If socialism worked, it would be more or less correct. No child should grow up in squalor; life chances are not at all equal, and although there is nothing wrong with uneven luck, there should be limits to the disadvantage of low birth; and if government could ensure general prosperity, and a reasonable allocation of rewards, why not? The problem is that socialism does not work, and that it has moral flaws of its own. Capitalism has proven to be a much more reliable instrument of economic growth and technological innovation; the politicization of the economy is merely an invitation to corruption; freedom must be curtailed too much to make planning effective; and merit tends to be snubbed, so that the talented and hardworking are exploited for the sake of the dull and lazy. The welfare states of Europe are not truly socialist, but quasi- capitalist, and even they are having problems with hampered economic growth and competitiveness.
Liberalism, in the last hundred years, has generally been less ambitious than the "social democracies" of Western Europe, and, in any case, has rarely aspired to true socialism. However, it has taken an optimistic view of government's ability to affect the economy, and of the ability of government to solve social problems, at least hastening the pace of change markedly. The problem is that economics is like meteorology: although it understands something of the underlying dynamics of the phenomena studied, it has little predictive power for the long term, and without the ability to predict, one cannot very well take steps to control. Similarly with social problems: they are often too complex, and, in any case, would require a degree of control over the subjects that no one would tolerate, for us to be very ambitious about taking effective action.
Conservatives are much more skeptical about the role of government, especially the federal government, and take a more modest position about addressing social and economic problems. A true conservative, as distinct from a libertarian, is not intrinsically hostile to government, and, indeed, thinks it can play a constructive role. But he is leery of wasting resources on half- baked schemes, and conscious of the way the hand of government can weigh heavily on people, even when benevolent. His default position is against ambitious initiatives, which does not mean that he cannot be persuaded that a particular program has merit, only that the case must be strong to win assent. |
