Democrats in America have managed to convince the populace over the past 50 years that they truly represent the views of the common man; the working stiff; the underdog; etc. It is among the greatest marketing successes of all time. After all, the party has succeeded in convincing so many people for so long, while at the same time, having its key platform views be the most harmful to those in most need of defense.
For example???
Anti-Free Trade:
The marketing pitch line from the democrats is that free trade agreements "ship our jobs overseas." That's so easy to say and sounds so offensive to the working person. Isn't it obvious - shipping our jobs overseas must certainly be wrong?
As it turns out, we don't want every job in America. What we want is to have each American who seeks employment to have the highest value job he/she can perform. Therefore, we want a mix of jobs that perfectly match our talent supply. While success in that regard will minimize the unemployment rate, the real challenge is getting our fellow citizens to be better trained so that we can perform the highest value services in the world here in America. Better trained citizens will bring us an ever increasing standard of living.....and that is the real goal.
So, if you need our country (and every other) to be able to manufacture and provide services in a mix that matches its citizens skill sets, then you really need mobility of products and services to the greatest extent possible - FREE TRADE. If you restrict trade (in the form of tariffs which artificially change import prices, for example), you relegate a country that may be best suited to perform a certain task to a secondary position in the market. Since that country can't effectively sell its product/service anymore, you cause their citizens who were otherwise best suited to perform that task, to do some other task below their capability. You also make your own citizens pay more than they need to pay for the product or service in question. Trade restrictions are driven by unions and other special interests and supported by democrats - all in the name of "preserving jobs" for our citizens.
But if we don't "preserve jobs" for our citizens, won't they become permanently unemployed?
No. Thanks to the notion of comparative advantage, every person can be productive. Even unskilled workers in countries with minimal natural resources can use their manual labor to assemble products, etc. Importantly, this natural system of allocating productive work among countries and people (embodied in the concept of comparative advantage) works best without any artificial barriers being instituted (e.g., no tariffs but free and unfettered trade). If trade barriers are constructed, the natural feedback loop is distorted and people are encourage to do work in one place that could more productively be done elsewhere.
If that happens, who wins and who loses?
The winner is the particular constituency for whom a country instituted the tariff. For example, sugar is much more efficiently grown in South America vs. the U.S. but we have instituted tariffs on imported sugar to protect (for some reason) our local sugar cane growers (and you thought the Sugar Bowl was just a football game!). If we give U.S. sugar growers profit margins they don't deserve, who pays the price? Consumers pay by having to buy sugar at a higher price than they would if we allowed it all to be imported.
Is it fair to transfer wealth from the average, cookie-baking American to U.S. sugar growers?
But this isn't really the worst of it....
Think about the poor people of Africa vs. the U.S. and European farm lobbies. Farmers in the U.S. and Europe have a lot of political pull and a lot of heart string pull (remember "Farm Aid" and Willie Nelson). They have a massive and multi-faceted price support system that keeps the price of corn and many other farm commodities artificially high. Once again, the consumer pays more but the real crime is that the poor people of certain African countries who might otherwise be able to produce and export certain crops are unable to economically do so. Moreover, since the industrial capacity in Africa is so weak, farming is oftentimes the ONLY productive task available to many people. Therefore, giving profits to the Midwestern corn farmer really harms the African farmer in a very big way.
The democratic party may be a friend to the U.S. farmer but in the process, they destroy the potential of the poor African farmer. Who do you suppose needs our protection more, the average U.S. farmer or the average African farmer? Moreover, the many tyrannical leaders on the continent of Africa would have a much more difficult time maintaining power if their people had something to lose and became better educated.
Democrats hurt poor Africans and other downtrodden people of the world by opposing free trade.
Anti-Voucher/Charter School:
In the District of Columbia, the Opportunity Scholarship Program is quietly under siege by the democratic party and its key constituency, the teachers' unions. In one of the worst performing school systems, there is hope for 1,700 poor children whose parents cannot afford to send them to the Sidwell Friends school (the private school of choice for presidential children, including the Obama girls). This voucher program provides $7,500 per year toward tuition for children to attend the school of their choice. This is a bargain for taxpayers in D.C., since the local school system spends over $14,000 per student per year. Families participating in this program have an average annual income of approximately $23,000 and 99% of them are minority families.
