Tuesday, November 06, 2012

Human Nature, Hurricane Sandy and the 47%

By Mike Dorf

Views about human nature, broadly defined, can play an important role in shaping various people's political ideologies.  For example, old-school communists believed in the essential malleability of human nature.  Thus, Lenin and his followers sought to create a new Soviet man (and woman) who would work in collective enterprises simply because he (or she) sought the greater good for the collective.

The failure of large-scale collectivization in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere can be taken as pretty good evidence that most human beings will not labor for their fellow human beings with nearly the same vigor as they will labor for themselves and their families.  That failure also strongly suggests that the totalitarianism that emerged in communist countries was not merely a historical accident but a necessity: In order to get people to accept collectivization, the state had to employ extreme force.  We may thus view the period from 1917 to 1991 as a kind of (un)natural experiment that established the limits of humanity's willingness to work for collective rather than individual ends.

In the democratic world, the political right has long used the failures and atrocities of communism as an argument for resisting any project that smacked of collectivism.  The description of President Obama and the Affordable Care Act as "socialist" is only the latest version of such over-reading of the evidence.  To those of us who see Obama as a centrist along the lines of Richard Nixon (who was a red-baiter himself), these accusations can seem lunatic.  But if one begins with the view that even modest collectivizing projects are inherently doomed, one can end up in such a place sincerely.

To say that people sincerely believe that, say, Social Security is simply a small step on the road that leads to the Gulag, is not to say that those sincere beliefs are at all reasonable.  After all, during much of the same period in which communism was failing in eastern Europe and Asia, social democracy succeeded in western Europe.  That experience established that human beings will accept fairly high rates of taxation and government intervention in the economy in order to further the greater good.  To be sure, many European countries have scaled back their welfare states in recent years, but not because of widespread domestic resistance that tells us anything about human nature.

Accordingly, one might think that human nature sets only loose bounds on the degree to which people will accept the legitimacy of government programs that aim to improve the lot of the whole society.  That is my view, and I suspect it is the view of other progressives who regret that the U.S. never developed a social welfare state comparable to what developed in western Europe.

What about the American right?  They oppose expansion of the welfare state on a variety of grounds.  Some people on the right are economic libertarians on Lockean moral grounds.  People have a right to the products of their labor, such Lockean libertarians think, and so redistribution is presumptively (or conclusively) illegitimate.  Alternatively (or additionally), one might worry that too much redistribution of the pie will lead to a smaller pie.  I  think that economic conservatives in the U.S. set the threshold for economic-growth-killing redistribution too low, but the point is correct in principle.  At some point, redistribution becomes counterproductive.  Put differently, the Laffer curve is right in theory, but Laffer and his followers misplaced its peak too far to the left.

The Lockean grounds for opposing expansion of the welfare state do not rest on any particular view about human nature.  However, the worry about the size of the pie is connected to a view about human nature.  Conservatives think that people's selfish instincts--their unwillingness to give up the products of their labors for the greater good--kick in at a lower threshold than progressives think they kick in.

And yet there is at least an apparent tension within the conservative worry about human nature.  On the one hand, conservatives believe that the selfishness of human beings limits the ability of government to enlist people in collective projects.  On the other hand, conservatives want to rely on other-regarding voluntarism to mitigate life's misfortunes.

Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath illustrate the tension.  Natural disasters bring out the best, and worst, in people.  We have seen heroic self-sacrifice by government-employed first responders and private citizens.  We have also seen instances of purely opportunistic looting and violence occasioned by shortages.   Which impulses dominate will depend on a host of factors, including: individual morality; social norms; effectiveness of the response by government and private charities; effectiveness of law enforcement; etc.  Thus, what we might call "human nature" in such circumstances is a generalization that agglomerates numerous factors.

Many conservatives have nonetheless taken the view that human nature places serious limits on the capacity of  people to respect one another's interests.  For that reason, traditional conservatives are law-and-order conservatives.  We need police to ensure that greedy have-nots do not resort to violence to appropriate what belongs to the haves.  Thus, a traditional conservative would certainly favor a robust armed response by the state in the wake of a natural disaster and at other times as well.

What would a conservative say about aiding people affected by natural disasters and other misfortunes?  We don't really need to speculate because we have plenty of evidence.  From George H.W. Bush promoting his "thousand points of light" through (the severely conservative Republican-primaries version of) Mitt Romney blasting spending on FEMA as immoral, we see skepticism of the efficacy and legitimacy of government-organized responses to human misery.

But if human beings' inherent selfishness accounts for their unwillingness to submit to collectivization, then why wouldn't their inherent selfishness also prevent them from volunteering sufficient resources to deal with the worst of our social problems?  One answer might be that it does, but that conservatives don't care about others' misfortunes.  We saw some of that in the ugly sentiment expressed by libertarians opposed to Obamacare: Let 'em die!  Still, that was never a majority sentiment, even among conservatives.

Another possibility is that there's no tension here because conservatives tend to favor small government on Lockean grounds rather than on the human-nature grounds I'm describing.  I think that's probably true of some but not all conservatives.

So what about the remaining core of conservatives who do take a relatively dark view of human nature but nonetheless say that volunteerism can address misfortune?  Are they simply contradicting themselves?  I don't think so.

