A Series Is Born: Economy 4.0

Over the years, I have written about economic development, the state budget, transportation policy, education, urban design and energy restructuring. It may not be apparent to readers, but there is an underlying and interconnecting logic to the positions I have staked out on these topics. I have endeavored to apply throughout my writing a consistent set of principles, which I set to words in the outline of a book I provisionally entitled, “Economy 4.0.” Although I long ago concluded I would never have the time to complete the book, the principles I identified have continued to guide my thinking.

I had never given much thought to publish any version of the “Economy 4.0” online until a particularly animated dialogue took place on the Bacon’s Rebellion blog last month. Surveying the politics that guided the Comprehensive Transportation Funding and Reform Act of 2007 – the financing portions of which I considered an abomination – I had concluded that no meaningful principles divided Virginia Republicans and Democrats on issues of governance. The only important differences between the political parties were the particular constituencies they favored with their ill-considered schemes for redistributing the wealth extracted from taxpayers.

A regular participant in the blog who goes by the pseudonym of Groveton responded enthusiastically that the time had come to create an independent party in Virginia. Groveton, a senior Northern Virginia technology executive, offered $25,000 of his own money to fund a start-up if others would match it by the same amount and if I committed a significant amount of time to the project. While I agreed that disenchantment with the two incumbent parties was endemic, the history of independent parties in the United States was none too encouraging. The effort would be worthwhile, I suggested, only if someone could articulate a core set of principles that appealed to a demographic constituency broad enough to potentially win a majority of votes. I had no interest in devoting my energies to creating a marginal party like the Libertarians or Greens. The effort would be worthwhile only if there were an opportunity to spark a fundamental realignment comparable to the origins of the Republican Party in the 1850s. Otherwise, it made sense to work within the existing two-party system.

Then it hit me: I had already outlined a set of internally consistent principles for thinking about Virginia’s future. The principles were forward looking: how to build more prosperous and livable communities in a globally competitive and environmentally constrained world. For the most part, the ideas in “Economy 4.0” were mainstream. The strategies were based upon fiscal conservatism and environmental sustainability. They emphasized marketplace solutions to problems over bureaucratic, command-and-control solutions. They prioritized the creation of wealth and economic opportunity for all segments of society over the redistribution of wealth and the cultivation of grievances by minorities and special interests.

The principles avoided hot-button, culture-war issues. Like many, perhaps most, Virginians, I personally respect traditional values while acknowledging the need to accommodate evolutionary change in cultural norms. If Democrats and Republicans want to embrace the cause of the culture warriors on the left and right, then let them go right ahead. The rest of us just want to muddle through life as best we can.

Thus was born the new “Economy 4.0,” as a 10-part series in Bacon’s Rebellion. This series does not issue a clarion call for a new political party, however. Rather, it provides a framework for analyzing the challenges facing Virginia in the early 21st century. It provides a systematic way of looking at the crucial issues and appreciating how they are interconnected.

If “Economy 4.0” provides the philosophical underpinnings for a new, broad-based political party, then that would be wonderful. But it is important, even in this age of technological marvels, to put the proverbial horse before the cart. First, we must articulate a cohesive set of ideals, principles, goals and solutions. Only then does it make sense to organize a political party around them.

In future editions, I will adapt the outline for “Economy 4.0” into columns for the Bacon’s Rebellion e-zine. Then I will post them on the Bacon’s Rebellion blog for commentary and feedback. I encourage the widest possible participation.

First, do you, as a Bacon’s Rebellion reader, find that the principles and priorities make sense? And, second, if you do, do you think they could form the basis for a third political party? Or should we work within the current, two-party system to implement them?


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

7 responses to “A Series Is Born: Economy 4.0”

  1. Stephen Braunlich Avatar
    Stephen Braunlich

    I can’t get my post to ping it, but here’s my thoughts on the manifesto.

  2. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Stephen, I’m posted your comment (as seen on your blog) here where Bacon’s Rebellion readers are more likely to see it. — JAB

    Jim Bacon, an alumnus of W&M and one of Virginia’s most thoughtful bloggers has commenced a series of 10 posts outlining principles that he hopes will work their way into Virginia’s political process; he’s dubbed it Economy 4.0. This excerpt neatly sums up those principles:

    The principles were forward looking: how to build more prosperous and livable communities in a globally competitive and environmentally constrained world. For the most part, the ideas in “Economy 4.0” were mainstream. The strategies were based upon fiscal conservatism and environmental sustainability. They emphasized marketplace solutions to problems over bureaucratic, command-and-control solutions. They prioritized the creation of wealth and economic opportunity for all segments of society over the redistribution of wealth and the cultivation of grievances by minorities and special interests.

