Thought of the Day “Lessons from History” Sydney Williams
http://swtotd.blogspot.com/
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to obtain a little safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin “(1706-1790)
“There is nothing which I dread so much as the division of the Republic into two great parties,each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This,in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.” John Adams (1735-1826)
If one were to draw a spectrum of our politics, it would have, on the far right, Libertarians who believe in minimal government and, on the far left, a Social Welfare State comprised of those who believe that government’s primary responsibility is to care for all the needs of all its people. Most of us reside somewhere between those two poles. If we go beyond both extremes, the spectrum becomes circular, as both end in autocracies.
The natural tendency for any organism is to grow, which it does until it stops and dies. That is true for elephants, sparrows, snails, man and Maple trees. It is also true for businesses, non-profits, partnerships and, unfortunately, governments. Growth in government should be tethered to increases in population and reasonable services, without letting it expand to the point it destroys the society it was created to serve. For a government bureaucrat running a department, aspiration is natural. They request new funds, find new things to do and hire new people. They are not held to the profit and loss demands of for-profit businesses. Compounding the problem has been the expansion of the “deep state,” which is defined as networks of power within the bureaucracies and agencies of government, people not accountable to voters. There are an estimated three million federal non-elected, non-military, civil service workers in the U.S. It is not in the career interests of department managers to eliminate or even reduce their number of employees. And government salaries are among the nation’s strongest, so that the three richest counties in the U.S. – Loudon (VA), Howard (MD) and Fairfax (VA) – are Washington suburbs. The trick is how do we get government to reduce costs and slow its growth, while keeping alive its promise of liberty and prosperity?
The Country began as a Republic, with strong States’ rights and a limited federal government. While the foundations of our government have not changed – representative government, checks and balances, separation of powers, rule of law and individual rights – values have. Slavery was permitted and legal. Only male, property holders could vote. Other aspects are different. Senators were chosen by state legislators. There was neither a central bank, nor a national currency. There were no federal safety mechanisms for the poor and the elderly, who were dependent on family, churches and private charities. Over time and to correct those short-comings, the Country veered leftward along the spectrum. Our Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times, to reflect changes in values and needs, like the XIII and XV Amendments that dealt with slavery and the XIX Amendment that granted women the right to vote. Additionally, Congress passed laws like the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Medicare and Medicaid Acts of 1965. President Eisenhower used an Executive Order to desegregate the schools in 1957. All positive changes, but I worry as to how far leftward we can keep going before we reach a point of diminishing liberties and restricted economic growth.
Progressive socialists now want to offer single-payer healthcare and free public college. Where will this ‘benevolence’ of government end? How will it be paid for, not only in dollars but in freedoms lost? Consider: Which is more likely to offer better products and services at lower prices – central planning, where decisions are made by a few technocrats based on academic research, or free markets where inputs from millions of consumers become reflected in dozens of competitive offerings? Would the communication revolution of the last twenty-five years have occurred if American Telephone and Telegraph had not been broken up on January 1, 1984? Regulations that protect consumers are healthy. But when they stifle innovation and competition, they raise costs and impede development. Also, regulations too often are designed to protect companies and industries favored by political parties, rather than to serve the public interest. Deregulation in 2017 was as important as the corporate tax cuts in increasing GDP growth by one percent over 2016. Private/public partnerships, often lauded by politicians on both sides of the aisle, can be incubators of corruption, as, by definition, they block competition and impair free markets.
While the intellectual debate has always been about how far along the spectrum should we go and at what pace, the two political parties have been more concerned about personal and party power. Holding office is more important than doing what is right for the Country. Political office comes with great power. Much of the annual spending of the federal government – over $4 trillion, or 20.4% of U.S. GDP in 2017 – is the responsibility of the 435 members of the House of Representatives. Collusion and corruption have long hung seductively above their heads. In their desire to retain office or to gain majorities, politicians shy from the intellectual debate about what kind of government we should have, preferring instead to offer goodies to entice votes.
