NEOCONSERVATISM
499
socialism in my youth, is a good idea anymore. Neither of us think the
states that call themselves socialist are models of either justice or
equality or freedom. Neither of us-of course-believes in imperialism
or colonialism.
It
is very hard for us to define what it is that divides us,
in any cenlrally principled way. We might, depending on which
socialists, and which neoconservatives are arguing, disagree about the
details or the scope of health insurance plans; or about the level of
taxation that should be imposed upon corporations; or how much
should be going into social security; or whether unemployment
insurance con tribu tes
to
unemployment and how much. But where are
the principles that separate us? On the socialist side of such arguments,
we will hear that Germany-that model of socialism!-provides a
much higher replacement of wages and unemployment insurance than
we do, and imposes a much heavier tax burden for social purposes. And
these may be very good things to do, and there may be very good
arguments for us in the United States to follow Germany in this
respect.
But to me the issues appear pragmatic, while
to
others they are
ideological. The arguments with socialists have more or less come
down to the question, "Why aren't we more like West Germany or
Sweden or Denmark?" They used to be, "Why aren't we more like
England?" Well I wish we were more like West Germany in some
respects, with a higher and a more rapidly growing per capita income,
a higher rate of productivity, better social services, less crime. But I
don't think the difference has anything to do with socialism or capital–
ism.
The issue, of course, is not Soviet Russia or Cuba or even China.
Most of the socialists we argue with or are denounced by, for example,
the editors and writers of
Dissent,
don't think any better of these
dictatorships or whatever they are called than we do. I don't think I
have any distinctly neoconservate positions in that area.
Thus our disagreements do not have anything to do with deep
underlying philosophical positions. They have to do with facts and
common sense. Very often the people we disagree with, or who disagree
with us, don't seem to have the facts. I've worked my way through
many fields of domestic social policy over the last twenty years, and
again and again found that if I've disagreed with people who are on the
left, it was simply because they didn't know enough .
Now I know that sounds terribly arrogant, and I will simply have
to expose myself to that charge. But let me give you a few examples .
Take welfare. People thinking themselves on the left and on the right
