The word envy enters a lot of political and economic discussion, but it is usually referred to the envy of those who stand to gain materially after the smoke of redistribution all clears away. When someone runs on a platform of free choocolate milk for everybody, envy is driving the whole thing, and it is barely disguised. When those without money outnumber those who have it, and the question of equitable distribution comes up for a vote, how does that vote usually go? As the wise man said, it is two coyotes and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch. Like I said, that is how political envy is usually thought of, and it ought to be thought of a lot more. That is a big part of our problem.
But envy also operates at another level, a much higher level. This is what we find on display in the behavior of the pampered and privileged who wrap themselves in the dogmas of the hard left. Why would they do that? Envy doesn’t explain it, at least not the kind of envy outlined above. These people already have all the chocolate milk they could want. Correct that — they actually have all the carob-flavored coconut water that they want, which is another subject, albeit related.
So why would the influential, pampered scions of the establishment gravitate naturally, easily, and readily into the lunacies of leftist economic policies? When these people find themselves in charge, as they frequently do, and as they are now, why do they pursue economic policies that are frankly incoherent?
Many years ago, I read a book by William Simon, who was (if I remember correctly) Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan. He said that one of the reasons why conspiracy theories were so popular on the right is that certain policies were so obviously detrimental to the health of the nation, and yet were being pursued anyway. This naturally led many to suppose that these people in charge were trying to wreck the nation on purpose. But Simon said that when he finally got to a position of power in the treasury, he found out that many of these people at the top were honest, sincere, and economically illiterate. They really had no idea. They honestly thought that you could fill up a swimming pool by filling your bucket at one end, spilling some on the way, and dumping most of it back in the other end. And Simon had a point. When liberals get in power, at least some in the cabinet are the caliber of Madeleine Basset.
But not everyone is that clueless, and this leads to the higher level of envy. This is the logic displayed by Milton’s Satan, who would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. As an aside, this reminds me of a comment by Reagan, who said that socialism would only work in two places — in Heaven where they don’t need it, and in Hell where they already have it. But let’s follow this out. Say you have two places to go — Heaven where they don’t need it, and Hell where they have it. And suppose a man of great unregenerate abilities were given a choice. Where would he rather go? He would rather rule over a wreck and a ruin than to be a faithful servant in a glorious house. No one knows the names of the liveried servants of Solomon that so astonished the Queen of Sheba, and everybody knows the name of Ivan the Terrible.
Another way of saying this is that men envy more than material goods. They also envy power, and the ability to dispose of others with the flourish of a pen. And when the envious are driving a nation down, each new economic crisis is used as an excuse to fix what they believe to be the real problem, which is lack of personal political control. The crisis is used, not to address the economic woes, which are simply the presenting problem, but rather to address what they believe to be the real crisis — the fact that they cannot control everything. Yet.