Yesterday on Facebook, I made a comment on one of Joe Biden's recent speeches. To paraphrase, Biden knew what Republicans, or conservatives- I can't remember which word he used, were against, but he didn't know what they were for. My comment was that he should head back to high school government class to learn what conservatives are "for."
I envisioned a platform of pro-military, free market economy, less government regulation or interference...
To make a long story short, a good friend from back in the day thought that conservatives needed the same refresher course since we don't know what we're for either.
Republican politicians, I said, possibly, but I know what I stand for.
So the next round of comments was a set of definitions for the word "conservative":
- reluctant to change or to accept new ideas, resistant to change
- bourgeois, materialistic, conforming to the standards and conventions of the middle class, as in a bourgeois mentality.
As I thought about those definitions, I had to agree with him. I admit that I googled bourgeois as I was in college the last time I heard that word used in it's intended context. And I had to think through what was meant by "materialistic." All I could come up with was that materialism and standards of the middle class meant capitalism.
I don't agree with change for the sake of change; action for the sake of action. Many people voted for Obama because they wanted him to be the first black President, some were in favor of his political and social theories, but many simply wanted a change from the status quo. They reasoned that anything Obama offered would be better than the last eight years.
Is it possible to forget that not all change leads to positive results? Could we have proposed changes based on evidence-statistics, facts? What about change prompted by further education or world experience? What we have now is action simply to say that we did something. Or change in the guise of rescue that leads in the direction of failed political systems from the past.
I thought one of the greatest failures of the Katrina aftermath were those debit cards for $2000. Throwing money at a problem is a key example of action for the sake of action. The victims couldn't say we didn't do anything for them-that was the mindset of the powers that be. Why on earth couldn't someone figure out that what these people needed, first and foremost, would be food to keep them alive. Why not automatically enroll these people in WIC and foodstamps. The programs were there, the accountability measures were in place, and they could give people $800/month for a family of 5 and enough WIC coupons to buy 8 gallons of milk every month, carrots, peanut butter, cereal, baby food and formula, beans, juice. Next would be non-urgent medical care and prescriptions. Medicaid cards to everyone. Coordinate with the state and local offices in LA. Maybe the gov't did that. My guess is that many of these victims were already beneficiaries of all of these programs. Then it would be possible to move on to toiletries/sanitary issues, clothing and long-term shelter. Why didn't they consider the organizational structure of the army? There are groups of thousands, groups of hundreds, groups of fifty, and groups of tens. Surely that is a better way to handle a mass of humanity than stuffing them all inside the Astrodome.
Hindsight is 50/50, but these programs and ideas were already in use by the same government making the decisions. It would have been ideal to take a breath, consider the administrative systems of our government services, and then act with at least a chance at success, backed by analysis of actual facts, numbers, manuals full of best practices-anything other than a shot in the dark. (On a side note, Stephen Covey suggests that the ability to take that breath in the midst of a trial or tense situation, serves to, among other things, separate us from other animals. Or maybe that's what I took away from this concept; either way, please read his book "7 Habits..." for the actual explanation.)
As I read more about the bourgeoisie, I read about the state bourgeoisie as well. The bourgeoisie are people who privately own the means of production and use workers, or employees, to increase their profits. The whole class warfare issue stems from the conflict between the production owners and the employees, and the capitalist is the bad guy. From what I understand of the state bourgeoisie, the members of a communist government control all the means of production in an economy. They are basically the same kind of people as the bourgeoisie we conservatives are compared to, but use the medium of government to increase in power, instead of profits, as a result of the work done by the wage laborers. As long as there are means of production, there will be a need for someone to control them, to direct their use: There is either a capitalist or the public servant. Does this idea mean something different to you today than it would have a year ago?
What this all boils down to is the question of whose responsibility is it to make an individual, a community, a nation, successful, from a socio-economic standpoint? If you agree with Obama, only the federal government is large enough to handle these problems. No one else will care for the poor, so we will do it and we will force people to do it with us. No one else will look after the well-being of their employees, so we will do it and we will force you to do it with us. No one else can tackle health care reform, so we will do it.
Or if you remember what you learned in high school government, and agree with me, governments exist to fix problems that were too big or costly for the private sector: roads, national defense. Is there anything else that I should add? Local law enforcement probably falls under the same tent, but it is obviously handled locally.
Did you know that our Gross Domestic Product is made up of Consumption by consumers, Investment by businesses, and spending by Government. Apparently the GDP went up recently, due to the influx of government dollars. But did you know that only two forms of gov't spending lead to actual increases in consumption and investment: money spent on infrastructure and national defense. If people feel safe, they will spend their money. If businesses know that the country is stable, they will invest and seek to grow their business, right?
