Some have told me in the past that "Blue Dog Democrat" is not an accurate description of my ideology. In fact, one has even jokingly accused me of "conservative socialism," as I support the role of the big government. I do not disavow such charge, for the fact is, I do believe the U.S. government has a moral mandate to be the faithful steward of the national economy. For this reason, I strongly support President Obama's use of his presidential authority to regenerate the U.S. economy in these times of economic hardship.
The American conservatives have traditionally criticized government's economic intervention as counterproductive and wasteful. They have accused Obama's stimulus package for promoting a culture of entitlement, advocating instead free market entrepreneurship as the only viable solution for current recession. However, I believe, conservatives erroneously focus only on the "tree" and not the whole "forest."
It is true that the hard-striving individual should succeed more than those less industrious. However, conservatives are wrong to assume that what is good for an individual is automatically good for the whole society. So often individuals who seek to maximize their profit bring general decline for the entire community; the story of "downfall of common pasture" being the perfect example. Or sometimes, the failure of one individual - like a corporate CEO - can have collateral impact on many innocent bystanders. For societal well being, not only should individuals be protected from the mistakes made by others, but even individual incentive has to be sometimes restrained for the common good.
Such oversight naturally requires a combination of government leadership and cooperation by general public. While these restraints may have short-term cost for some - like higher taxes, in the long-term we all gain from nurturing a more harmonious society. While conservatives argue government should not exert such impact in our lives, are not the bigger members of our society, like these corporations, already impact our lives? Shouldn't the public at least count on its elected government to check the dominance of the strong and equalize the playing field?
There are many who say Obama and liberals are "impatient idealists" who are too quick to use government solutions to correct the market problems. They argue the business cycle will naturally resolve the recession, as people persevere and strive for their own self-interest. The important questions are the nature of economic recovery and its speed.
Conservatives may be right to say regulations slow growth, yet isn't the greater priority economic growth in the right direction? More importantly, should our economic growth be callously Darwinian in its process and engage in "creative destruction," or should we rather promote a more humane and compassionate economy, even if it means we curb our temptation for maximum efficiency?
It is true that individual responsibilities and market innovations are vital engines of prosperity. However, we should not forget that government too is an important catalyst for economic growth. Complementing individual endeavors through development of social infrastructures, the government not only can magnify the effects of economic entrepreneurship but also guide the nation in its economic path. Should government be held accountable for its failed policies? Absolutely.
Yet, as "audacious" as this may sound, I strongly believe government has a moral responsibility to accumulate the collective capacities of the individuals for a common purpose, inspiring the public to look beyond their immediate self-interest and envision progressive innovation for the whole society.
Jong Eun Lee is a senior in the School of Public Affairs and a moderate liberal columnist for The Eagle. You can reach him at edpage@theeagleonline.com.