    On the whole that’s a pretty supportable platform. It’s certainly something I could get behind. But then Bacon follows it with this:

    The principles avoided hot-button, culture-war issues… If Democrats and Republicans want to embrace the cause of the culture warriors on the left and right, then let them go right ahead. The rest of us just want to muddle through life as best we can.

    It’s disappointing to see Bacon try to side step these issues altogether, when they clearly cannot be sidestepped. (Just as Jerry Kilgore about whether you can sidestep abortion, per the debate hosted by Tim Russert in ‘05.) Kilgore attempted to step around the question of what he would do if Roe was overturned, and failed.

    These social issues that Bacon and others would like to side step are important for two reasons. First, they are important in themselves. If abortion kills an unborn child, then Virginia is countenancing 25,930 deaths per year. That is not a trifling number. Certainly we would not say nearly 26,000 homicides a year were not worth worrying about. Likewise, those things that define the nature of our society, such as marriage, have a huge societal impact and are worth asking questions about.

    Second, these issues speak to the values of the candidates themselves. People use cues to determine whether or not they can trust someone to make the value-laden decisions that, if elected, they will face but which cannot be predicted. Unforeseen issues will confront every elected official. By the very definition of “unforeseen” voters cannot ask elected officials how they will confront them. Instead, they can only turn to the values to attempt to foresee how a person responds to the crisis. Some policies do a better job of indicating a candidate’s values than others; social issues are part of those that do, given that the deal with very grave matters.

    I am not even bothered so much by where Bacon’s manifesto would have fallen on the issues, as by the fact that he does not even consider them worthy of substantial thought. It suggests a mind looking at policy strictly from the materialistic point of view with no thought to transcendent concerns. To apply this thinking back in time, it would call into question whether he would brush aside previous social issues: slavery, women’s suffrage, separate but equal and the like.

    So I look forward to Economy 4.0, but its impact as an all-encompassing platform for a party will be greatly diminished by its fatal flaw.

  3. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Stephen, I understand your perspective, indeed, I anticipate that many people will respond the way you do. Indeed, you may be right — Economy 4.0 may be too narrow in its scope to provide the basis for a new party platform. We shall see.

    Nevertheless, I find it encouraging that you are open to the perspectives that I do choose to emphasize.

  4. Jim,
    I certainly support the broad principles that you have laid out, at least in terms of this post. Riffing from the political philosophy closest to my heart, “crunchy conservatism”, it seems that both you and it emphasize the need for economic growth with the balance of real environmentalism and that more government isn’t the best answer. That said, I think the separation comes when you consider the crunchy attachment to Kirk’s permanent things. This leads to separation on the question of growth as an end in itself, and the importance of the state of the individual and society (beginning with the first society, the family).

  5. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Jim, where is your outline of the 10 pieces to be presented? I’d like to see the list of topics.

    Does the intro op ed count as #1 or just the intro.

  6. Jim Bacon Avatar

    JAB, The introduction does not count as one of the 10 pieces. Unfortunately, the outline itself is not fit for presentation, and it may morph along the way. Here is a rough guide to upcoming topics.

    2. Defining “economic development” — what are we trying to achieve? Jobs? Tax revenue? Income growth? Quality of life?

    3. Crisis of the economic development profession — the old strategies just aren’t working; need for new metrics; key role of taxes in driving capital investment.

    4. Human Capital — regional labor markets; how states add to labor costs; developing human capital through education and training

    5. Recruitment and Retention — Strategies for upgrading the labor force through recruitment and retention. Critical importance of creating livable communities.

    6.Community-Building Capacity — role of civic organizations in building and supporting essential regional institutions; strategic choices for philanthropic investment; new models for philanthropy.

    7. Pattern and Density of Land Use — how the pattern and density of land use has an all-pervasive effect on the regional quality of life and cost of government.

    8. The Three Great Constraints to Growth: Taxes, Housing and Transportation. (This may change. It may become the “four” great constraints to growth, including energy.

    9. Technological innovation — building human capital; supporting university R&D, supporting an entrepreneurial culture and business environment; and building knowledge clusters.

    10. Four scenarios that could change everything — the rising cost of energy; environmental catastrophe; the devaluation of the dollar; jihad and the collapse of the global trading system.

  7. I support Jim’s exclusion of moral questions from Economy 4.0. First of all, it’s called Economy 4.0 not Life 4.0. Secondly, questions about matters like abortion start an emotional chain reaction that detracts from the discussion of economic issues.

    However, one area that I believe needs to be included is immigration policy. I see this as more of an economic issue than a moral issue. Perhaps it will be included under topic #4 – Human Capital.

Leave a Reply