Is it just me, or does every Democratic presidential wanna-be come with an inherent savior complex? During the 2000 campaign and debates between George W. and Al Gore, Mr. Bush acknowledged that the differences in opinion between himself and Mr. Gore were not a matter of who’s right and who’s wrong but were, rather, a difference in opinion based on a sense of philosophy regarding government responsibilities. They each shared a passion for America and they each believed in what they were standing for but my recollection of that campaign is that Mr. Gore expressed an intense desire to “fight for” us (not sure exactly whom he meant), diligently working to convince presumably middle or poor America of their “victim” status at the hands of rich, mean ol’ Republicans and promising virtually millions in give-away programs to whomever desired to belly up to the government trough in order to make it right. In a nut shell, Mr. Gore promised to be all things to all people, to be our nurturer, our provider.
While I do not intend to unfairly or inaccurately pigeon-hole Democrats in general, I might because it seems to me that this Robin Hood mentality of government’s role has become quite expensive over the years and continues to be a major theme in American politics now, essentially attempting to literally buy votes. It also seems as though each time the government “helps” the working families, these families wind up taking it in the shorts in the long run because members of Congress will invariably protect their own interests first.
During this presidential race, there is another wanna-be messiah on the campaign trail offering, heck, promising to save us from big oil, big pharmacy, big auto, big health care …. well, I think you get the idea. Former US Senator John Edwards is promising to save our poor souls from everything “big” except, of course, “big” government. Even more strange, Mr. Edwards is somehow going to take on “big” government by doing battle with the “inside-the-beltway” folks and straightening out the entire establishment. A man who is worth about a bazillion dollars and lives in a bazillion-square-foot home somehow feels our pain (oddly familiar ring to that one, I think), “understands” us, and is coming to our rescue.
The conflict I have with such “transactional” campaigns (to borrow a term from Time) is that, like most Americans, those who are lacking or are disenfranchised are easily seen or at least reported on, yet it is difficult to know for sure if a political candidate is sincere in seeking to help those who earnestly need it or if they are only attempting to buy votes.
Paul Krugman of the New York Times recently wrote an excellent piece with compelling arguments in favor of government’s obligation to see to it that young children have access to adequate health care beyond the ER. It is abundantly clear that corporate America will shut down an operation and move it overseas or south of the border where labor is substantially cheaper, so there are obviously a lot of Americans being forced to look elsewhere for work. Social Security problems are still looming that will have to be addressed sooner or later, and there is an incredibly expensive war going on with no end in sight. In short, there are problems that government can and must address. Whether government itself can – or should – actually attempt to solve all these problems is perhaps the “philosophical” difference which exists between Democrats and Republicans. Yet it is abundantly clear that genuine problems exist.
The late American industrialist Henry Ford seemed to have the best grasp on social duties and responsibilities when he was quoted as having said, “There are two fools in this world. One is the millionaire who thinks that by hoarding money he can somehow accumulate real power, and the other is the penniless reformer who thinks that if only he can take the money from one class and give it to another, all the world's ills will be cured.”
Money may not be able to buy happiness, but it can come in pretty handy for the down payment and social problems are going to be expensive one way or the other, but is money itself the only issue at stake? To hear Mr. Edwards talk, increasing tax rates on “the rich” while giving tax breaks to middle America will still enable him to provide universal health care for “everyone” (everyone who needs it, or everyone period?), college for “everyone” (who wants it, or whether they want it or not?), and anything else with a price tag that working Americans have to pay for if they want it but will apparently be provided for others who are somehow disadvantaged.
Such statements seem almost inflammatory and degrading toward those who have found themselves at the lower end of the economic scale, but the reality is that there will always be a gap between rich and poor. Trying to define an acceptable level of “gap”, however, is ambiguous at best and will ultimately require that someone’s liberty will be restricted in favor of someone else in any awkward attempt to narrow such a gap to a more acceptable level. Who will be the final authority to determine such?
There is also nothing proven except through failed communist and socialist societies that providing everything for everyone has ever worked or will ever work, but somehow vote-seekers such as Mr. Edwards try to convince Americans that they can somehow make it work. It must also be pointed out that leaders of such nations of communism or socialism have tended to live pretty high off the hog while citizens work their fingers to the bone and live in squalor in other countries like North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela to name only a few.
“The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.” The first century Greek historian Plutarch also recognized that not only will increased taxes levied against the rich not solve any social problems or create economic opportunity for the poor, but the long sought-after “freedom” that vote-seekers claim to offer is actually chains and shackles. One way or the other, to one extent or another, there is no such thing as a free ride. Everything has a price, and everything comes with conditions. Being truly free means to take on such burdens by choice and not by compulsion. The problem with vote-seekers such as Mr. Edwards is that they are adept at convincing the masses that they have a problem and that someone, most likely a rich person or a Republican, is to be blamed and deserves to be punished.
Mr. Edwards might actually believe that he has the remedy for what ails the poor and he may honestly believe in everything he is offering. In my humble opinion, however, should this be the case it should remove any doubt that Mr. Edwards is ignorant of history and economic realities and therefore unfit to serve as chief executive of this nation. Anything the government seeks to prop up financially is artificial at best and will ultimately fail because the US economy is not driven by government spending, at least not primarily; it will be doomed to fail from the start. Ours is a consumer-driven economy based on goods and services bought and sold. Goods and services are provided by employed persons who are offered jobs based on the provider’s ability to sell which in turn is based on the consumer’s ability and willingness to purchase. It is commonly referred to as a “business” cycle and not a government one for a reason: it is completely dependent on business and commerce, most of which is privately held.
Still, the fact that ours is arguably the most powerful and affluent nation on the face of this earth and the fact that farmers go under in this country while human beings go hungry flies in the face of the very essence of economic justice. We also have a serious health care problem in this country in which it seems undetermined whether adequate health care is a right to be enjoyed by all human beings or is a privilege to be reserved only for those who can afford it. Providing universal health insurance, especially for the poor, will provide them with much-needed care but will do little for the spiraling rise in care and medicines except to put a greater burden on the US government.
What can be done to address such serious issues that stand before us? Obviously the solutions will depend on many factors, the party in the majority being at the top of the list. Another factor will be whether we elect a salesman or a chief executive with a proven track record of successfully managing affairs on such a grand scale. I am just not convinced that a single term in the US Senate and a successful career as a personal injury attorney are such qualifications that identify a person suited for such a monumental task, never minding a political ideology.
Mr. Edwards’ potential administration will come with a pretty hefty price tag from a grab bag in which there seems to be something for everyone. Voters have to look very carefully at what is being offered but when reviewing presidential candidates, voters must also be mindful that these candidates can only actually do so much because of constitutional restrictions to the duties and privileges of the office. Talking a good show will go a long way with apathetic and complacent voters who fail to dig too deep, but there is only so much that any president can – or should – do. We would all do well to pay closer attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment