Showing posts with label statism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statism. Show all posts

Friday, September 3, 2010

Seeing The American Forest

He couldn't see the forest through all the trees.

- Anonymous

One of most famous and insightful early observers of the American experiment was not himself an American, but a French Norman aristocrat, Alexis de Tocqueville. As an outside observer, he was able to identify much that was different and unique about America that many Americans could not themselves see. Perhaps we are seeing another Tocqueville today in the person of Thomas Straubhaar, a professor of economics at the University of Hamburg. He sees the liberal economic policies of Obama as misguided and complains in an insightful essay in Der Spiegal that America is becoming "too European." This from Prof. Straubhaar:

There's no question about it: The 20th century was America's era. The United States rose rapidly from virtually nothing to become the most politically powerful and economically strongest country in the world. But the financial crisis and subsequent recession have now raised doubts about its future. Are we currently witnessing the beginning of the end of the American era?

A firm belief in the individual's ability, ideas, courage, will and a reliance on one's own resources brought the US to the top. The American dream promised everyone the chance of upward mobility -- literally from rags to riches, from minimum wage to millionaire. The individual's pursuit of happiness was seen as the crucial foundation for the well-being of society, rather than the benevolent state which cares for its subjects -- and certainly not the welfare state, which provides a social safety net for its citizens.

In the American system, every man was responsible for himself -- in good times and bad. No one could count on government assistance, not even the wannabe millionaire who did not make it and ended up homeless.

For many US citizens, the financial crisis has turned the American dream into a nightmare. . . .

Both the behavior of the American government and the Federal Reserve makes one thing clear: They do not see the solution to the US's economic woes in a return to traditional American virtues. Obama is not calling for the unleashing of market forces, as Ronald Reagan once did during an equally critical period in the early 1980s. On the contrary: Obama, driven by his own convictions and advised by economists who believe in government intervention, has taken a path that leads far away from those things that catapulted America to the top of the world in the past century.

The Obama administration's current policies rely on more government rather than personal responsibility and self-determination. They are administering to the patient more, not less, of exactly those things that led to the crisis.

The highest commandment of the American worldview was always to maximize individual freedoms and minimize government influence. It was an approach that was highly successful. According to that rule, self-directed action would remain the rule and government intervention the unpopular exception. But that is no longer the case.

This raises a crucial question: Is the US economy perhaps suffering less from an economic downturn and more from a serious structural problem? It seems plausible that the American economy has lost its belief in American principles. People no longer have confidence in the self-healing forces of the private sector, and the reliance on self-help and self-regulation to solve problems no longer exists.

The opposite strategy, one that seeks to treat the American patient with more government, is risky -- because it does not fit in with America's image of itself. . . .

But what is good for Europe and Germany does not automatically work for the US. The settlers of the New World rejected everything, which included throwing out anything with a semblance of state authority. They fled Europe to find freedom. The sole shared goal of the settlers was to obtain individual freedom and live independently, which included the freedom to say what they wanted, believe what they wanted and write what they wanted. The state was seen as a way to facilitate this goal. The state should not interfere in people's lives, aside from securing freedom, peace and security. Economic prosperity was seen as the responsibility of the individual.

If you take this belief away from Americans, you are destroying the binds which interlink America's heterogeneous society. Removing this belief could lead to conflicts between different sections of society, clashes which have long bubbled beneath the surface.

What could help would be a return to the American Way, the approach which made the US so historically powerful. The success of this model is illustrated by history. In 1820, twice as many people lived in the United Kingdom as the US, and its economic performance (measured by gross domestic product) was three times as strong and the average standard of living (measured by GDP per person) was a quarter higher. Today, there are about five times more people living in the US than the UK, America's economic performance is about seven times better than Britain's and the average American is about 50 percent better off than the average Briton.

What should be done? It would be more intelligent to repair the elevator which helped the US rise from the bottom of the heap to the top, instead of trying to transplant a European style of operating onto American soil. Either the US follows the American Way -- an approach characterized by a shared history, economic success and constant progress -- or the US will have to adjust itself to the "European" way, sparking economic and social tensions in the process.

If the US manages to revert to its former ways, there is potential for hope. If not, the American age will have really come to an end.


Read More...

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Seraphic Secret On Utopianism and Big Government

From Richard Avrech at Seraphic Secret, an insightful essay on utopianism versus reality and Big Government statism versus capitalism that appears as part of a post on the Health Care bill. He captures in a few paragraphs what I struggle in far more to say:

Seraphic Secret believes in the power of the individual, the power of free markets to effect positive results for a majority of the people.

There is no such thing as a solution for everybody.

That is called utopia and utopian models always end in tyranny if not outright genocide.

Seraphic Secret strongly believes in religious charities such as The Jewish Health Care Foundation of Los Angeles.

