The Ministry of Truth
According to an editorial in the Wall Street Journal,
See also Scott Bieser's comment on Conger's blog.
My own opinion is all but spelled out here. The one thing I'll add is that the GOP likes to use libertarian rhetoric to advance anti-libertarian goals. Anyone who thinks the Republican Party stands for individualism, liberty, or principle, needs to either have his head examined or have it removed from his arse.
I do, however, agree with the editorial writer's take on the loyal opposition:
He may be right about perception -- perhaps people vote Republican because they see it as the alternative to an ever-growing government -- but the problem is that the perception is false. George Dubya has spent more than any president since Johnson. At this point, he's probably spent more than anyone since FDR. His so-called tax cuts aren't real tax cuts: they're tax deferments. Unless you actually cut spending, apparent tax cuts are just smoke and mirrors. (And I'm not even mentioning the most insidious, hidden tax of all: monetary inflation.) Dubya loves central regulation. Look what he's done to airports. Look what he wants to do to the power grid.
We're supposed to sit still for talk of "trusting people" with the USA PATRIOT Act still on the books?!
The GOP government doesn't trust its citizens at all -- and yet asks us to trust them with practically everything. No thank you.
The neoconservatives are not for small government! They're just for corporate welfare and foreign warfare rather than social programs and class warfare -- and actually, they seem to like their own set of social programs, too!
As I wrote in a letter last year,
See Wally Conger's take on this nonsense.What was determinative is that the two political parties view the American people very differently. The Republican Party has become the party of individualism, believing that free enterprise, market economies, and individual choices give people the best chance of a good life; that if ordinary Americans are left alone to make their own decisions, they will generally be good decisions, so they -- not the government -- should have the power to make them.
See also Scott Bieser's comment on Conger's blog.
My own opinion is all but spelled out here. The one thing I'll add is that the GOP likes to use libertarian rhetoric to advance anti-libertarian goals. Anyone who thinks the Republican Party stands for individualism, liberty, or principle, needs to either have his head examined or have it removed from his arse.
I do, however, agree with the editorial writer's take on the loyal opposition:
Conversely, the Democratic Party is the party of centralization, believing that a wise and benevolent, best-and-brightest, urban blue-county government can make better choices than those of rural, red-county Americans. This is not a new belief; it is the legacy of the 1930s (the New Deal) and the '60s (the Great Society). It was fully reflected in John Kerry's campaign: Taxes must rise and government must grow; trade must be regulated and limited; the 1935 Social Security system is perfect and nothing about it may be changed.
He may be right about perception -- perhaps people vote Republican because they see it as the alternative to an ever-growing government -- but the problem is that the perception is false. George Dubya has spent more than any president since Johnson. At this point, he's probably spent more than anyone since FDR. His so-called tax cuts aren't real tax cuts: they're tax deferments. Unless you actually cut spending, apparent tax cuts are just smoke and mirrors. (And I'm not even mentioning the most insidious, hidden tax of all: monetary inflation.) Dubya loves central regulation. Look what he's done to airports. Look what he wants to do to the power grid.
We're supposed to sit still for talk of "trusting people" with the USA PATRIOT Act still on the books?!
The GOP government doesn't trust its citizens at all -- and yet asks us to trust them with practically everything. No thank you.
The neoconservatives are not for small government! They're just for corporate welfare and foreign warfare rather than social programs and class warfare -- and actually, they seem to like their own set of social programs, too!
As I wrote in a letter last year,
You say that the sorry state of the world is from lack of education, and I agree, but it's economic education that I believe is most fundamentally lacking. People misunderstand the basic rules of cause and effect, and politicians promote that misunderstanding, either out of their own ignorance, or out of self-interest. Rail at the Republicans for trying to direct tax dollars into the accounts of large corporations, and I won't disagree with you. If "capitalism" is government intervention for the benefit of capitalists, then I am as anti-capitalist as any socialist is. But the socialists will take us all to hell. It's their programs that caused the problems in the first place -- and if you don't understand why I say so, then I beg you to learn some more economics. We're on a steep decline and the Democrats and Republicans are arguing about whether to steer left or right. Neither seems to want to actually put on the brakes, and what we need is full reverse.


3 Comments:
Hi bk,
Really good post.
A question for you, because I agree with you about the importance of education, and I consider myself brutally uneducated on topics of economics. Furthermore, I have a hard time slogging through economics writing, because so much of it tends to be DRY. (I know: so is much literary theory--it is the nature of specialized writing.) My other complaint is that oftentimes people who are educated in economics use a lot of terminology that we the uneducated do not know. (I like how you link to definitions--that is useful.)
So back to my question: Can you refer me and others like me to a couple of important starting places? If you have already done this on your site, and I have missed it, I apologize. In that case, perhaps you could link back?
Grazie.
Can't resist. Henry Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON is a classic in economics simplified...and it's SHORT! Not short at all, but very readable, is most any economics text by Murray Rothbard, preferably MAN, ECONOMY & STATE.
Thanks, Wally Conger. I'll start there.
Post a Comment
<< Home