Jonathan Cohn says, when discussing whether we should extend the Bush tax cuts (which we ultimately did, temporarily):
But this debate isn’t just about budget arithmetic. It’s about morality, too. And I’m not sure that part of the debate is getting the attention it deserves.
According to the Republicans and many of their supporters, allowing tax rates on upper incomes to rise would punish the rich for their success, taking away money that the rich have earned. But this argument suffers from two key flaws.
One is that it fails to account for the power of luck. Almost by definition, people who are successful have benefited from some measure of good fortune. That fortune can take the form of obvious, material advantages–like access to advanced technology and good schools. Or it can take the form of more subtle, but still important, assets for moving forward in life–like good health or loving parents.
Most liberals agree with Cohn: it is moral to tax the rich heavily — lets say 50% of their income, if all taxes are included — because they do not truly “deserve” their wealth, and it is better off in the hands of poorer people. But do Americans truly “deserve” to be vastly more wealthy than people in other countries? If not, then shouldn’t liberals complain loudly that we are being very immoral by allotting only 1% of the American budget to foreign aid? The apparent liberal moral code is that there is a much stronger moral imperative to even out the wealth discrepancy within America than to even out the wealth discrepancy between Americans and foreigners. And Cohn’s argument that wealthy Americans are wealthy because of “luck” seems to apply even more strongly as an explanation for why Americans are generally wealthy as compared to foreigners — Warren Buffet might have been able to have great success, due to his smarts, even if he were born into a poor American family, but if he were born in an impoverished country, he wouldn’t have had a chance.
(But then the question arises: why don’t liberals object that there is a much stronger moral imperative to give money to American charities than to foreign ones?)
And with far left people like Michael Moore, it is much more transparent: what, other than blatant discrimination against foreigners, motivates his belief that it is morally wrong for employers to switch from employing American workers to employing foreign workers (who are likely much poorer)?
Here is what he said, speaking to “anybody who works on Wall Street” on the Rachel Maddow Show (while holding a pair of handcuffs):
You have taken our jobs overseas, we want those jobs back. Those are a national resource. Those are not yours to do with as you please. They affect all of us as a society.
We have a right to those jobs. We have a right to that money that used to belong to the people of this country.
People generally laugh at Michael Moore for being goofy and very far to the left, but why don’t they call him out for this discriminatory belief?
And why don’t people call out more reasonable people like Jonathan Cohn for endorsing a moral code that seems to arbitrarily single out the intra-country wealth discrepancy as a discrepancy that needs to be rectified, but who pay far less attention to the inter-country wealth discrepancy?
I think you are on your way to solving the mystery of whether a discriminatory mindset is at the root of liberal economic policy preferences when when you notice that liberals are perfectly happy to give to foreign charities. They don’t “object”, as you suggest a consistent (bigoted) liberal should, that Americans should give more money to American charities because liberals are not by and large bigoted against foreigners.
I think there are sensible reasons why American liberals who are not bigots might feel that social safety net money and other economic protections should disproportionately go to Americans rather than foreigners. 1) They might feel that it is the American social fabric that created the conditions for rich Americans to get rich, and so poor Americans who are part of that social fabric are owed relief. Poor Americans work in low pay, dead-end jobs at places like Walmart and some rich people get rich off of their backs. Also, poor Americans spend a disproportionally large amount of their money (almost all of it) on American goods.) 2) When anyone gives to charity they don’t want their resources spread thin. Even if just as much good would be done per dollar if Bill Gates scattered dollar bills around Africa, it would be hard to measure the benefits, and so would not give Bill Gates the same kind of satisfaction as when he gives to targeted causes. For the same reason, it makes sense for the American taxpayers to help other Americans in a targeted way. 3) In some ways, it is more efficient for the American government to help Americans than to help foreigners. For one thing, there are no warlord middlemen, and for another, members of the American government are more familiar with the needs in America than with the needs in foreign countries. 4) I am not sure that a preference for helping poor Americans simply because they are Americans is a sign of bigotry. I feel that the desire to help fellow Americans comes from something more like concern and affections for neighbors/community than ethnic prejudice.
So would you say that a good strategy for businessmen to stop being required by liberals like Jonathan Cohn to have their wealth redistributed to poor Americans is to ignore the demands of liberals like Michael Moore that they stop employing foreigners? If they employed more foreigners, it sounds like you are arguing, there wouldn’t be as strong a moral imperative to have their wealth redistributed to other Americans. But in order to get there they’ll have to avoid being handcuffed by Michael Moore.
Yes I take the point about the warlords, as far as direct redistribution is concerned (but that brings us to the point I just raised above – the warlords can’t intervene as much when it comes to helping foreigners by employing them rather than by giving money to their governments.)
On your last point, I agree that is why an American might be more inclined himself to help other Americans. But should that person also declare that it is immoral for other Americans to not have the same inclination?