Liberty Exposé: Universal Basic Income: Conservatism's Next Move
In the foray of an election season, it is easy to get lost in the spectacle of party politics. While elections should mark occasions for transition, programmatic re-imagination, and the reconstruction of new national vision, these efforts often become overshadowed by the dramas inherent in the election season. It is therefore doubly important that even in these times of transition we actively seek points of political consensus and opportunities to expand the scope of our nation’s political ambition.
One of the most auspicious developments in political discourse during the past few years has been spearheaded by Andrew Yang, one of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidates. Aside from the invaluable benefits that Yang’s candidacy has brought to the vibrancy, civility, and visionary quality of our national conversation, Yang has legitimated the notion that universal basic income (UBI) could serve as not only as a viable policy platform for liberals and progressives, but also a common-sense economic solution to many of the problems facing Americans of all political stripes.
Yang’s version of UBI promises all American adults an opt-in opportunity to receive monthly cash payments of $1,000, no strings attached. Termed “the Freedom Dividend,” this monthly payment would put money directly into American hands, thereby adding $12,000 a year to each adult’s spending power. This could potentially expand the economy by over $2 trillion over eight years. Such a dividend, which would cost about $2.8 trillion annually, would be paid for primarily through a value-added tax of 10% and the gradual consolidation of some welfare programs (which citizens would opt out of if they take the Freedom Dividend).
Yang’s proposal is undergirded by the conviction that in an era of increasing automation and job insecurity, the link between labor and the distribution of wealth has become increasingly tenuous. Though much of our unprecedented $19 trillion economy comes from the welcome development of automation and high technology, these gains are not enjoyed by all Americans. This should not be the case, as all Americans are shareholders of our society and human beings with inherent worth. Therefore, it is necessary to give resources directly to Americans so that they have the baseline security and economic freedom to adapt to the changing economic order. We need a “human-centered” economy that does not negate capitalism, but rather updates its paradigm.
At a first glance, such a proposal may seem particularly aversive to the conservative temperament. It is easy to view UBI as a mere redistributive scheme aimed at the subversion of “free market economics” and the creed of self-reliance. To take money from productive industry and give it to others regardless of the work they do would seem to destroy the incentive to work, diminish the individual’s self-responsibility, and increase the dependence of the people on the handouts of a government bureaucracy. Upon closer inspection, however, UBI not only aligns with conservative principles, but also promises the beginning of conservative restoration in America.
Diffused Power
Since the advent of the conservative consensus of the 1950s and 60s, conservatism has advocated for the cause of freedom and the diffusion of power through what Fredrick Hayek called “the spontaneous forces of society.” In opposition to calls for central economic planning and “big government” programs, conservatives of this lineage believe that freedom and prosperity are best preserved when power is diffused through extra-governmental units, namely individuals, families, and the institutions of civil society. By allowing individuals and small platoons to pursue their own objectives and, as much as the demands of social order will allow, govern themselves, we will be able to unleash the expressive energies of human nature while relying on precisely the same principle to regulate that nature through an equilibrium of power. Diffused channels of power, of which free markets are the most conspicuous examples, both liberate and constrain the various ambitions of society.
UBI is not a subversion of the principle of diffused power, but rather an extension of it. By diverting capital from productive (and increasingly automated) centers of economic power and placing it in the hands of individuals, UBI challenges the further consolidation of unchecked economic power and enhances the agency of individuals. It encourages, as Yang puts it, a “trickle-up economy,” wherein individuals continue to participate in the market economy as workers, buyers, and citizens, with the benefit of a floor that gives them greater security and freedom of movement.
Self-Reliance and Responsibility
On a related note, UBI should not provoke the conservative aversion to free “handouts” and government programs that obscure the individual’s personal responsibility. For starters, evidence suggests that UBI does not destroy the incentive to work. Nor would it come with the negative incentives often tied to welfare and the stigma associated with being an out-of-work beneficiary, as it would be received equally by all Americans on a positive basis: their patriotic unity as fellow citizens.
On the contrary, UBI would enhance self-reliance by making it possible for Americans to help themselves and harness the freedom of movement needed to adapt to the changing circumstances that come with life. Freed from requirements to use the money in any particular way, they would be able to pursue their own unique interests and prioritize the use of their funds in a manner congruent with their values. Individuals are the best judges of their immediate life circumstances; and just as a free market relies on the accumulation of individual choices, variegated though they might be, UBI would rely on the insight that we all have into our own life circumstances, and leave it to us to take responsibility. Self-reliance and responsibility would take on new predominance in the national spirit as individuals attain fuller self-possession and the security to act boldly, creatively, and with the magnanimity befitting American citizenship.
A Principle Of Power, Not Just A Principle of Equality
At its best, “the Left” aims to liberate the humanitarian impulse in politics by advocating for the needs of the poor and the working classes. Theirs is the vocation of compassion, prophetic hope, and the demands of equality. As its necessary complement, the conservative aims to become a master of power: to weather the trials of history with unflinching realism and a deep awareness of the fragility of all experiments in freedom, so that the equilibrium of power in society can be conserved. Thus, the conservative wields the clarity to discern dangerous concentrations of power that threaten the preservation of humanity, and the courage to re-integrate those concentrations on behalf of the national interest. The true conservative knows that a nation’s true power comes from the diffusion of its energies through the spontaneous forces of society, and their cooperation on aims that transcend narrow interests.
Like all great proposals of a revolutionary scale, UBI’s appeal is not limited to the principle of equality. It also squares with the conservative principle of power insofar as it aims to rejuvenate society’s balanced equilibrium through the diffusion of power in the form of freedom and security. To embrace UBI from a conservative standpoint is to take seriously the changing power dynamics of the economic order and its distorting effects on our dignity and humanity. If we were to do so, then we may find a path forward for the restoration of conservatism’s promise in America.