The right has no heart. That, to many on the left, is the only thing that can explain why some are opposed to an ever-increasing welfare state. To oppose the welfare state is to oppose the welfare of the masses is their (ridiculous) claim. But modern welfare states spend money on much more than raising the living standards of those least well off – indeed, when we look at the choices politicians make on our behalf it is sometimes hard to identify the underlying concern that is being addressed.
Taxes, coerced from the people under the threat of violence, are spent on many things. The UK spends about £1.4bn on culture, media and sports, for example. To the benefit of the poor, who can’t afford West End tickets or the elderly, who lack sports facilities, some may say – but why not pour more funds into the, allegedly, chronically underfunded NHS? Staging panto instead of saving lives? Seem like odd priorities. Councils complain of lack of funds but spend large on spurious projects, such as London’s Brent Council’s £15,000 multi-lingual hologram for their town hall. The UK is, of course, not alone. The profligate EU spends money like it is going out of fashion: the preposterous Common Agricultural Policy is of criminal proportions; parliamentary expenses are through the roof; and the monthly move of the European Parliament from Brussels to Strasbourg costs over £150m. In the completely bonkers department, they spent over €5m on a real-life donkey’s travel around Europe and the associated blog. The US can compete there too: for example, they spent almost $1 million investigating if captive mountain lions can be trained to use a treadmill, and $356,000 to study whether Japanese quail are more sexually promiscuous on cocaine.
Of course, this waste of money is hardly “the will of the people”, but simply a function of handing large budgets and small accountability to politicians and bureaucrats, who in turn are lobbied by vested interests. So, maybe more interesting is the curious tribalism in our “charitable” feelings: in a time where nationalism has a seriously bad name on the left, there is still a very different attitude to what you should expect to receive if you are poor, depending on whether you live at home or abroad. The UK spends 11% of gross national income (GNI) on welfare, essentially on raising the living standards of fellow Britons who fall below some level at which they are deemed eligible for support. Contrast this with what is spent on poor people outside of the UK: foreign aid makes up 0.7% of GNI. But really, what makes those in Sudan or Cambodia less worthy of a certain living standard that those in Leeds or Manchester? And after all, 99% of the world’s population lives outside the UK, including all of the around 10% of those who live below the absolute poverty line. Why do we not spend the money where it is needed the most?
What shines through is an implicit admission that tribalism is legitimate. The left spends huge energy on its identity politics agenda which holds that all people should be equally valued by all others, effectively opposing the idea that we should feel kinship with those with whom we share certain traits: our family, neighbours, people who look and act like us. But it seems that even to the left those who we share nationality with do have a certain elevated position; somehow worthier of help. You cannot explain this away by arguing that we can’t save the world. Because while that is undeniably true, the world can’t save itself either when it comes to preventing human suffering. So, by that account, no-one should try. As it happens, capitalism has lifted billions out of abject poverty over the last centuries, but people still suffer unimaginable hardship. Why does a Liverpudlian’s demand for a plasma TV override an Afghan’s need for clean water?
This is by no means an endorsement of foreign aid; the government should not be in the business of charity. But it frames things rather nicely. On the free market right, we can square the circle: there is no ranking of needs which demands action by an authority; we believe that the best way to bring clean water and other necessities to those who need it is to allow capitalism to do its magic: create economic prosperity. The evidence of the last centuries bears it out that this is a strategy that works. The left, on the other hand, can’t hide. Their narrative of oppressor vs oppressed demands action by government to right the wrongs. And there is no way to argue, within that framework, that the Liverpudlian’s demands trump those of the Afghan. Of course, it is simply pragmatism: in a democracy people vote themselves special favours, not other people. A party running on a platform of taxing the “poor” in Britain to help those even poorer abroad stands no chance of getting elected. The left’s ideology is exposed for what it is: tribalism and selfishness, packaged up as compassion.