The unions will kill this program and their quiet approach is a provision that was tucked into one of the omnibus budget bills which requires the program be reauthorized by Congress after 2010. Obama signed the budget bill last week and despite one or two positive pronouncements on education (e.g., merit pay for good teachers), I still expect that he will not buck the democratic controlled Congress on the issue of the Opportunity Scholarship Program.
So, the democrats - the party of the people; will force 1,700 poor children back into the failing D.C. school system at a higher cost in order to protect teachers' jobs.
Carbon Cap and Trade System (aka "The Carbon Tax"):
In case you seek more recent examples of democratic punishment of the common man, let's introduce the carbon tax. Personally, I'm not sure I'm against this...but I can probably afford to pay my share. It’s the lower income folks that once again will get soaked.
This is driven by the environmental lobby (another key democratic constituency). The idea is to set an allowable limit of pollution that any business can emit. Companies would buy a permit from the government to emit a certain amount of carbon-based pollutants - this would raise big bucks for the Treasury (hence the "tax" moniker). Businesses that improve their emissions can then sell any excess pollution permit capacity to another business that would rather not spend money on cleaning itself up. With government shrinking the pool of permits over time, there will be less pollution allowed. Meanwhile, the government has a new funding source from selling the permits.
This should drive carbon emissions down (let's hope global warming is real). What it will also do is drive the cost of just about everything produced by mankind up. Companies will be forced to pass along the tax to consumers. In the language of taxation, this would be a very regressive tax in that it would impact lower income people more significantly, since they spend a greater proportion of their total income on subsistence expenses (food, shelter, etc.) vs. on investments.
Once again, the party of the people is driving a position which harms the common man the most.
These are just three short examples of how the “party of the people” harms the most vulnerable with its core positions. In the meantime, they give Americans a collective “hug” with speeches that sound wonderful; a young, minority president who lets guilty, white America repent for its historical racism; and a constant vilification of corporate America – the evil companies that create all things that are bad in this world.
Nice P.R. job!
March 14, 2009
March 06, 2009
The Two-Party Failure
In
As a result, any person who contemplates running for elected office and is concerned about winning, chooses to join one of the two major parties. It would be nice to believe that each person affiliates with the party that best matches their individual ideology. However, the savvy candidate probably picks the party in his/her geography that normally gets a majority of the votes cast in that particular area. So here we have our first quandary - as a candidate, do you select the party closest to your views or do you select the party that traditionally wins in your area?
While it may seem disingenuous to pick the party that would most help you win, it doesn't really matter from the perspective of compromising your ideals. As it turns out, you would be compromising your ideals in either case, unless your personal views perfectly match one party's platform (slim chance).
Herein lies the problem. In the two-party system, all candidates must compromise their views and adhere, in some substantial degree, to the party's platform positions - especially on the key issues. Why? Because the power structures within the party will demand your allegiance in order to get key committee assignments, key legislation introduced and passed, etc., once you're elected to office. This applies whether you are running for the legislative branch or the executive branch (thanks to checks and balances among the branches).
The result of all this is polarization. Do we really want polarized views? Wouldn't it be better to have a mosaic of individual views represented in the debate on matters of importance? There would be true debate; persuasive arguments; thoughtful decisions; real contemplation about matters of importance vs. a blind adherence to a position that the elected official knows he or she must support to guarantee re-election (would term limits help? Yes!).
So, let's change the election rules to outlaw political parties just like we outlaw monopolies that might result from corporate mergers (e.g., the Hart Scott Rodino Act). After all, if it's un-American for corporate monopolies or duopolies to exist then that should certainly apply to how we manage our competition for government leadership, shouldn't it? Imagine this - an open competition among individuals for the best collection of ideas. That sounds like a better democracy to me.
