Bipartisan Hypocrisy
In Bipartisan Hypocrisy Victor Davis Hanson writes at Real Clear Politics that:
The political leaders of this country are essentially too often homogenous. Republicans may represent constituents of traditional values; Democrats may champion the underprivileged. But their similar lifestyles reflect more a political class’s shared privilege than the inherent differences of their respective constituents’ beliefs. National figures may talk conservative or liberal, but they both are more likely to act like libertines.
I have a different interpretation of the meaning of the high and comfortable living of our leaders. Dems tend to believe that a better life for all of us comes from raising the tide to raise all ships. That the overall quality of life for all of us is enhanced when all of us enjoy education, health care, security and safety nets that keep us from becoming desperate. Life is not a zero sum game.
The GOP seems to believe that life is survival of the fittest, that it is futile to resist the reality that there are winners and losers, that resources to promote fairness and opportunity for others is an expense rather than an investment for the “haves.” I happen to support the conservative fundamental of optimizing free markets but mainly because I observe that it is the most efficient tactic for raising all ships, not just because it makes the fittest more fit.
I live a comfortable life style and believe that the way to preserve and enhance that life style is to help elevate the wellbeing of those around me.
30 Responses to “Bipartisan Hypocrisy”
Paul,
Your commentary on the philosophies of the parties tells me that you’ve bought into the Democratic propaganda even though you’re smart enough to understand that the market system is often the best method to “raise all boats”. When I first read this I thought it was a typo because to me, “raising the tide” is exactly what the Democrats fight against:
Their policies are instead based on a Robin Hood mentality of redistributing wealth instead of having govt policies to promote a strong economy which raises the tide for all. It’s the GOP that says that life is not a zero sum game; conservative principles are more based on individual responsibility, that part is true. But on overall policy, the basis for conservatism is precisely what you are (mistakenly, IMO) attributing to the Dems: that it’s not a zero sum game.
But lest I get accused of being a partisan (Hi, Jim S!), I completelly agree with the piece that you quoted about bipartisan hypocrisy. The ideals of conservatism make the most sense to me but I’ve long ago realized that the GOP pays lip service to these ideals while actually promoting self-serving policies for the political elite.
I must admit, I agree with the comment above. While there is a noble component to the positions your garden variety modern Democrat will espouse, I don’t see any justification for these views outside in a “grand societal” sense. Indeed, it seems as if the Democrats have been more overt about the fact that lifting up the poor means bringing down the rich, and that’s just the way it’s going to have to be, because it’s unfair that the rich got rich anyway.
That said, I can agree with what’s said above re: hipocrisy. I think the bigger issue, though, is that the modern Republican has lost sight of the reason for the market mechanism. We employ markets because they make the most people better off on average. A lot of Republicans have come to think (or maybe always thought) that that the market is the end in itself. They therefore will not legislate in a manner which imperils the market, even when doing so would clearly benefit the greatest number of people.
Yes! Very well said, JB. And, to the degree that many conservative voters have fallen into that trap, there are legions of politicians ready to build their careers on it.
It’s the First Church of Free Market that treats the markets as completely inerrant. Therefore anything the market does is good, anything that “interferes” with the market is bad. In fact most of the true believers don’t have the slightest clue of what the market is and isn’t capable of doing. It has limits that the believers refuse to recognize, as in when they say that medical care should be left to the market in spite of the complete mess that is our current system. Of course if you have the money to take care of you and yours and just don’t care about who’s left out then the system is obviously working great.
If it’s not a zero sum game it’s also far from the ideal that Paul and CS believe in where if left alone everyone’s boat rises. Lots of American’s boats aren’t rising and haven’t been for a few years now in case you haven’t noticed. Income inequality has been increasing for quite a few years now. Corporate profits are doing just fine, overall. The wealthy are getting wealthier even as poverty increases. In spite of what the true believers want to claim that problem cannot be laid at the government’s feet.
That is the biggest distortion of the two political philosophies I’ve heard in a while. Sure, as others have noted, the GOP seems to have drifted some from conservative political thought of late, but that thought is still at its core.
It is in fact the Republicans who believe that a rising tide raises all ships. The Democratic rhetoric tends to be about redistribution, not growing the economy. This Republican, at least, believes as you do that free markets are best because they are the only proven method to raise all ships. As the other commenters note, it is the Democrats who believe that this is a zero-sum game, that to improve the poor the rich must be brought down. It is the Democrats who tend to measure wealth in comparison to others rather than in absolute terms. Sure, the economy’s soared ahead and everybody’s making more, but the rich are improving even more than the poor are improving! Bad, bad!
This is part of why I hate these labels all the time. On the whole, both Republicans and Democrats believe in free markets. And both, on the whole, understand that some government involvement is necessary to ensure a stable and broadly fair market. The difference is mostly around the edges.
In fact, the people who believe they are in the center exacerbate the splits between different factions in the country by attempts, like this one, to lump all Republicans and all Democrats together into positions most consistent with their extremes rather than their center.
This is an excellent assessment of the situation.
I, for one, see treating the market system as a social philosophy instead of a mechanism of economics as being outright dangeroues. It leap frogs over notions of justice and the common good, both notions having become dirty words among the most staunch advocates of it.
Some talk as if they have seceded from the union as indiviual entities to become mini states within the nation. For me, this is dangerous because it leads to class conflicts and feelings of alienation among the losers, leading to anti-social behaviors.
On the other side, the proponents of social programs do have to face up to the economic question of what we can afford. We need to be much more sophisticated about evaluating programs in terms of the effects they produce. There needs to be a pragmatic, not blindly idealistic approach.
