Lessons for the Left: Fingers in Every Pie

It is unquestionable that the agenda of President Donald J. Trump (R) is to vest all fundamental government powers in the office of the President. It is also unquestionable that he is using such power to dictate the actions of others, whether they be universities, law firms, media companies, state and local governments, or foreign governments. As the magnanimous felon famously stated, “I run the country and the world.”

His efforts have largely been successful and there is a lesson therein which should be learned by the Left. In America, for well over a century (since at least the beginning of the Progressive Era in the 1890s), the Left (with the cooperation of the moderates) have pushed for the expansion of government influence into nearly all aspects of life: education, healthcare, social welfare, business and labor, agriculture, manufacturing, banking, transportation, etc.

This expansion fell well short of the pure socialism of annihilating the concept of private property, as would be expected in a country which considered the right to property to be a close subset of the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. Rather, private ownership, de jure, was retained, but partial-to-full control (de facto ownership) was gradually vested in various governments through the application of indirect mechanisms, whether through “permissive actions” (e.g., licensing and permits) or “funding actions” (e.g., subsidies and grants), to actors in all aspects of life.

In essence, whether such actors (individuals, businesses, non-profit organizations, etc.) could receive funding or what actions (or inactions) they could take, would be decided by the governments providing the funds or permits.

Such oversight, at least in the realm of subsidies and grants is, of course, prudent and necessary. Leaving aside (momentarily) the morality of confiscating a person’s property and giving it to another (through taxation and subsidies), morality dictates that the granting of money should be used for both the lawful purposes of the subsidy, as well as given to actors who are not engaged in the promotion of ideas or actions which are immoral. Examples of this include publicly funding businesses which unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sex, gender, disability, religion, etc.

What the more honest actors from the Left failed to realize (or simply ignored) over the past 130+ years is that setting the conditions for granting public funds is solely at the discretion of the government providing the funding, and such a government is only as good as the people who run it. When good faith politicians dominate such a government, it can be expected that the conditions established are honest (albeit flawed) and are likely to be judiciously applied. When dominated by bad faith politicians, the conditions established are likely to be arbitrary, whimsical, and with the purpose of maliciously controlling the actions of the actors so funded.

This is the case with the current American Federal government, which is under the control of MAGA. All the funds and programs that the Left reputedly intended to be used for worthwhile causes (e.g., research grants to universities to fund cancer research) are now being used as leverage to force the intended recipients into conforming to the will of the President.

A university is not suppressing unfavorable opinions on its privately owned campuses? Its Federal funding is cut off. A broadcast company says something critical of the President? Its broadcasting license is revoked. A law firm has or may represent clients who oppose the President? Their security access and entry to Federal buildings is terminated. Public schools are not teaching theologically-based curriculum? Their funding is re-channeled to private charter schools which have such curriculum.

In some cases, the funding comprises such a large part of the actor’s budget that the threat of withholding the funds is an existential one. Their choice becomes either that of existing as a tool of MAGA or to not exist at all. In the case of licenses and permits, it is no longer “some” of the cases, but “nearly all” the cases.

One of the pillars of classical liberalism is that a government should not have so great a sphere of control over the various aspects of peoples’ lives as to give it power to control such lives. This meant limiting the scope of a government’s role, best described by such informal political doctrines known as the “Separation between Church and State” and its corollary, “Separation between Economics and State”. The limitation of such scope keeps bad faith politicians (of which Trump is king), from using the force of the government into blackmailing people into doing their will.

The rejection of such pillar has left the Left in an awkward political position, where it either needs to continue asserting its Progressive Era stance that governments must have an active role in everyday life (and give MAGA carte blanche to dictate the terms of such life), or it must stake new grounds, based on foundational principles, that there is a limit to the scope of government (and where a government should not enter, private individuals and organizations can freely, based on mutually agreeable terms).

If the Left were to re-plant its classical liberal roots, many of the issues that MAGA is bludgeoning it with would be neutralized. For example:

·       Should trans-athletes be allowed to compete in sporting events? Sporting events should be organized and funded exclusively by private organizations. As such, these organizations should be the ones to make that decision and the rules governing it.

·       Should children be subjected to theological studies in primary school? Schools should be privately owned and funded, and parents are free to send their children to whichever one will accept them (as long as such school at least provides the very basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic). 

·       Should companies integrate so-called DEI policies into their practices? Businesses are privately owned and operated. It is up to them to decide who they wish to hire, on what basis, and the direction of their culture.

Thus neutralized, MAGA would either have to pivot to economic issues (something they would not want to do right now, considering the state of the economy) or would have to unequivocally repudiate their classical roots, by effectively declaring that they are in favor of governments with unlimited scope and power – consummating its marriage with authoritarianism.

While polling and studies would need to be conducted to see whether, with regards to cultural issues, the American voting public prefers a laissez-faire or Christian totalitarianism approach, this author believes that most would prefer the former. One of the reasons for the success of Trump’s second re-election bid was the fact that most voters (including swing moderates) felt (justifiably or not) that the Left was forcing their cultural values on them, thus voting for the default alternative (and regretting it later).

If the perspective is changed to where they feel (justifiably) that the tables have turned, Democrats may find that their brand is less toxic and that moderates and neo-conservatives would be more inclined to vote for them. But to do this convincingly, the Left must come to accept that all things have their proper scopes, including governments, and there are aspects of life in which governments should not control (which also means “fund”).