White-collar crooks, dictatorships, and other conservative causes.

I had thought that conservatives were taking the democratic outcome of the 2006 elections rather well, all things considered. Then I read a column by American Enterprise Institute (AEI) economist Kevin Hassett, and now I'm not so sure. Hassett points out that, over the last decade and a half, free-market dictatorships had faster economic growth than free-market democracies. The obvious explanation would be that dictatorships tend to be poorer countries (e. g., China) that can grow more quickly by catching up with modern technology. But Hassett offers up a different interpretation: Unlike democracies, dictatorships "are not hamstrung by the preferences of voters for, say, a pervasive welfare state." In other words, while Western democracies are held back by voters--with their pesky demands that citizens get health care and old people not be left to starve in the streets--autocracies march nobly toward a free-market paradise.I suppose it's good that, in the wake of Iraq, AEI is rethinking its zealous commitment to forcibly exporting democracy across the planet. But perhaps the think tank is now veering a bit too far in the opposite direction. AEI's signature foreign policy neoconservatism was well-reflected in Karl Zinsmeister, the former editor of its magazine, who was best-known for his celebration of President Bush's foreign policy--"there is now no chance whatever of the U.S. losing this critical guerrilla war," he wrote of Iraq in 2005--and for finding innovative but not entirely ethical ways to turn the publication into a vehicle for personal profit (as detailed in James Kirchick's "The Enterprising American" in the last issue of The New Republic). Tellingly, AEI's magazine has abandoned the Zinsmeister model and relaunched itself with a new name (The American) and a new mission ("a magazine of ideas for business leaders"). The new editor, James Glassman (who was tnr's publisher from 1981 to 1984), is best-known for co-authoring, with Hassett, the kitschy stock market-utopian tract Dow 36,000. His most recent venture was running Tech Central Station, a "think tank" owned by a lobbying firm whose clients would find their views taken up in purportedly independent op-eds written by Glassman and his minions. (This arrangement, also innovative and also not entirely ethical, was aptly dubbed "journolobbying" by Nicholas Confessore in a 2003 Washington Monthly expose.) Mirroring the change in leadership, The American now seems less dewy-eyed about the virtues of democracy and far more dewy-eyed about the virtues of the bottom line. Out is the conservatism of Paul Wolfowitz. In is the conservatism of Montgomery Burns. In addition to Hassett's odd defense of dictatorships, the current issue defends CEO pay, expresses skepticism about global warming, and denounces corporate democracy. University of Chicago economists Gary Becker (a Nobel Prize-winner) and Kevin Murphy contribute an essay titled "The Upside of Income Inequality." The upside I was expecting them to emphasize was that people with large incomes get very, very rich. But I guess that part was taken as a given. Becker and Murphy instead argue inequality has grown because "the labor market is placing a greater emphasis on education." Education makes people more productive; ergo, inequality is good. It's true that the gap between college-educated and non-collegeeducated workers has grown. But the big rise in inequality is not between workers with degrees and workers without. It's between the top 1 percent and everybody else. Wouldn't raising taxes a bit on the top 1 percent help alleviate inequality? Becker and Murphy reply that, while a fairer tax code "may sound sensible, it is not," because it would amount to "a tax on going to college." So, if we raise the top tax rate, then 18-year-olds will choose to become convenience store clerks rather than go to college and run the small risk that they'll one day get so rich that they could face a slightly higher marginal tax rate? But the issue's piece de resistance is a cover story pleading for more lenient treatment of white-collar criminals. In the "good old days," author Luke Mullins reports, white-collar prisons allowed convicts to order takeout from fancy restaurants, sneak away for golf, and enjoy other trappings appropriate for men of their class. Alas, embarrassed by the "Club Fed" reputation, prison officials cracked down. Today, as Mullins's sympathetic subject tells us, white-collar prison is "a hellish place." How hellish? I'll let Mullins pick up the description two paragraphs later: "Alongside the housing units and administrative buildings are such amenities as a gym, a softball diamond, a bocce pitch, and a tennis court slipped inside an oval track. From the grounds, inmates gaze at the soft mountaintops that rim the horizon." OK, that might not sound very hellish. But Mullins's point is that, while such punishment might sound rather lenient to the average person, it's unbearable for men accustomed to great wealth (ill-gotten though that wealth may be). "You've been giving orders your whole life," explains one advocate of more lenient conditions, "and now there's this buffoon with an IQ of twenty telling you to clean the toilet." Actually, this part isn't quite as bad as it sounds, either; as Mullins reveals two pages later, wealthy prisoners typically hire fellow cons to do such jobs for them. But there are other indignities-- they may no longer wear civilian garb and can't spend more than $290 a month at the prison commissary. You try limiting yourself to that budget when you're used to shopping at Barney's. Why would The American develop such a strong sympathy for the suffering of white-collar criminals--especially when, like other conservative organs, it generally ignores the far greater horrors inflicted on regular prisoners? One might suspect this sudden concern was inspired by the potential wave of coming Bush administration indictments. But the real answer seems to be that The American sees the idea of rich criminals having an unpleasant time in prison as yet another sign of egalitarianism run amok. "As the widening gap between high- and low-income Americans has become a focus for politicians and journalists," laments Mullins, "arguments [for more lenient treatment] are unlikely to find much support." Ah, those irrational voters, hamstringing the government again. In China, rich crooks can just buy their way out of trouble. No wonder we're falling behind.