In an attempt to avoid the emotional, hate-filled, agenda-driven soundbites that the media throws at us, I will say that this doesn't have to be a good guy v bad guy scenario. It comes down to whether someone believes in the ability of a free market economy, which is the absence of any economic system, crutches, restraints, or regulations, to provide economic stimulus and an increase in individual liberties. Some people feel that the federal government is better equipped, can better ensure that citizens are not exploited along the path of production, is large enough to handle the problems facing our nation today, and, therefore, carries this responsibility. At least, that's what I guess, since I can't speak for them.
I could spend another entire blog discussing whose responsibility it is to instill moral sensitivity and to care for the poor and needy among us, so I won't get into that.
If you couldn't tell, I happen to believe in the power of a free market economy. Unfortunately, the size and scope of our federal government at this point in history inhibits the free-market portion of our economy. People say the market failed in the housing, banking, automobile, and health-care industries, but we never saw the market act on it's own; it has been fettered by government regulations. If we let the market truly take it's course, we would see our country take a different, and I think ultimately more successful, path to recovery.
Yes, if you doubted before, you are now fully aware of what a dork I am. Sorry to take the liberty to write about something as dull as political philosophy and economics. You might ask if I have a life-the answer is only occasionally-less so with Neil in Afghanistan. This Facebook conversation really got to me, and, as it is not possible to demonstrate any level of depth on FB, I needed to write about it here.
Tomorrow I will post pics of Zach and tell stories about his new-found love of blueprints. Or why they should be called "white-prints."
The concept of bourgeoise is an interesting one. Since the dawn of production until about 50 years ago, the bourgeoise was only a government (socialist) or an elite group of power barons. The dawn of the corporation (or stock companies) in about 1500 started to change this in that people from the non-business caste of societies began to take part in the formation and development of private and public companies. However, up until the 1950s, the majority of companies were still held by a relatively small set of individuals.
ReplyDeleteSince 1960, the ownership (hence the bourgeoise) has shifted to a relatively even mixture of the population. Particularly in the late 80s and beyond. Family ownership of stock (whether individually or in retirement accounts) has skyrocketed. Not only that but the diversification of stock has increased by the same margins. Whereas a power baron like John Rockerfeller or Andrew Carnegie previously had their wealth tied up in ownership of a single company (Standard Oil or US Steel), the power barons of today like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have their wealth spread out through several companies. Also in contrast is the magnitude of their wealth. When adjusted for constant 2000 dollars, John Rockefeller was worth something on the order of $900 billion to $1.5 trillion, Compared to Gates or Buffets $40 billion, it looks like modern power barons are pikers. This is also because the wealth has truly been spread far and wide. In 1900 the wealth of an average American was on the order of $5000 (in 2000 dollars) with the majority of it in the form of usable goods (horses, carriage, tools, etc). Now, the average wealth is on the order of $30-50,000, with a relatively even split between goods, house, and investments.
So, since there has been a shift of the bourgeoise from the classic sense of a relatively few power barons that were at odds with the workers to a time now when the power barons are more numerous and not as individually wealthy as before and the bourgeouise now includes the workers (through stock ownership), the workers have a vested interest not only in the companies they work for, but also the success of a myriad of other companies. This is why we don't consider the bourgeoise a distinct group anymore. It involves 80% of the population. Furthermore, the movement of the other 20% into the bourgeoise is constantly happening. In America, we are basically at a point where over 95% of the population will be part of the "bourgeoise" for a good portion of their lifetime.
Another comment about the free market. Prior to the 1930s, the country went through several recessions and depressions (although in history we called them Panics). These were periods of 1 to 7 years and there was rarely any government involvement. The market recovered naturally always with a corresponding gusto (the Roaring 20s followed a 30% drop in the market from 1920-1921). The 1929 market crash should have been the same. After a decrease of 40% off the market high, the market rose 25% by April of 1930. Unemployment was at 8%. That is when the government took action. The Smoot-Hawley tariffs were enacted to "protect" US manufacturing which worked to shut down trade throughout the world, thereby entering us into a depression. The market started a gradual downward slide that took away more than 80% of its value by the middle of 1932. The new administration at that time enacted policies that hindered market growth, and by 1937 the market was only at about 1/2 of its pre-crash value. The market had another downturn probably since the run up for the previous 4 years was financed by the government and there was no real capital behind it. Unemployment was still at 19% (or 13% depending on how you calculated it). Basically, all of the messing around by the Hoover administration and the Roosevelt administration not only started the Great Depression, but also made it last a decade.
ReplyDeleteSo, when you make comments about government regulation and "management" of the economy hindering the free market system, you are spot on. A free market will not have "good times" all the time, but it will correct itself, and overall the wealth and standard of living of those participating in it will increase.
-Andrew
Andrew-I've been meaning to thank you for your insightful and knowledgeable comments. Wow, you're brilliant.
ReplyDeletePBS did a *stunnning* documentary about Herbert Hoover lately which completely changed my opinions of the man. Just throwing that out there.
ReplyDelete