It's a favorite saying that democracy in
January 01, 2009
Welcome to The Rationalist View
I've been thinking for a long time that it would be great to have a place to express some views - perspectives which arise from a growing frustration that the world doesn't seem to operate on common sense principles. It matters. It matters that we don't demand sensible actions from one another because in extreme cases; lives are destroyed.
I've called this blog The Rationalist View but at its core, I'm really just talking about common sense and consistency.
For example, we have major religions that can't possibly coexist with one another since they, in certain cases, have diametrically opposed axioms. I like to tell the story of my Muslim taxi driver who explained to me how he bought his vehicle. He said that his friends got together and lent him $20,000. In order to repay them, he gives them $800 per month for three years. I asked him, "I thought it was against your religion to charge interest?" He told me it is against his religion to charge interest and that his friends aren't charging him interest. [You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out that he is clearly paying interest]
So I then asked him, "Is it true that you can divorce your wife simply by saying, 'I divorce thee' three times in her presence?" He said yes, I can divorce my wife that way.
Finally I told him that he and I have the same God (I was baptized Catholic), and I asked him, "If God came down into this cab, what do you think he would say about the fact that in your religion, you can't charge interest but can get divorced, but in my religion, it's the exact opposite?" He just looked at me in the rear-view mirror and didn't say anything.
What would God say?
I think he would say we're crazy. That the only real rule is the golden rule and that he is ashamed of the people who use organized religion to control others by propagating arbitrary rules that are really meant to maintain power.
Another important debate we have is about abortion. We spend a great deal of time attempting to justify our positions about when life is created and present in the womb. In reality, isn't it obvious? Before the sperm meets the egg, nothing happens in nine months. The moment after the sperm meets the egg, a process starts which results in a baby being born nine months later. It seems absolutely obvious to me that life begins at conception.
Assuming life begins at conception, is there an acceptable time at which one can terminate it? Let's work backwards. If someone took a knife and plunged it into the swollen belly of a woman, 8 months and 3 weeks after conception, would he be murdering the unborn child? Most of you would say a resounding YES. How about at 7 months? Of course.
Is there any time after conception that it stops being murder? If life starts at conception and it's murder at the very end; why isn't it murder just after the very beginning?
We don't need to be arguing about whether life begins at conception and at what point during a pregnancy it's OK to murder our children. We can do so much better. Last time I checked, we were at the top of the food chain. We have the benefit of science and intellect at our disposal. We have invented numerous ways to prevent conception - we call it birth control.
So here is the idea - let's promote birth control and talk to our kids until we're blue in the face about the significance of sex and the importance of birth control. Then we won't need to murder our progeny because we will have managed our reproduction so well that murder will no longer be required and we can stop embarrassing ourselves in a nonsensical debate about when life begins.
Oh...but those organized religions. They tell us that God doesn't approve of birth control. They tell us that we can't stop the creation of life using birth control (even though they can't stop their flock from institutionalized murder via abortion when they are inconvenienced with an unwanted pregnancy). This from the same people who have documented in the old testament that God's way was "an eye for an eye" but many years later in the new testament, God changed his tune (via Jesus) to "turn the other cheek." The God in their books clearly has an amazing propensity to change his mind radically. Pretty surprising for an all powerful, supreme being.
Could it possibly be that the organized religions just want to make sure that they are building the biggest flock over the long-term? With no birth control and no abortion, mankind would probably be able to fill the earth with Muslims, Catholics, Jews...take your pick. That way, someday, their religion would win the war to control the most human beings simply by reproducing faster and maintaining the brainwashing mechanism of arbitrary rules that are allegedly handed down from God. Sorry if I sound cynical, but I am.
While our religious institutions are a problem, at least we have enviable political institutions. In the United States, we have a two-party system. You can either be a democrat or a republican (there are a couple of other choices but they don't count 'cause you can't get elected or have any impact). How does one determine what party they belong to in America? Let's take me, for example.
