We Are All Little Lee Kwan Yews

There’s a curious little fandango playing out across the blogosphere tonight over what you might call “the problem of the public sphere.” What, exactly can you leave to markets or (to turn the point around) what sorts of functions can you safely entrust to the government.

Regular readers (at least if they read my mind) will recognize this as a favorite of mine. I’ve long thought that differences over the issue are carried on at a level of near-mindless simplicity. We’ve now had at least a generation of “market” ideologues who don’t seem to grasp that a market is a cultural artifact and that there can be markets that function well, and markets that serve as a travesty on the very idea of market. Yet at the same time, there’s a cohort of persistent old lefties who seem never to have given up on their faith in the government as problem-solver—without any suggestion that they ever gave the premise much thought.

The issue burst forth here in a remarkably candid (but predictably articulate) formulation from Brad DeLong of what you might call “the Confucian position.” Brad, it turns out (though this might surprise some regular readers), is an unabashed technocrat (link):

My natural home is in the bipartisan center, arguing with center-right reality-based technocrats about whether it is center-left or center-right policies that have the best odds of moving us toward goals that we all share--world peace, world prosperity, equality of opportunity, safety nets, long and happy lifespans, rapid scientific and technological progress, and personal safety.

Brad came in for a (perhaps predicable) burst of flame from some of his devoted commentators, and somewhat less predicable flaming from Atrios, a high-visibility lefty. Atrios had a tough time containing himself (link):

It's a dangerously wrong view of the world. First, there are absolutely fundamental differences of opinion about the direction of this country which will have tremendous impact on the lives of people. … Those differences of opinion exist throughout society, including in the club of technocrats.

Second, it's a useful conceit to imagine you're above ideology, to plant your feet in a place and call it the center, imagining you have the facts on your side and everyone else is an ideologue, but that's hogwash. Certainly some people are more informed by the facts than others, but that doesn't free them from ideology.

Third, as someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time around the kinds of people DeLong is talking about, I'm not sure I want them running anything. The sensible technocrats haven't exactly had the best track record lately, in part because imagining you're above it helps to isolate you from the consequences of what you're advocating.

Atrios’ contribution has not escaped notice. Take It Personally, channeling Atrios, declares (link) that DeLong’s “is the kind of talk that makes me want to scream. And not just lefties. TigerHawk, who understands himself as an independent-minded conservative, declared “I agree with Atrios,” and muttered “blue moon.” “The whole worldview might work in a different reality,” growled GoodNonsense (link) “but not this one.” Others have chimed in on Brad’s original offering. Max Sawicky (a technocrat if there ever was one, declares (link) “technocrats yes,technocracy no.” And so it goes.

I confess that when I hear this kind of discussion ME usually GO, not because isn’t important, but precisely because it is important, and the level of the discussion is usually so low. Actually it is a bit higher in the current round than sometimes, but the fact remains: there are a thousand thousand nuances on this government/private dichotomy frontier, and it is rare that any discussion of the topic so much as brushes with any of them.

To make the point briefly, when I think public/private, I think “Singapore,” at least as we left it under Lee Kwan Yew—by almost universal agreement, the one smashingly successful Confucian leader in modern times. Lee is a headache for left and right alike. Lefties, in my experience, feel profoundly uncomfortable about Lee. And well they might, though they do so for the wrong reasons. Typically they don’t like his authoritarianism, his nosiness, his infliction of harsh punishment for crime, whatever. Yet I’ve met a fair number of lefties in my time, and there’s scarcely a one of them who doesn’t look in the mirror in the morning and see Lee Kwan Yew looking back—who doesn’t think he could run a benign dictatorship if only fate would give him the task.

Righties are typically less uncomfortable about Lee, although to my mind, they’ve got just as much to be uncomfortable about. Most righties feel on the whole comfortable with Lee: they like the business friendly climate, and they wouldn’t mind getting in a few licks with the paddle themselves. Yet they rarely seem to notice that he undermines almost every but of doctrine that they’ve been preaching since heck was a pup: principles of initiative, of entrepreneurship, of individual freedom, and the like.

Well, so be it. Singapore is a long way away (and I haven’t a clue what has been going on there lately). But the fact remains: this public/private cleavage is one of the elephants in the drawing room—one of those great, lumbering presences that nobody seems to notice. My own guess is that we are all little Lee Kwan Yews at heart at heart, and we all want our freedom of motion (for me, at least, if not for thee). If Brad’s post (and the response) can generate some shrewd inquiry on the topic, I’ll be delighted. But I’m not holding my breath.