Brooks: Liberalism with a Human Face

For a century, the U.S. has been descending into a strange paradox. At least in general terms, the great majority of its population favors a free market with the government’s role – especially that of the central government, i.e., the federal one – reduced to an indispensable minimum. Despite significant cultural change brought about by immigration from Latin America and a long period of dominant progressive culture, Americans are still mostly anti-government, like they have been from the beginning. And yet, under most administrations and any majority, the power of the federal government continues to grow, grow and still grow, as if it were a mechanism that now works automatically, independent of the voters’ will.

Arthur Brooks, president of the American Enterprise Institute, the oldest conservative think tank in the U.S. – it was established in 1938, during the time of Roosevelt and the New Deal – has hashed out, analyzed and confronted this paradox head on.

Last night in Milan, as a guest of the Bruno Leoni Institute and in the company of Giuliano Ferrara, director of “Il Foglio,” Brooks presented an Italian translation of “The Road to Freedom,” or “La via della libertà,” published by Rubbettino in 2014. Whether in its Italian or English version (written two years ago), the title references a great classic of liberalism: “The Road to Slavery” by Friedrich August von Hayek, philosopher and Nobel Prize-winning economist. It was written during a dark time for liberalism, in the middle of World War II, and its publication reasoned about the risks of degenerating into totalitarianism, not only in the event of a victory on the part of the Axis powers or the USSR, but also in the event of further centralization and nationalization of Western economies. “The Road to Liberty” starts with a problematic Western society, America, which is already mostly centralized, and takes on the difficult argument of how to make it free once again.

Brooks’ wager consists of a shift in language and tempo. Conservatives, classical liberals, libertarians and all those who in more or less radical ways defend free markets, use their heads rather than follow their hearts. They argue by expounding on numbers, statistics and logical philosophical arguments in order to prove why they are right. On the contrary, progressives promote their system by searching inside people’s hearts, using moral arguments without lingering much over data. The confrontation between a candidate like Obama and one like Romney serves to further demonstrate this phenomenon. Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan’s repetitive “do the math” did not catch on as much as Obama’s emphatic “forward.” Despite the foreign policy mistakes and weak economic results, the prophet of progressivism won yet again. While still in favor of freedom, when the time comes to choose, the Americans opt for whoever limits it in favor of “social justice.” What Brooks suggests is to drive at the heart of the people through moral arguments in favor of free markets. Happiness comes first: only independence and success in one’s work as a free producer allow for authentic happiness – in economic terms of course. Dependence on someone else’s money is, in other words, always harmful, in terms of serenity and self-affirmation as well. Second: social justice. Only a free market system is capable of distributing wealth according to merit and not according to the judgment of a workplace boss. Third: the emancipation of the poor. Data in hand, Brooks demonstrates how around 2 billion inhabitants of our planet emerged from absolute poverty thanks to globalization. And even among the freer societies, the social elevator is definitely faster in those where there is greater liberty rather than in those – like Italy – where the government is omnipresent. Brooks dedicates the second part of his volume to explaining how to leave behind the current system of centralization in order to achieve a freer society. Above all, he highlights what the government’s role should be: nothing beyond insurance. Besides justice, public order and defense, it needs to ensure a social safety net for bare necessities, so that no one is left behind in health or basic necessities, such as food and housing. As for the rest, it’s best to entrust it all to private competition in the free market.

Seems easy, but try to imagine how the Italian parties that are proposing a similar program will make out.