I was born the son of a democratic precinct captain in the City of Chicago under Mayor Richard J. Daley. That means I was a democrat, like it or not, until adulthood. Then what happened? As it turns out, all that studying, working hard and some good fortune made me economically successful. Of course, I then started voting for republican candidates, since it is (or used to be) the party of low taxes.
However, in my case, I am burdened with some other views. I happen to favor a minimum wage as a safety net for those who have zero negotiating power with their employers (democrat). I also favor free trade since that is the only way to unleash the egalitarian power of comparative advantage (republican). I think unions have a right to organize (democrat) but I am very much against "card check" rules and an imposed arbitration after only 60 days of dispute (republican).
You get my drift - I don't fit neatly into either party's platform. The more I think about it, there is no way anybody can. However, if you want to get elected, you must. Therefore, you compromise and polarize. You adopt the unfavorable positions but pretend not to notice. It's incredibly destructive. To remain on the team and have any hope of passing legislation, you must tow the party line completely or you will be ostracized (ask Sen. Joe Lieberman).
Conclusion: The two-party system is terrible - it polarizes people and damages the ability to compromise.
So why does it exist? Why in America are there any parties? Can't we have an open election in which the five people who submit the most signed petitions (or some electronic equivalent) get to be on the ballot and we then vote for who we want. All legislators can form their own view on all issues rather than being pressed to tow the party line - a line that is heavily determined by organizations that are totally biased for themselves and against the greater good.
We can do better.
I can go on (and will in future posts) about the "party of the people" (democrats), that support numerous policies that in fact, keep the most vulnerable human beings down. Positions on free-trade, education vouchers, farm supports, etc.
I will talk about the teacher's unions that purport to be pro-student but at every turn, kill initiatives that might inject competition and efficiency into the education system and improve outcomes for students.
I will talk about the one course every child should take from sixth grade on - economics. It is about resource allocation and efficiency and an understanding of it will debunk so many fallacies for a lifetime.
We can discuss man's penchant for forming groups at every turn (from the moment they walk into a party, to unions, to political parties, to street gangs). This "ganging" habit of mankind is perhaps, our most destructive habit of all. Individualism anybody???
There is an endless supply of examples which highlight opportunities for societal improvement through rational thought.
I've called this blog The Rationalist View but at its core, I'm really just talking about common sense and consistency.
For example, we have major religions that can't possibly coexist with one another since they, in certain cases, have diametrically opposed axioms. I like to tell the story of my Muslim taxi driver who explained to me how he bought his vehicle. He said that his friends got together and lent him $20,000. In order to repay them, he gives them $800 per month for three years. I asked him, "I thought it was against your religion to charge interest?" He told me it is against his religion to charge interest and that his friends aren't charging him interest. [You don't have to be a mathematician to figure out that he is clearly paying interest]
So I then asked him, "Is it true that you can divorce your wife simply by saying, 'I divorce thee' three times in her presence?" He said yes, I can divorce my wife that way.
Finally I told him that he and I have the same God (I was baptized Catholic), and I asked him, "If God came down into this cab, what do you think he would say about the fact that in your religion, you can't charge interest but can get divorced, but in my religion, it's the exact opposite?" He just looked at me in the rear-view mirror and didn't say anything.
What would God say?
I think he would say we're crazy. That the only real rule is the golden rule and that he is ashamed of the people who use organized religion to control others by propagating arbitrary rules that are really meant to maintain power.
Another important debate we have is about abortion. We spend a great deal of time attempting to justify our positions about when life is created and present in the womb. In reality, isn't it obvious? Before the sperm meets the egg, nothing happens in nine months. The moment after the sperm meets the egg, a process starts which results in a baby being born nine months later. It seems absolutely obvious to me that life begins at conception.
Assuming life begins at conception, is there an acceptable time at which one can terminate it? Let's work backwards. If someone took a knife and plunged it into the swollen belly of a woman, 8 months and 3 weeks after conception, would he be murdering the unborn child? Most of you would say a resounding YES. How about at 7 months? Of course.
