I had a eureka moment reading this essay by John Ray. Not that I agree with his conclusions, though I do share his revulsion for the elitism that he describes. I disagree with his conclusions on no evidence other than my own personal experience. I grew up among a population that was overwhelmingly liberal, and I feel that I know those particular people quite well. I think that their views were primarily formed by a lack of understanding of feedback systems – an unwillingness to believe that secondary effects can in the long run be more important than primary effects, what is sometimes called the Law of Unintended Consequences. In other words, if there is a problem, then we (the government) should solve it.
Not that conservatives have any more understanding of feedback systems. What saves them from error is an abhorrence of government interference, a love of liberty. This is a moral stand which I find eminently justifiable, but there is no denying that liberty inevitably leads to inequality. Inevitably, given the liberty to choose, some people will make mistakes, and others will succeed. The beauty of this from a systems point of view is that as a secondary effect (the primary effect is success or failure) negative behavior results in negative feedback, and positive behavior results in positive feedback. (As an aside, I think that parents tend to be much more aware of secondary effects with respect to their children – they don’t want to spoil them.)
However, I am uncomfortable with the words “liberal” and “conservative”, “left” and “right”. With respect to policy, the American left and right have switched sides several times in its history. I have argued before that the real split is between the forces of ferment and stasis, and that those groups will switch sides every two generations. In the 1970s the left wanted to spread democracy, and in the 1870s the left wanted free trade…
That’s when I had my eureka moment. Why did the left want low tariffs in the 1870s? Because the average American was a farmer (agricultural subsidies were not yet invented), and knew very well that free trade enriched him – he could buy more, more cheaply. Tariffs enriched big business. It wasn’t until the average American became an employee of big business that he began to see free trade as a threat (at least in his own industry), which put him in agreement with big business. Who then is left to support free trade? Only those, of whatever background, who feel sure enough, and entrepreneurial enough, to value the opportunity of free trade more than they fear its hazards.
Historically speaking, the most unique thing about the United States is that the average American was a freeholder – someone who farmed his own land (Hawaii is the exception, which in this case really does prove the rule). In Europe, indeed in most of the world, the average person did not own the land he worked. In other words, the pre-industrial European economic system had more in common with big business and big labor, in contrast to the pre-industrial American economic system which empowered the individual and encouraged entrepreneurship.
And I think maybe that’s why Israel feels so much more like the US than like Europe. The cultural background of most Israelis is not as freeholders. Jews in both Europe and the Arab lands were outcasts from the agricultural system. They were, of course, barred from the aristocracy, but neither could they submit to being tenant farmers. Thus they were driven to the economic margins, they were the shoemakers, the tailors, and the petty merchants. A lucky few were doctors and bankers. But in poverty and in wealth, they were masters of their own fate – virtual freeholders.
The overall impression I get of Europe is of a kind of docility – Europeans expect to be taken care of, and exploited. Israelis, on the other hand, are known for their chutzpah (huspa). Americans are known for being brash. Europeans are afraid of conflict and chaos, knowing how easily it can degenerate into death and destruction. Israelis and Americans have developed cultural norms of a freeholding society – norms that protect individual freedom while preserving order.
Only a tiny fraction of the Western world now works in agriculture. The vast majority work in business big and small, whether in Israel, Europe, or America. But it seems to me that the cultural memory of our freeholding or peasant past is a major determinant of our worldviews today.
Posted by David Boxenhorn at June 29, 2004 11:21 PMIs this the explanation for New York's politics?
Joseph,
Could be. But I think that it's more likely to be a result of the general urban US worldview, which was shaped by the neo-feudalism of big business/big labor. I think that New York spent enough time as an English colony to nullify most of the effect of its Dutch beginning.
Thanks for the link, it was very interesting!
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 1, 2004 09:56 AM PermalinkI enjoy your posts on systems theory and how it applies to politics. I find your comments on the importance of secondary effects especially interesting.
There is a common secondary effect I rarely find discussed in news and political commentary. Lots of parents figure it out though. Legislators, corporate executives, political fanatics and religious zealots never seem to realize that many of their rules will only provoke a knee-jerk impulse to rebel against the rules. The more petty and intrusive the rule, the stronger the urge to rebel. The more likely that enforcing the rule will accomplish nothing except ruining the enforcer's credibility. This is especially true of attempts to politeness mandatory (e.g. cleaning up our dog's poop in public places), attempts to regulate private behaviors which are nobody else's business (what we like to eat, how much we weigh), and rules which infringe on free speech and religious and political freedom (political correctness, religious extremism).
Are Americans more rebellious in this kind of way? Are Europeans more tolerant of intrusive nit-picking government regulation? Do Europeans rebel against excessive regulation, but in a different way than Americans do? Does systems theory explicitly mention this subject?
Good questions. I don't know any of the answers.
Glad you're enjoying my blog!
Posted by: David Boxenhorn at July 4, 2004 01:14 AM Permalink