With the midterm election right around the corner, there has never been a better time to take stock of our personal political beliefs in an effort to ensure we make better choices at the ballot box.
The economy has always enjoyed an important position in the minds of US voters and often polls among the top considerations that voters base their decisions on. Economic policy defines party positions and is perhaps, for better or for worse, the foundation of America's future. It's vital that we, as a nation, understand what role, if any, the government should play in our economy.
It seems to me that there is a particular narrative concerning the economy that has the power to distort voters minds by the masses. This idea is the mythical beast known as the "free market." I call this idea mythical because it does not and cannot exist in any civilized society. The United States, like all other civilized democracies is a mixed economy.
Republicans and Libertarians seem to have this sort of religious faith in the idea of the free market; in their minds it can fix every social ill and every policy problem we can fathom. However, the reality is that market freedom is not a one-stop-cure that can be sprinkled on political legislation. In a healthy civilized society, market freedom is more like an essential nutrient that needs to exist in a careful balance alongside government control and socialist principles.
Money is a powerful motivator. When there is a degree of freedom for people to pursue their own career paths, they will invest countless hours in education, dream up novel ideas for ingenious inventions, and create an army of small businesses. Economic freedom also creates a consumer driven environment that provides an dazzling array of market niches and potential careers. More quality jobs directly correlates to a healthier society, less crime, and less poverty. It's easy to see why it is so enticing to view economic freedom as a political panacea.
The problem though is that money is, in many ways, a motivating force that is too powerful. People don't seek out money or power in moderation; they always want more. So much so that they are willing to greatly compromise their values and their nations well being to squeeze out greater profit margins. This is the ugly side of capitalism: slavery, child labor, pollution on a catastrophic scale, denying life saving operations because of trivial pre-existing conditions, ect. Without a government to regulate the economy, society would quickly go down hill.
However, by finding a careful balance between government control and economic freedom, we can enjoy the benefits of capitalism without the dangers of unchecked greed. There is a spectrum of political platforms that fall in between socialism and total economic freedom. Advocating an economic or political system that falls at either extreme of the spectrum will result in disaster.
This might seem obvious to many people, yet it seems to be an idea that is not well understood by our nation as a whole. Recently, when the Democratic party advocated adjusting the balance of economic power to give the government more control in healthcare regulation, many detractors tried to frame the democratic party as advocating a shift toward complete government control over the economy. It seems to me that many Americans are not very good at perceiving shades of grey and instead prefer an unrealistically simplified black and white picture of politics.
But trying to view politics through a black and white filter will give a grossly distorted image. Republicans don't want a truly free market and Democrats don't want complete government control. Each party agrees (if only implicitly) that there needs to be a balance between government control and personal liberty. By striving to not define each other in terms of hyperbolic extremes, Americans can gain a much greater appreciation of political disagreement and engage in meaningful discussion about important issues rather than throwing distorted rhetoric back and forth.
Van,
ReplyDeleteFor our assignment in class to comment on a classmate's blog post, I searched through several different blogs before I found one that, to my eye, was right for making a comment on.
I found this post to be well thought-out and measured, taking into account several sides of the issue while still promoting the main idea without derision. I applaud and value the ability in my peers to be able to make a reasoned, thoughtful argument that thoroughly supports the point being made without resorting to distortions or deception by omission.
I find it true that many political neophytes misinterpret any call for reasonable checks and balances as a promotion of totalitarian control. The thing that I personally find ironic is that I believe that phobia of totalitarian control is a remnant of the reasonable suspicion raised by the actions of questionable legality perpetrated by the last Administration under the guise of Homeland "Security". I find it highly ironic, then, that the same political entities that created this paranoia in the first place are the same ones that are now benefiting from it. I see a frightening parallel between this phenomenon, and the way in which the principles of the original Tea Party movement (whose goal was fiscal accountability for the bank bailouts initiated by the Republicans) became marginalized and co-opted as buzzword fame for--you guessed it--the ultraconservative Republicans. The very people that tanked the economy are the ones now riding the wave of frustration right back into power. You can't write movie scripts this twisted. And the reason why it works on the American public is just as was said here: people only see black and white, they don't want to investigate the nuances and make informed decisions.
I am frightened for us all, but I am still sympathetic to the head-scratching bewilderment implied in the article's title.