I would attribute to this residual group of conservatives a more subtle view of human nature.  I would attribute to them the view that some human beings are inherently selfish, while others are more charitable.  The view that we can rely on churches, non-profits and individual volunteerism to respond to natural disasters does not depend on the assumption that everybody is an altruist; it depends instead on the assumption that enough people are compassionate that they will look out for their less fortunate fellows, even as some substantial portion of the population will become looters.  This view fits well with Mitt Romney's view that 47% of the country are moochers, and with the longstanding efforts of politicians (of both parties) to distinguish between the "deserving" poor and the "undeserving" poor.

How does that view differ from the progressive view?  I would note two major differences.  First, progressives tend to regard the question of whether someone finds himself among the looters, the people simply needing help, or the volunteers, as determined as much by circumstance as by personality or values.  And second, progressives tend to think that the need for government intervention after natural disasters and in many other circumstances is mostly not a problem occasioned by people's lack of charitable impulses; the concern instead is that volunteers cannot play the coordinating and mobilizing roles that government can.

At least that's how this progressive sees things.  Although it should be clear from the foregoing that I take the progressive view, I mean these comments more as diagnostic than as critical of the conservative view.  As I hope I have indicated, I have considerable sympathy for the conservative view of human nature, at least in extremis.

Finally, don't forget to VOTE.

8 comments:

Miller Yu said...

Though it really Diablo 3 Goldshould be crystal clear from your foregoing that I make modern see, Come on, man most of these responses far more while analytic compared to as vital on the old-fashioned check out. As I'm hoping I've suggested, I've considerable compassion with the careful take a look at , RS Goldat the very least throughout extremis.

Sam Rickless said...

"I would attribute to this residual group of conservatives a more subtle view of human nature. I would attribute to them the view that some human beings are inherently selfish, while others are more charitable. The view that we can rely on churches, non-profits and individual volunteerism to respond to natural disasters does not depend on the assumption that everybody is an altruist; it depends instead on the assumption that enough people are compassionate that they will look out for their less fortunate fellows, even as some substantial portion of the population will become looters."

I am not a conservative, so I'm not sure I should be speaking to this. But here goes. Many conservatives are religious, and many religions see it as a *religious* duty to help the poor (often even the undeserving poor). I do not doubt that many religious folks who help the poor do so because they are fundamentally altruistic or because they think that the right thing to do is to help the poor. Many of these people are *drawn to* religion precisely because they see in religion a commitment to do something to which they are already antecedently committed. But surely a significant number of religious folks help the poor either because they know that this is something expected of them or because they are worried about how much they will suffer in the afterlife if they do not discharge their religious duties. And *these* concerns are fundamentally self-regarding rather than other-regarding.

Looking at the phenomenon of religion from a distance, one might also make the argument that the very fact that specifically *religious* motives for helping others are given so much weight in all the major religions suggests that there has for many many years been a felt need to find an *artificial* way to counteract human nature, which is fundamentally as Hobbes describes it.

What I am suggesting, in the end, is that conservatives believe that human beings are fundamentally self-interested creatures, and their commitment to the importance of volunteerism is consistent with this suggestion.

Doug said...

"The failure of large-scale collectivization in the Soviet Union, China and elsewhere can be taken as pretty good evidence that most human beings will not labor for their fellow human beings with nearly the same vigor as they will labor for themselves and their families."

The failure of coercive communism does not demonstrate any such thing. Misallocation and mismanagement of resources inherent in those systems along with work that was clearly wasted or for the vanity of party officials is inherently a) unproductive and b) demoralizing. There are many, many examples of volunteers and those whose pay does not depend on their output (e.g. professors) who will labour for their fellow humans.

Kzaxcpnd Molluskxbny said...

A good book may be Cheap Runescape Gold among the best of friends. It is the same today that it always was, and it will Buy Runescape Gold never change. It always receives us with the same kindness; amusing and instructing us in youth, and comforting Runescape Gold and consoling us in age.

Kzaxcpnd Molluskxbny said...

A good book is Runescape Money often the best urn of a life Runescape2 Money enshrining the best that life could think out; for the world of a man's life is, for the most part, but the world of his thoughts. Thus the best books are treasuries of good words, the golden thoughts, which RS Gold, remembered and cherished, become our constant companions and comforters.

Kzaxcpnd Molluskxbny said...

Labor vanquishes all---not inconstant , spasmodic, or ill-directed labor; but RuneScape Gold faithful, unremitting, daily effort toward RS Gold a well-directed purpose. Just as truly as eternal vigilance is RuneScape Gold the price of liberty, so is eternal industry the price of noble and enduring success.

Greg Kensington said...

Review of Soviet Union’s policy of collectivization http://www.helium.com/items/2273247-stalins-collectivizationur

amine lahragui said...


thanks so much for that great blog and thanks also for accepting my links thanks
طريقة عمل الدونات طريقة عمل البان كيك طريقة عمل الكنافة طريقة عمل البسبوسة طريقة عمل الكيك طريقة عمل عجينة البيتزا فوائد القرفه
thanks so much i like very so much your post
فوائد الحلبة فوائد الزنجبيل فوائد الرمان فوائد زيت السمسم علاج البواسير فوائد البصل فوائد اليانسون فوائد الكركم فوائد الزعتر قصص جحا تعريف الحب علامات الحمل