Americans now reflexively expect the government to solve our
problems, whatever they may be. I am
incredulous.
We have expected our government to guide our economy. The result has been inequality and
deteriorating infrastructure. We have
expected our government to ensure we all have adequate health insurance. The result is a morass of inefficient
bureaucracies and escalating cost. We
have expected our government to improve the prospects of our least fortunate
citizens (remember the war on poverty?).
The result is that poverty has become entrenched in our inner cities and
has extended to rural communities.
How did we get here?
Politicians of both parties have abandoned principle in
favor of an unstated philosophy that has been embraced by the public:
“government should enforce what I think is right.” Whenever 50% of the
population is imposing its beliefs on the other 50%, we have lost track of the
basic American principles of freedom and rule of law.
Instead, we get platitudes.
What’s a platitude? I recently
saw a definition that cuts to the quick: a platitude is and idea that (a) is
admitted to be true by everybody, and (b) isn’t true.
The recent bi-partisan budget deal is exhibit #1. Rep. Mark Sanford (R-SC) called it a deal
that “makes us weak as a civilization.”
Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Shumer (D-NY) called it a “win for the American
people.” So, which is it?
Well, you can be sure that whenever you see both Chuck
Shumer and Mitch McConnell smiling, the taxpayers will be paying a bigger bill.
(In this case, a mere $288B.) Such compromises always results in rewarding
political friends, engaging in social engineering, and supporting businesses by
socializing losses incurred by so-called capitalists.
Some media like to focus on examples of government waste
from studying the sex lives of Japanese quails to printing reports that no one
reads. While that’s great fodder for
social media LOL’s and angry faced emojis, it’s not the right place to focus
our attention.
The “free market” (not that it’s really free) is responsible
for our prosperity but also is the cause of much pain. Society may benefit from
higher average incomes but is harmed when businesses with near monopoly power
eliminate the competition or when the side effect of our prosperity is damage
to the environment. To advocate policies
in support of business while ignoring the negative side effects is
irresponsible.
Our strategic competitors – primarily Russia and China –
have been investing in military technology while we have shrunk our global
presence and are burdened by a wasteful bureaucracy (the Navy has more Admirals
than ships). Yet, rather than debate the
defense budget from the standpoint of strategy, we quibble about the size of
the budget and what programs should be saved in defense of jobs in one
Congressional district or another.
What is government’s role in protecting the privacy of its
citizens? Should the government
guarantee a minimum standard of living? How
should we restructure Social Security and Medicare to ensure benefits for an
aging population without overwhelming the generation still at work? How should our immigration policy be redrawn
to ensure our economic growth while treating those who wish to come here
humanely?
These are the debates we should be having. Instead, conservatives focus on how to
undermine the effectiveness of institutions that provide women’s health
services, while liberals endeavor to restore the 20th Century glory
of a now obsolete trade union model.
Both liberals and conservatives can agree in principle on
the need to ensure our prosperity while providing an effective social safety
net. Both can agree that we need to
maintain a leading edge in military technology in order to ensure our national
security. Both can agree that our
environment must be protected by government regulation. We should have a healthy debate on all these
matters.
Unfortunately, we can’t do so until we get past the
perceived need to govern by platitude rather than principle.
WHO WILL LEAD?
