good debate ending badly

WSJ has a debate between Arnold Kling and Brad DeLong on the long impacts of the New Deal.

I think DeLong carries the day, though Kling does score some points. The New Deal like all human endeavors, was awkwardly carried out and had more than one nonsensical platform, the infamous NRA (no not that NRA, this NRA) chief amongst them. But it was overall, a good unradical non-utopian fix to a troubled system.

And on that note I feel I must point how bad Kling's closing arguments are.

In a libertarian utopia, most families take care of themselves by working, saving, and purchasing insurance. Taxes are low, but charitable contributions are high, and most people who cannot take care of themselves are served by charities. As James Bartholomew points out in "The Welfare State State We're In," private charities have many advantages over government programs. Finally, if people slip through the cracks of charity, government programs could be a last resort.

In the progressive/New Deal utopia, we are all wards of the state. Clever technocrats use the coercive power of the state to put all of us into government-run savings and insurance programs. Brad DeLong and others who believe in the technocratic, welfare-state utopia will point to Europe as an example for the U.S. to follow. However, Europe is in demographic decline. Even the clever technocrats lack a plan for dealing with the pending surge in the ratio of pensioners to workers. The work ethic in Europe is slowly melting away. Among young people, the unemployment rate reaches 20% in several countries. There is something rotten in Denmark, and indeed in the entire concept of the technocratically-run welfare state

First of all there is no such thing as welfare state utopianism. The welfare state has always been a middle/muddle of practical minded ( if not always practical) fixes.

Second of all, evaluating politcal philosophies by comparing utopian visions is uneconomical, and silly. Who cares if a libertarian utopia sounds nicer than a welfare state utopia. Maybe you think an anarcho-communist utopia sounds pretty fun too, but how does that affect, say, a decision to cut social security benefits? Policies should be evaluated based on the marginal benefit to actual people in our current topian system, not based on what's going to get us closer to fanciful happy land.

Further thoughts from DeLong.