Outside your typical college campus, most people don’t question the free market’s superiority when it comes to economic performance. Even the so-called communists in China have come around to the view that Adam Smith is a far more reliable guide for a nation than Karl Marx or Chairman Mao.
But while we’ve won the efficiency argument, we have yet to persuade people that the market does better because it is more moral — or that socialism fails because it is largely immoral in its denial of fundamental freedoms.
To the contrary, too many people think that the market succeeds because it is based on a vice — greed. And that socialism is better, because it is based on a virtue — sharing.
Naturally, they conclude from this one of two things: that the way to make capitalism more just and more humane is to temper it by injecting a large dollop of government-mandated sharing, or that, like President Obama, government is better.
We see this confusion everywhere. And conservatives and Republicans have to be honest here: It’s not limited to those on the left side of the political aisle.
How often have we elected some political leader to fight against some horrible regulation or tax, only to watch as he basically agrees to a watered-down version?
How often do you hear the same people who say they are for free trade then push for stronger anti-dumping laws, a backdoor form of protectionism?
How often do we hear the same politicians who say they believe in free markets go on to carve out a special tax credit for some industry they favor?
Crony capitalism is not capitalism. It’s cronyism. So long as we allow the debate to be framed by people who think the market is efficient because it is based on a human failing, we are going to lose.
The only way to uphold market freedom is to show people that the market doesn’t succeed because of greed. For the truth is just the opposite.
The market succeeds because it gives people incentives to put their own wants and needs aside to address the wants and needs of others. To succeed, you have to produce something that other people are willing to pay for.
Matt Ridley has given great thought to these issues. In his book “The Rational Optimist,” he pointed out that by almost any measure, people on this planet today are better fed, better sheltered, and better protected than they’ve ever been — and that prosperity has really accelerated in the last 100 years. Indeed, the average person’s standard of living has improved tenfold in the last century, and we owe much of it to trade.
Arthur Brooks believes this speaks to our ideas about fairness and compassion. Arthur runs a think tank called the American Enterprise Institute and has written a terrific book on the market. He defines fairness as the universal opportunity to enjoy earned success. He’s also pretty scathing about some of government actions that pass for compassion these days.
What’s fair or compassionate, for example, about using taxpayer dollars to bail out Wall Street bankers?
What’s fair about taking money from people who’ve earned it and giving it to people who didn’t?
What’s just about a generation of people who rack up government debt for their own health care and retirement — while leaving their children and grandchildren to foot the bill?
The answer is that there’s nothing compassionate, fair or just about doing these things.
But we must do more than simply oppose government intervention. After all, people shouldn’t be opposed to a reasonable level of regulation, taxation and spending, especially when it comes to providing a safety net that will allow the poorest and most unfortunate among us to live a life with dignity.
These days when we argue “more economic growth” or “lower taxes,” many think to themselves: That’s fine for hedge-fund managers and CEOs. But it doesn’t mean anything for an ordinary person.
Our challenge is to bring our message to such people—whether they work on a factory floor, behind a restaurant counter or at a desk — in a way that lets them understand why they stand to benefit more from a society that rewards their work and initiative than one that pretends to spread the wealth around.
That’s not always an easy case to make. But some people don’t even try, because they say the problem is people are naturally envious.
I don’t believe this. In my life, I’ve learned that most people want the same thing: a fair chance to make a better life for themselves and their families — and to know that the opportunities for their children will be better than they are for themselves. They resent the rich only when they conclude that the system is rigged.
In short, as we work for freer markets, we must also work to persuade our fellow citizens that we do so not simply because a free market is more efficient but because it is fair and just and right.
Rupert Murdoch is chairman and CEO of News Corp. This article is adapted from a recent speech to the Institute of Public Affairs.