A Rational Paternalist Perspective
After reading William A. Galston's Wall Street Journal opinion piece, "Trump, the Working Class and Social Order" (August 5, 2026), I found myself agreeing with some of his observations but not with his underlying premises. Here's why.
William Galston correctly identifies an important phenomenon: many Americans feel that the economic system no longer works for them. Where I part company with him is in assuming that this frustration naturally points toward a debate between capitalism and socialism. It does not. The real issue is far deeper. It is the gradual abandonment of reason as the organizing principle of both economics and public policy.
Objectively, wealth is not a fixed pie to be divided; it is created. Production precedes distribution. Before asking who receives a larger share, we must first ask who produced the value in the first place. Galston discusses labor's declining share of national income but treats income as though it exists independently of entrepreneurship, capital formation, innovation, and risk. Capital is not an adversary of labor. It is accumulated human intelligence embodied in productive assets. Punishing capital to reward labor ultimately punishes labor as well because investment, productivity, and innovation inevitably decline.
The article also accepts almost without question that slower wage growth is evidence of economic failure. It may instead reflect a wide range of forces, including artificial intelligence, globalization, demographic change, excessive regulation, educational mismatch, or declining productivity. Economics is not a morality play in which every unequal outcome represents an injustice. It is the study of incentives, tradeoffs, and the creation of wealth. The growing popularity of socialism is therefore not proof that socialism has merit. It is evidence that many people correctly perceive problems while incorrectly identifying their causes.
Objectivism rejects the moral premises underlying modern populism, whether it comes from the political left or the political right. The socialist argues that success creates an obligation to surrender wealth. The nationalist populist argues that government should manipulate markets to favor one group over another. Both reject voluntary exchange as the primary mechanism of human cooperation and substitute political power for individual judgment. The only meaningful difference is which constituency receives the subsidy.
Galston criticizes tariffs and price controls, and rightly so. Both distort markets. But he stops short of recognizing the broader principle: government intervention almost always attempts to override the dispersed knowledge possessed by millions of independent decision-makers. Prices communicate information about scarcity, demand, and opportunity. They are not expressions of political preference but signals that coordinate human action far more effectively than centralized planning ever could.
From the standpoint of Rational Paternalism, however, there is another important omission. Human beings are not perfectly rational, and behavioral economics has demonstrated that beyond reasonable dispute. Acknowledging bounded rationality, however, does not justify replacing markets with bureaucracies. It justifies professionals who help individuals make better decisions while fully respecting their autonomy. This is the critical distinction between Behavioral Paternalism and Rational Paternalism. The former assumes government should "nudge" citizens because experts know better. The latter holds that professionals have an ethical obligation to exercise superior knowledge and judgment in the service of their clients while leaving ultimate authority where it belongs—with the client.
The article assumes that dissatisfaction with economic outcomes should be answered primarily through public policy. I would argue that much of it should instead be addressed through stronger professional institutions. Consider financial planning. Millions of Americans make catastrophic financial decisions every year, not because capitalism has failed them, but because they never receive competent advice regarding investing, insurance, taxation, retirement, estate planning, or risk management. Those mistakes compound over decades, often producing consequences far greater than any government program can remedy. The solution is not more redistribution; it is more professionalism.
A society that elevates competent advisors, physicians, attorneys, engineers, accountants, and other professionals creates better individual decisions without sacrificing liberty. That is Rational Paternalism in practice. Ironically, many of the same ideological movements that celebrate government expertise simultaneously undermine professional expertise by subordinating fiduciary judgment to political fashions, DEI mandates, ESG scorecards, and identity-based preferences. Merit yields to representation, objective standards become negotiable, and professional judgment is increasingly expected to conform to ideological expectations rather than objective reality. When professional judgment becomes politicized, everyone loses.
Galston concludes that neither socialism nor crude populism offers a sustainable path forward. On that point I agree. But the alternative is not merely incremental economic reform. It is a philosophical recommitment to reason, individual rights, private property, objective standards, and genuine professional competence. Economic systems ultimately reflect moral systems. If a culture comes to believe that need creates entitlement, socialism becomes inevitable. If it believes that production creates moral standing, capitalism flourishes. If it comes to view expertise as merely another form of privilege, professionals become distrusted and institutions decay.
The future of capitalism does not depend on defeating socialism. It depends on restoring a culture that values reason over resentment, production over redistribution, and professional judgment over political expediency. That, ultimately, is the promise of both Objectivism and Rational Paternalism.
This article reflects the author's personal opinions and economic philosophy and is provided for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute investment, legal, or tax advice, nor is it a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security.