Matt Miller would portray himself as an unapologetic centrist, non-partisan, unencumbered by the burdens of ideology. An eminently reasonable policy wonk, if you will. But he does adopt the ideology of the technocrat. The technocrat believes in the power of science and reason to mediate political compromise and find out "what works." Voters demand competence and this the technocrat promises. By now we should know this is the ultimate "dead idea."
Mr. Miller numbers six Dead Ideas: 1) each generation can expect a rising standard of living; 2) free trade is always good; 3) employer-provided healthcare benefits; 4) tax rates are too high; 5) local school finance; and 6) free market outcomes are just and fair.
Of these, his technocratic arguments can possibly affirm only two (local school finance and employer provided health care), with a fair philosophical argument for a third (free market outcomes are just and fair). On the other three he plays victim to his own dead ideas.
The technocratic approach is based on the social sciences, principally economics, political science, and sociology, which in turn are based on rudimentary psychology. Unfortunately, the behavioral assumptions of these pseudo-sciences provide a foundation of quicksand. We have discovered this to our own dismay with our current worldwide economic and financial crisis. Does anybody get a queasy feeling these `experts' have no idea what they're doing? This is the world of the technocrat: hubris based on self-delusion. For a more sober assessment of the limits of economics and finance I suggest reading Nicholas Taleb or Benoit Mandelbrot.
Whether future generations will experience a rising standard of living will depend on the policies we adopt and the way we define our standard of living. In other words, it's not a dead idea until and unless we kill it. Malthus claimed the same dead idea regarding population growth and look how wrong he was. Anyway, do we think this idea is dead for all classes across society? Does this mean poor youth have no hope of rising above their parents' station? I would hope not. If the poor of the world have better prospects for the future, why not the middle and upper classes? In fact, if we really think government is going to provide universal healthcare, we better hope the quality of care will be progressive rather than regressive. Advancing medical technologies almost assure it will be. The only question is will we be able to pay for it?
On free trade, no Ricardian ever claimed the benefits of free trade are distributed evenly. The adjustment costs must be managed politically and this is how free trade blossomed in the 20th century. Ricardo's trade theory shows how comparative advantage makes trade a win-win proposition in terms of national welfare. But the winners still have to compensate the losers. This is not a dead idea, it's a misspecified one.
On taxes, it seems disingenuous to make general statements about whether taxes must go up or down without specifying what taxes and how. Taxes are a favorite of the technocratic class because public revenues are needed to fund technocratic solutions. Mr. Miller is a fair-minded centrist here, shooting for the middle ground to define the pro-market, pro-government agenda, but it comes back again to how taxes affect incentives to create wealth and how well government spending fulfills the demands of voters that cannot be met by markets. From where we stand now I'd have to say markets could and do provide most of the public benefits that technocrats insist must be provided by government. Most retirement funding and healthcare has historically been provided by the private sector. And historically we have done very well until we decided to put macroeconomic management into the hands of the technocrats (re: The Fed, Treasury and Congress). Taking a wrong turn on entitlements now will not enhance our future quality of life, but detract from it.
I would most agree in supporting Mr. Miller's argument on the fairness of market outcomes. Like Machiavelli claimed 500 years ago, at least half of man's fate in life is due to Fortune and the other half to Virtu. Especially with our current version of casino capitalism, many of the superrich owe their outsized wealth to pure luck and influence, not intelligence, talent or hard work. But this is a philosophical and moral argument as much as an empirical one. It won't be resolved by technocratic claims.
Mr. Miller is a good writer and thinker, an honest, intelligent technocrat. Most readers will find his arguments reasonable and appealing. Unfortunately, that doesn't make them right. The school of technocrats should have been closed after Robert S. McNamara, the ultimate technocratic wunderkind who left behind a wake of destruction wherever he went. Technocrats are functionaries, they do not have the right tools to be designing the edifice for society.
