness that led successful capitalists to be obedient to unenforceable standards of propriety.
Mr. Murray's prescription? In part, it is a government that holds people responsible for their harms and enforces virtue, but otherwise gets out of their way―in other words, the government we have always had until recently.
Making a living, starting a business and finding work that you enjoy all depend on freedom to act in the economic realm. What government can do to help is establish the rule of law so that informed and voluntary trades can take place. More formally, government can vigorously enforce laws against the use of force, fraud and criminal collusion, and use tort law to hold people liable for harm they cause others.
Everything else the government does inherently restricts economic freedom to act in pursuit of earned success.
But the prescription to make capitalism regarded as the dynamic, praise-worthy and wonderful engine of prosperity that it is also entails individual embrace of virtue:
To put it another way, it should be possible to revive a national consensus affirming that capitalism embraces the best and most essential things about American life; that freeing capitalism to do what it does best won't just create national wealth and reduce poverty, but expand the ability of Americans to achieve earned success—to pursue happiness.
Reviving that consensus also requires us to return to the vocabulary of virtue when we talk about capitalism. Personal integrity, a sense of seemliness and concern for those who depend on us are not "values" that are no better or worse than other values. Historically, they have been deeply embedded in the American version of capitalism. If it is necessary to remind the middle class and working class that the rich are not their enemies, it is equally necessary to remind the most successful among us that their obligations are not to be measured in terms of their tax bills. Their principled stewardship can nurture and restore our heritage of liberty. Their indifference to that heritage can destroy it.
