To start, I’m just going to put this right here:

Slade’s piece is, in essence, a defense of conservative anti-poverty policy as expressed through a critique of progressive/social democratic anti-poverty policy and its critique of conservative anti-poverty policy. I made it sound confusing, when actually it wasn’t – Slade focuses on defending conservative anti-poverty policy by explaining that the conservative counterfactual to the status quo is not the current pre-transfer distribution of income but instead a larger pie and fewer barriers to work and entrepreneurship.

As Slade suspects, I disagree, though obviously there is some overlap between Slade’s conservativism, which is definitely libertarian-flavored, and my own preferences – more immigration, less war-on-drugs, less occupational licensing, etc. What I want to dig into, though, is more Counterfactuals 202, and for that I want to hone in on this part of Slade’s piece:

It’s important to realize here that standing against a certain policy proposal is not the same as standing with the status quo. When right-of-center reformers say Obamacare is a bad law, they’re not endorsing the health care system that was in place immediately before its passage. Similarly, when conservatives and libertarians question the wisdom of the “war on poverty,” we are not putting a stamp of approval on the levels of poverty that existed 50 years ago, or on the ones that remain today. Our position isn’t that poverty does not matter. We just recognize the chosen prescription has turned out to be a poor one.

The Obamacare example in particular is a productive one to discuss, since it’s much more narrow in scope – a single, well-defined, recent reform package as opposed to half-a-century of a broad philosophy of governance – and because the issue of Obamacare and counterfactuals cuts both ways.

You may recall that, in addition to the larger and more-vocal right-wing opposition movement to Obamacare, there was a smaller but no less vocal or strident progressive opposition movement, perhaps best epitomized by Marcy Wheeler dubbing the Senate bill “neo-fuedalism.” While I don’t agree with that perspective, I am not wholly sanguine about Obamacare. Firstly because of specific problems or drawbacks to the act as written and enacted, but also because I vastly prefer adopting a single-payer or even nationalized system – universal coverage, better outcomes, and a trillion dollars a year? Yes, please.

But I supported and advocated for the passage of Obamacare. Why? Well, I could have, like Slade, simply stated “I prefer my counterfactual to Obamacare; ergo, oppose” and moved on; but instead, I looked at my preferred counterfactual probabilistically – what are the likely actual counterfactuals to Obamacare? Do I support those more than Obamacare? And the answer to that question was “absolutely not” – I would much rather, even though a kludge too friendly too industry, expand coverage to the uninsured and experiment with serious cost-control reforms then leave the status quo in place indefinitely, which was the overwhelmingly likely actual counterfactual in the case of Obamacare.

I’m not certain how much this applies to the conservative counterfactual case; it’s entirely possible that many conservatives genuinely believe that Obamacare is a net negative development. I would argue, though, that conservatives passed up a tremendous amount of leverage in shaping Obamacare, which Democratic leaders from the President on down would have gladly exchanged for political buy-in. So the conservative counterfactual in the case of Obamacare should be something more like “knowing that Obamacare would be enacted and Obama would be reelected, should we have played ball with the inevitable and shape it more to our liking rather than dig in to indefinite total opposition?” An interesting question.

And while this logic is, as I said above, much harder to apply to the overall war on poverty, it’s not impossible. A point I always try to stress to conservatives is that the opposite of welfare-state social democracy is not conservatism; it’s Communism. The modern welfare states of Western Europe and the United States fundamentally emerged as the capitalist response to the then-seemingly-inexorable growth of Communist power. “We can have our cake of economic growth and individual freedom and eat social justice too,” was the message, to totally dismember the metaphor.

I’m not certain, from reading Slade’s piece, exactly how the contours of her conservative counterfactual to welfare-state democracy differ from the policy status quo of the Eisenhower Administration. But I will ask her to think a little harder on Michael Lind’s question of “why are there no libertarian countries?” and to consider not just the idea of a preferred counterfactual, but the odds of that counterfactual coming to pass, and coming to pass in the way you imagine it, and working out the way you think it might. Which is not to say that principle should always be sacrificed on the altar of hyper-realistic incrementalism; just that a realism in the realm of political economy has as much to say to ideological priors as vice-versa.