Charities flourish when government is least intrusive. But when government assumes control of private initiative charity declines because high taxes drain wallets and people assume that, y'know, the government is taking care of everything.

Remember when computers and other innovative electronics cost the earth? Private industry and competition drove prices down and quality up. The same free market model should and could be used for health care reform.

But Obama and the Democrats have no faith in free markets, no faith in a free American citizenry.

Obama and the Democrats believe in big government, they believe in, well, themselves—a ruling elite.

But big government does not innovate.

Big government does not create new jobs or new markets.

Big government is a cumbersome beast that is concerned, primarily, with maintaining and expanding its own power.

And Big government is the enemy of freedom and decency. Because when you relinquish control of your life to government, you relinquish free choice, you give up on the American dream.

And that is the plague called socialism/communism/collectivism, recast by modern liberals as, ahem, social justice.

You—yes you—are about to sink into a world of new taxes and a grim swamp of government health care.

G-d help us.

Do read Robert's entire post. Robert's essay is a good compliment to one of my favorite Thomas Sowell essays: The Prejudices Of The Elite. If you don't already read Seraphic Secret on a daily basis, I would highly recommend you start doing so.

Read More...

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Political Myths

The left is the wold's most effective promoter of myths. The two greatest myths - the Republican Party is the party of racism and fat cats while Democrats are the party of equality and the people. The truth is the polar opposite.

I have blogged before on the fact that the Democratic Party and the far left are the repositories of most of racism and sexism to be found in America today. See here and here. Kevin Jackson, who runs The Black Sphere blog, has blogged recently on how Tiger Woods is now experiencing the "racism of the left" for his serial adultery - more specifically, that he didn't engage in any adluterours relationships with black women. It a double whammy - amoral and racist. This from Mr. Jackson:

There has been much discussion about Tiger’s choice of mistresses, and the fact that none of them were black. I found this laughable at first, thought that people were joking. They were not. So as I pondered the Left’s ability to demagogue race in all circumstances, I concluded that the Left is showcasing their racism yet again. Tiger has been left by the Left; dangling on that flimsy limb, yes, all because none of his mistresses were black. . . .

You can read his entire post here.

As to the second myth, the truth is that in fascist societies, big business does extremely well. And there is little more fascist then our modern day far left - a fact many of our largest companies have recognized and are positioning themselves to take very lucrative advantage. As Jonah Goldberg explains:

. . . The notion that big business is “right wing” has always been more sloppy agitprop than serious analysis. It’s true that historically, big business is against socialism and Communism — and understandably so. Socialism and Communism were once close to synonymous with expropriation of wealth and the nationalization of industry. What businessman or industrialist wouldn’t be against that? But many of those same industrialists saw nothing wrong with cutting deals with statist regimes. For example, the Swope Plan, put forward by Gerard Swope, president of General Electric, laid out the infrastructure for much of the early New Deal.

Yet the debate is always framed as if the choice is between “government intervention” on the one hand and free-market capitalism on the other. From 30,000 feet, that division is fine with me. My objection is the glib and easy association of big business with the free-market guys. (Milton Friedman was no champion of public-private partnerships and industrial policy.)

This identification allows self-described progressive Democrats to run against big business when they are in fact in bed with the fat cats.

For instance, the standard line from the Democrats is that the plutocrats and corporate mustache-twirlers oppose health-care reform because, in President Obama’s words, they “profit financially or politically from the status quo.” That sounds reasonable, and in some cases it is reasonable. But it makes it sound as if Obama is bravely battling “malefactors of great wealth.”

But that’s not really how it works, as Timothy Carney documents in his powerful new book, Obamanomics. In 2008, Obama raked in more donations from the health sector than John McCain and the rest of the Republican field combined. Drug makers gave Obama $3.58 for every dollar they gave McCain. Pfizer gave to Obama at a 4–1 rate, as did the hospital and nursing-home industries. In 2008, the insurance industry gave more money to House Democrats than House Republicans. HMOs give to Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 60 to 40.

So far, the health-care industry has mostly been trying to cut insider deals with the government, not fighting to defend the status quo. Discussions between Big Pharma and the White House have been more like pillow talk than a shouting match.

This pattern is hardly unique to health care. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, led by GE, includes many other Fortune 500 companies, including Goldman Sachs — the company that has profited mightily from Obama’s brand of hope and change. CAP is an aggressive supporter of the Democrats’ climate-change scheme. Why? Because GE and friends stand to make billions from carbon pricing, thanks largely to investments in technologies that cannot survive in a free market without massive subsidies from Uncle Sam. GE chief Jeffrey Immelt cheerleads big government as “an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.” . . .

As Goldberg goes on to say, the right need to relearn the lesson of defending free markets, as opposed to being "pro-business." But as to the left, their brand "for the people" economics is both, one, corrupt, and two, anything but in the interests of the common man.

Read More...