While compassion is an understandable (and commendable) characteristic of both people and government, so is competitiveness. Compassion makes us more pleasant, but competitiveness makes us better off. There is a point when public support stifles individual initiative. A few days ago, in an attempt to differentiate himself from other Democrats running for President, Senator Cory Booker told Steve Inskeep of NPR, “I love rugged individualism and self-reliance, but rugged individualism didn’t get us to the moon. It didn’t beat the Nazis or defeat Jim Crow.” He’s right that those successes were a function of collective action – but action provided by brave men and women who were rugged, self-reliant and competitive. Despite being part of a team, was not Neil Armstrong a “rugged individual?” Did he and the NASA team not want the U.S. to beat the Soviets to the Moon? Did it not take personal courage to make the trip? Did it not take individual bravery and self-reliance to storm the Normandy beaches, climb Riva Ridge, fight off Japanese at Okinawa and Iwo Jima? Would Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Junior, Andrew Goodman and Viola Liuzzo have boarded busses and done what they did for Civil Rights if they had grown up in a world where they would cower in “safe places” if someone spoke meanly to them? When government protects us against all that could go wrong and calls for no losers or winners, and when universities protect us against “harmful” speech, are we not more vulnerable in the harsh world of reality? At what point along the spectrum, does aspiration become suppressed? At what point do we become like H.G. Wells’ Eloi? Is there not a contemptuous sanctimony among those in government who see themselves as our betters? President Obama displayed his political philosophy through the video “Life of Julia.” In it he showed a world where ‘Julia’ was cared for by an omnipresent, compassionate government from birth to death. Would that have made her stronger, more courageous, more competitive? Is that the life we want?
Those to whom Senator Booker referred – bands of brothers in Europe and the Pacific during World War II, employees of NASA in the 1960s, and those who boarded busses to combat racial discrimination in the 1950s and ‘60s – believed in their country. They knew she was not perfect, but they also realized that no nation was (or ever had been) better. They were patriots, willing to put their lives on the line and many did. Today, patriotism is in decline. A Gallup poll conducted last July found that only 47% of Americans considered themselves “extremely proud” to be American, down four percentage points from 2017 and twenty-three points from 2003. At the same time, civic knowledge is at record lows. A 2016 survey by the Annenberg Public Policy Center found that only 26% of Americans could name all three branches of government. The national average score on last year’s high school U.S. History AP (Advanced Placement) exam was 2.64. (The exam is graded 1-5, with 5 being the top score). Keep in mind, the exam is taken by less than 20% of students – and taken by those students who feel themselves to be the most qualified. Thomas Jefferson once wrote that “wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government,” implying that when they are not well informed, they may not be capable of self-government. I wonder what he would say today, with Oregon considering lowering the voting age to sixteen?
A fact of our political system is that the direction of least resistance is leftward, for the simple reason that giving makes one more electable than taking, unless, of course, one is taking from the rich, à la Robin Hood. When half the working public no longer pays federal income taxes[1], they naturally see government as something that provides, not something deserving of debate. When teachers’ unions, in collusion with politicians in big cities like New York and Los Angeles, prevent competition from charter schools, the consequence is students less able to take advantage of a free-market capitalist system that has done more to eradicate poverty and raise living standards than any other economic system ever conceived.
So, what cools this scorn and stops this freight train from gathering steam as it nears the depot marked Socialism? I don’t pretend to have an answer other than to suggest that the closer we get to socialism, the more painful will be the repercussions when the end finally comes, which surely it will. As Bobby Jindal, former governor of Louisiana, wrote in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, “…aspiration, not redistribution, is the quintessential American trait.”
As mentioned above, most of us lie away from the fringes of the spectrum, some to the left, others to the right. Would not we be better off as a Country, instead of talking at and around one another, debating as to where we stand and why? We all speak from our consciences. Conservatives should be allowed their say in universities and liberals should not assume the sanctimony of the anointed. In speaking at Neville Chamberlain’s funeral in late 1940, a man he had ousted as Prime Minister six months earlier, Winston Churchill said[2] “The only guide to a man is his conscience, the only shield to his memory is the rectitude and sincerity of his actions…with this shield, however the fates may play, we march always in the ranks of honour.” Sadly, conscience, along with civic knowledge, economics and knowledge of U.S. history, play diminished roles in our schools, our news sources and in our politics today.
Ignorantly, we march leftward, knowing less of our history, capitalism and of how our government works. Yet we are assured by Panglossian-like politicians from the left that this is for our own good, that following them will lead to the best of all possible worlds. It frightens me, and I believe it should frighten you as well.
[1] The Tax Policy Center of the Brookings Institute estimate that in 2018 forty-four percent of all tax payers paid no income tax. That was up two percentage points from 2017.
[2] From Andrew Roberts book Churchill: Walking With Destiny, page 617.
Comments are closed.