Is there any time after conception that it stops being murder? If life starts at conception and it's murder at the very end; why isn't it murder just after the very beginning?
We don't need to be arguing about whether life begins at conception and at what point during a pregnancy it's OK to murder our children. We can do so much better. Last time I checked, we were at the top of the food chain. We have the benefit of science and intellect at our disposal. We have invented numerous ways to prevent conception - we call it birth control.
So here is the idea - let's promote birth control and talk to our kids until we're blue in the face about the significance of sex and the importance of birth control. Then we won't need to murder our progeny because we will have managed our reproduction so well that murder will no longer be required and we can stop embarrassing ourselves in a nonsensical debate about when life begins.
Oh...but those organized religions. They tell us that God doesn't approve of birth control. They tell us that we can't stop the creation of life using birth control (even though they can't stop their flock from institutionalized murder via abortion when they are inconvenienced with an unwanted pregnancy). This from the same people who have documented in the old testament that God's way was "an eye for an eye" but many years later in the new testament, God changed his tune (via Jesus) to "turn the other cheek." The God in their books clearly has an amazing propensity to change his mind radically. Pretty surprising for an all powerful, supreme being.
Could it possibly be that the organized religions just want to make sure that they are building the biggest flock over the long-term? With no birth control and no abortion, mankind would probably be able to fill the earth with Muslims, Catholics, Jews...take your pick. That way, someday, their religion would win the war to control the most human beings simply by reproducing faster and maintaining the brainwashing mechanism of arbitrary rules that are allegedly handed down from God. Sorry if I sound cynical, but I am.
While our religious institutions are a problem, at least we have enviable political institutions. In the United States, we have a two-party system. You can either be a democrat or a republican (there are a couple of other choices but they don't count 'cause you can't get elected or have any impact). How does one determine what party they belong to in America? Let's take me, for example.
I was born the son of a democratic precinct captain in the City of Chicago under Mayor Richard J. Daley. That means I was a democrat, like it or not, until adulthood. Then what happened? As it turns out, all that studying, working hard and some good fortune made me economically successful. Of course, I then started voting for republican candidates, since it is (or used to be) the party of low taxes.
However, in my case, I am burdened with some other views. I happen to favor a minimum wage as a safety net for those who have zero negotiating power with their employers (democrat). I also favor free trade since that is the only way to unleash the egalitarian power of comparative advantage (republican). I think unions have a right to organize (democrat) but I am very much against "card check" rules and an imposed arbitration after only 60 days of dispute (republican).
You get my drift - I don't fit neatly into either party's platform. The more I think about it, there is no way anybody can. However, if you want to get elected, you must. Therefore, you compromise and polarize. You adopt the unfavorable positions but pretend not to notice. It's incredibly destructive. To remain on the team and have any hope of passing legislation, you must tow the party line completely or you will be ostracized (ask Sen. Joe Lieberman).
Conclusion: The two-party system is terrible - it polarizes people and damages the ability to compromise.
So why does it exist? Why in America are there any parties? Can't we have an open election in which the five people who submit the most signed petitions (or some electronic equivalent) get to be on the ballot and we then vote for who we want. All legislators can form their own view on all issues rather than being pressed to tow the party line - a line that is heavily determined by organizations that are totally biased for themselves and against the greater good.
We can do better.
I can go on (and will in future posts) about the "party of the people" (democrats), that support numerous policies that in fact, keep the most vulnerable human beings down. Positions on free-trade, education vouchers, farm supports, etc.
I will talk about the teacher's unions that purport to be pro-student but at every turn, kill initiatives that might inject competition and efficiency into the education system and improve outcomes for students.
I will talk about the one course every child should take from sixth grade on - economics. It is about resource allocation and efficiency and an understanding of it will debunk so many fallacies for a lifetime.
We can discuss man's penchant for forming groups at every turn (from the moment they walk into a party, to unions, to political parties, to street gangs). This "ganging" habit of mankind is perhaps, our most destructive habit of all. Individualism anybody???
There is an endless supply of examples which highlight opportunities for societal improvement through rational thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
