In a delightful piece, Michael Novak provides us with the “structural propositions” of the neo-con creed:
- Economic realism, breaking from leftist utopianism, is fundamental; and the dynamic drive of realism in economics flows from mind, creativity, and enterprise. Also, in the real world, incentives help mightily.
- Politics is more fundamental than economics, for without the rule of law, limited government, and respect for natural rights economic progress is scarcely possible.
- Culture is even more fundamental than politics or economics, for without certain architectonic ideas, certain habits of the heart, a love for argument and evidence and open conversation, and a few other moral and spiritual dispositions, neither a republic respecting rights nor a dynamic capitalist economy can thrive, or even survive.
A few quick thoughts before opening this up for (gracious and polite) discussion:
“Economic utopianism” is a rather vague term, which strikes me as a swift caricature rather than as a useful construct. Which and whose “utopianism”? After all, Karl Marx, whose ideology I am quite sure Novak has in mind, disparagely dismissed the forerunning French and British socialist endeavors (a la Owen, Proudhon, and Saint-Simon) as “utopian.” Would the left-leaning factions within the American liberal democratic paradigm–which is fundamentally opposed to both Marxist and non-Marxist utopians–be guilty of advocating “neo-utopianism”? I don’t think so insofar as Novak refers to economic “incentives,” which few American liberal factions would eschew. Defining a creed of a specific type in reference and contrast to a vague, undefined ideology may not be particularly helpful.
The claim that politics is more fundamental than economics is patently false, refuted by empirical and historical assessment. Politics in the abstract and in practice is organized according to the pre-existing phenomena of trade, language, religion and thought-form. As José Ortega y Gasset has pointed out repeatedly, and as history confirms, economics–trade, commerce, distribution, motive, supply, demand–precede and give rise to political structures. This is not to suggest that politics has no effect on economics; quite the opposite is true. There is, historically and practically, a mutual interchange between the political and economic structures of a given society. However, political shape–especially in free societies–owes to economic practice (among other cultural features). Robert Kaplan has reminded us of this truth, which is latent in Tocqueville, in his brilliant yet controversial essay, “Was Democracy Just a Moment?” Democracy is not the vestibule but the capstone of free enterprise. If particular economic, religious and societal structures are not in place, the attempt to impose democracy on a people or “nation” inevitably fails. Sudan in the 1980’s, Algeria in the early 1990’s, Mali in the late 1990’s, and Venezuela in recent years tell against Novak’s claim that politics is more fundamental than economics. Economics is more fundamental than politics according to human need and interaction. Politics emanates and then organizes itself accordingly and, reflexively, impacts and transforms the primary level of economic practice.
Novak is mostly correct in his last point (trade and commerce are essential aspects of a culture). Culture is more fundamental to a society than politics.
Your thoughts…
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In