Tony Judt's latest book, Ill Fares the Land, looks forward — an attempt to dissect the problems facing the West at a time of severe economic uncertainty.

Ill Fares the Land
by Tony Judt
published  by Penguin Press HC (March 18, 2010)
Hdbk., 256 pgs.
ISBN-10: 1594202761
ISBN-13: 978-1594202766

Let me confess a weakness for fine prose rooted in broad knowledge, which probably explains why I so enjoy reading Tony Judt.

From his studies of French intellectuals like Albert Camus and Ramond Aron, to his brilliantly executed Reappraisals (not to mention his history of postwar Europe), Judt has written with a keen eye and an admirable intellectual independence.

Though he approaches issues from the left, he has had the integrity to defend Whittaker Chambers from leftist detractors; though Jewish, he has suggested that Palestinians, also, have rights and grievances that deserve consideration; though enamored with Marx's brilliance as a social critic, he has written critically about those who cling mindlessly to discredited Marxist orthodoxies.

His collection of essays in Reappraisals includes thoughtful pieces on Arthur Koestler, Edward Said, Eric Hobsbawm and Hannah Arendt — the only ideological consistency is Judt's refusal to conform to an ideological orthodoxy. In a brilliant essay about Leszak Kolawaski, Judt eloquently debunks Marxist apologists (such as E.P. Thompson) who have refused to look honestly at Marxism's horrific record of political oppression.

Judt's latest book, Ill Fares the Land, looks forward — an attempt to dissect the problems facing the West at a time of severe economic uncertainty. Judt argues that the United States and Britain, in particular, are increasingly stratified economically. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the result is ripping at the fabric of cultural and sociopolitical unity — hence, more crime, more broken families, more societal dysfunction generally.

It is not a particularly original argument but the manner in which Judt pursues it is refreshing. He is not content with the stilted discourse in American politics, in which no new idea is permissible outside the narrow vocabularies of current day left/right, Democrat/Republican polemics.

If you suggest that perhaps the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of the economic elites, you are immediately branded by a legion of radio and television talking heads as anti-free enterprise or, worse, a socialist. If you suggest that the thoughtless centralization of power in the hands of government is a bad idea, you are immediately labeled by the Left as a reactionary Neanderthal with no concern for the less fortunate.

The result is the disheartening intellectual landscape in which we currently find ourselves — few willing to think or discuss creatively how to balance two critically important societal interests: preserving cultural cohesion (the sense of a united nation) while not losing the best parts of free enterprise.

Judt argues that a healthy concern for social justice is in the best interests of all in our society. A society that pursues fairness is a society that will remain stable. And a society that remains stable is one that will ultimately offer the best opportunities for upward mobility, economic innovation and responsible profit-making. In this regard, Judt is making the case of Europe's 19th century reformers – we must change in order to stay the same.

History demonstrates, Judt argues, that we stave off the most dangerous elements of revolution, violence and discontent by providing a basic underpinning of support for those who are struggling. Conservatives, he argues, by making welfare or government support to the poor or unemployed a stigma, risk driving people ever more desperately into the arms of radical thought.

Is this alarmist?

It is tempting to believe, after nearly 70 years of relative economic security, that the economic and political chaos that drove Russians toward Lenin and Germans toward Hitler could never happen here — but the corporate and Wall Street scandals of the past decade and the mismanagement of the regulatory regime by Democrats and Republicans alike give scant comfort to the notion that our system is immune to threats.

Americans are a fiercely individualistic breed — and we are not, save certain pockets of dependency, prone to look to the government first for help. Still, even conservatives have been appalled by the abuses of Wall Street and corporate elites who plunder capital heedless of the impact on the nation or even their own companies; and this surely explains in part why we have a president today who is overly anxious to introduce government into every crevice of our lives.

Bill Buckley was right — the problem with socialism is socialism, but the problem with capitalism is capitalists who lack the ethical and moral foundation to pursue their business responsibly.

There are problems with Judt's argument, including his occasional knee jerk slaps at Reagan and Sarah Palin. He can also seem naive at times when discussing an activist government. History has demonstrated convincingly the law of unintended consequences. Government is certainly not immune to corruption and even when functioning properly can breed dependencies that deepen rather than solve societal dysfunction.

Still, it is not easy to condemn the whole of Judt's position. While some analysts argue that the middle class is shrinking because more people are getting wealthier, this does not change the fact that we are in a period of extreme economic stratification that could endanger much that is good in American culture and society. Globalization has put power into the hands of international elites loyal not to nation but to massive profits that benefit a relative few. Unregulated greed on Wall Street has put at risk the investments and retirement of millions of Americans who trusted the market to self-correct and its leaders to behave responsibly.

The horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, underscores the need to take a more innovative approach to energy independence and public transportation. Our foreign aid and immigration policies have been, I am sorry to say, sadly parochial in vision and tactics. Our inability to regulate guns in a sane way that recognizes 2nd amendment rights has resulted in a flood of weapons being placed in the hands of narcotics groups in this country and in Mexico. Health care reform could have been done without recourse to the huge federal bureaucracies about to be formed.

These are not liberal or conservative issues — but serious challenges that need to be addressed by serious people. Judt believes we have arrived at a critical stage of history — and fears that if we don't learn to talk about the issues we confront with intellectual integrity we put at risk the great run of freedom the West has enjoyed since the end of World War II.

Let us take the oil spill in the Gulf as a microcosm of what is wrong in the current environment of polarized polemics.

First, we have the reckless and failed management of drilling by BP. Experts have noted that BP ignored warning signs on a number of occasions that, if heeded, might have averted this disaster.

Then we have the abysmal management of the crisis by the Obama administration – a performance that makes Bush's handling of Katrina look proactive. Where was the leadership? Obama seemed more interested in demonizing BP than addressing the issue with strategic leadership and while he is right to ask for a forward-looking energy and transportation policy, he is as evasive about his own shortcomings as his predecessor.

Here is the point. It is near impossible to find a balanced discussion left or right about the limitations of government, the proper way to engage government, and the need to engage private and public sector forces when our nation is at risk. The one commentator who has done this most effectively has been Mark Belling, the Wisconsin-based radio talk show host who I find refreshingly candid and reliably conservative at the same time.

Government is not bad by definition, nor is the market always the best solution to complex problems beyond the reach of the private sector. Why can't our corporate sector come together in a more systematic way with our government to help address ongoing issues as environment and global poverty. Conversely, why is it okay for government to be overstaffed and bloated? (See the Post Office as one example). Why can't we reform the public sector by creating incentives for federal and state workers to be more efficient, creative and responsive as they do their jobs?

One reason is obvious – entrenched interests, locked into a bi-polar mindset, refuse to think outside the ideological paradigms that have been created and around which our major parties and media are all too comfortable.

Private and public both exist to serve certain functions. In certain situations, say public transportation, public control makes sense. In others, say grocery stores, it does not. Judt suggests we have deluded ourselves into believing in ideological absolutes that constrain a meaningful national discussion about how to manage our economy and our culture in a thoughtful way — one that appeals to the market, but does not demonize the state. After all, even Bill Buckley believed in public transportation and facilities that served the larger good; even Ronald Reagan raised taxes to pay for services that citizens demanded.

Where do we draw the line on government action? Good question. Let's start by discussing the issue honestly. One reason, it seems to me, that earmarks are such a scandal is that local officials and citizens are not willing to admit our own appetite for public funding, and hence our politicians seek to do under cover what would be better done in sunlight — with more scrutiny and honest debate. The most conservative county commissioner in this country will still, more often than not, lobby for federal funds that will help his or her community. And then scream about higher taxes.

Wanting something for nothing is an unattractive side of humanity — and claiming we can exist as islands is the opposite — a sin of pride. Societies exist for a reason, so that collectively we can support, nourish and protect one another, particularly during tough times. Understanding that money from Washington is not free — and being open to honest discussions about taxes, services, and efficiency would be a good start toward liberating us from the earmark nonsense.

Judt approaches such issues with admirable fairness. He does not demonize the Right — in fact, he quotes Oakeshott and Hayek and reminds us that they, too, were willing to entertain a limited, enlightened government role in critical sectors of society. Judt's point is that the current environment does not often accommodate deeper discussions that once animated the public discourse (I refer readers, personal plug, to the series on this site — Crossing Swords: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Left — for a taste of the kind of discourse that once informed our decision-making.)

We all cling to certain orthodoxies, whether we admit it or not. My own orthodoxies are self-evident to those who have read my essays over the years — a strong belief in decentralized power and free markets, a strong faith in traditional moral paradigms, a deep suspicion of leftist cant, and huge corporate or government power. I also have confidence that this nation, for all its terrible sins and mistakes, continues to be a model of civil and constitutional government.

But I do question some on the conservative side who serve "capitalism" without regard to what capitalists are doing. It becomes very difficult to view the behavior on Wall Street and in corporate board rooms across the land and not concede that something has gone awry. Talk of American "exceptionalism" is not a justification for the unjustifiable – we are exceptional because of our foundational political and economic systems, and they require enlightened citizens and officials to work.

When the architects of Wall Street themselves come forward and acknowledge their part in plundering the wealth of the nation (see Too Big To Fail or The Big Short), we have to begin to ask if a bit of tough love and regulation is not warranted. No reasonable person wants to destroy Wall Street, but what we have learned is that Wall Street will destroy itself and us along with it if it is not managed responsibly. It is true that corporations sell services that people freely choose to buy, but how does one digest, Judt asks, the fact that the founding family of Wal Mart makes $90 billion — more than the bottom 40 percent of our nation earns collectively, while most of the company's employees labor at barely minimum wage?

Why do government and corporations exist and what do they owe to the communities with whom they engage? Corporations are not strictly free enterprise operations — they benefit from a host of services provided by the larger community — roads, sewer and water, tax breaks, police and fire protection, national defense, not to mention employees who work every day to make those businesses run.

It would be heartening to see Boards and CEOs of these corporations acknowledge this honestly from time to time rather than spending every minute of their day trying to negotiate huge mergers or compensation packages that are unseemly, unfair and in many instances irresponsible.

Judt is asking whether our system can survive without serious discussions about how to address some of these issues. As the economy wobbles, and the social contract grows more fragile, how do we stabilize it?

I, for one, am not convinced either party truly has an answer. I have long believed in the sailboat theory of government — you sail in one direction for a while, then you tact and head in the other direction. If you don't, you wind up aground.

But because we have polarized our politics to such an extreme it is increasingly difficult to make healthy, limited mid-course corrections. Every attempt to regulate or manage the extremes of the economy is presented as the end of capitalism; every attempt to manage and streamline government is seen as a direct assault on justice and the poor.

Judt might not be right in all the particulars; he might be totally wrong, for that matter. I might be misguided as well, and admit to some discomfort with any effort to aggregate more power in Washington. But he is raising legitimate questions. Many Americans are tiring of a public discourse that serves only narrow interests and seeks to marginalize those who are honestly trying to figure out the proper balance between private and public empowerment. We might fairly ask if a responsible Left and responsible Right cannot come together to fine tune the engines of free enterprise while acknowledging our collective responsibilities to each other and those who will come after us.

Ill Fares the Land is available on Amazon.com.