It is depressing that a negative ad mentality has crept into this discussion. Expressions like ‘bring the rich down’ are meant to demonize, not illuminate party positions.
CS staunchly defends her conservative ideals, but I wish conservatives would apply the same approach that I recommend to liberals. Ideals notwithstanding, we should look at the effects of specific policies. What is the result?
One effect of relying too haeavily on the market system is that it rewards the haves, the investors (and this is a good thing) while locking out the have-nots (this is bad).
Reducing taxes for high income people has a dual effect. It increases investment, but it also increases the wealth gap. As one group earns more and more, the other group can’t get on the first rung of the ladder. Ideals do not deal with this phenomenon. It’s just another way of saying: “Shut up, be happy that things will eventually work out.”
Instead of sloganeering in terms of competing ideals, it would be better to examine real conditions and trends and look for pragmatic solutions.
domajot,
Where is the cause/effect there? Why would the wealth of the wealthiest group prevent the poorest from “get(ting) on the first rung of the ladder?”
That’s the fallacy that PatHMV and I see, and yet you criticize him for pointing out that the Democrats do employ that type of class envy rhetoric. It’s human nature for us to measure our own position relative to others and to envy those who have more, so that is a condition that allows politicians to exploit envy rather than, as you suggest, to look at the actual effects of the policies.
If we are mischaracterizing the Democratic party’s economic policy rhetoric, please explain how. And if that rhetoric is in your view an accurate assessment, again please explain because I repeat: I don’t see the cause/effect. There is no reason to assume that the poor CAN’T rise out of poverty because the rich are getting richer. I do see, though, how politicians who harp on that can get votes. In doing so, they are doing precisely the opposite of what you suggest: they’re not honestly stating the results of their policies.
Yes Enron was such a good example of a ‘free market’. Prior to its colapse’ Ernon manipulated the California energy markets. Wonder if the Dukester was in on that.
Rudi,
Excellent point; corporate welfare and corruption isn’t a conservative principle but sadly it’s become part of the Republican legacy.
Even markets can be rigged. Corporate tax breaks help minimize risk for wealthy investors, and lax immigration policies can enlarge the labor pool, so the supply is always cheap and available. Pure capitalism has always had the potential for injustice, as we saw at the beginning of the last century, and see now in countries that have a free market system (China) but fail to protect workers’ rights adequately with unions.
CS –
I have to leave for an app’t. If this is still up later, I’ll answer more fully.
Briefly, the positive effects for the haves are not balanced by programs for the have- nots. Thus, alienation and class warfare.
And to all: if you are going to refer to ‘political rhetoric’, please remember that it cuts both ways. Having ideals is not a party postition. It’s like saying that my party invented breathing.
I have to go. Sorry.
The tone really gets to me.
I think the point domajot made says more about psychology than economics. The economic indicator of “real wages” or basically how much stuff you can buy puts the poor now on par with (or maybe even ahead of) the uber wealthy in 1900. By purely economic standards the poor now are on the same ‘rung’ as Rockefeller. yet that doesn’t really tell the whole story.
Psychologists have made some strides towards quatifying this sort of thing, mostly in ‘happiness reserach’ and basically they have found that your happiness isn’t a factor of objective measurement, but rather a relative measure on how you think you are doing compared to others.
In such a way a unequal society is an unhappy society, which I think makes it more prone to some forms of extremeism, because people are more willing to believe that if some radical change x occurs, everything will be better.
A few years back I read an article about then-popularity of Adam Smith tiepins among GOP members on the Hill…the article observing that the members would likely be horrified had they read Smith.
In “The Wealth of Nations” he makes clear that the market simply does not work in a number of areas – education, transportation systems (roads, canals), defense – and these are areas that clearly require the state to intervene.
The free market is an amazing system. Its “invisible hand” helped bring down the Soviet Union after all. Contrast the vitality of the American system to the scolerosis of Europe, with its managed economies.
But it is inadequate in a number of respects (as made brutally evident in the Great Depression).
The American system is based upon an ideal of equal opportunity…but Hanson is making the point that today there is a bipartisan ruling class that is effectively amoral.
Also, I think there is an economic point to be made here. I think an unequal distrabution of wealth is inherintly inefficent.
I think I’ve ranted about this before, but lets take Paris Hilton, pretty much no matter what, she will not be allowed to make bad economic decisions. She has people, very smart people, to manage her money for her. (I am going to ignore for a moment the brilliant business deal she’s created for herself where she gets paid big bucks to party). Because of her enormous inherited wealth and the finacial advisors that go along with it, it matters little how economically savy or productive she is, she will remain wealthy, and therefore retain her economic clout. Compare this to the single mother who is working 2 minimum wage jobs. Even if she wakes up tomorrow with the mind of Alan Greenspan, she is going to have a very very tough time accumulating any real wealth before she dies, and remain a simple cog in the wheel.
Such a system buffers bad economic decisions of the wealthy, and fails to reward the economic ingeinuity of the poor. This makes the system as a whole less efficent, so the tide rises slower.
Well, doma, the tone depresses me too. Paul took an article (which Marlowe summarized very well) that criticized the ruling class of both parties and he made it into an indictment of the GOP and praise of the Democrats, without even giving an evidence based reason for feeling that way (he admits that he favors free market solutions in most cases, yet he assumes that Republicans don’t want free market solutions for the same reasons that he wants them, to improve the economic conditions for all.) Do you hold Paul responsible for focusing on results rather than rhetoric?
And I won’t be too critical of your comment because I understand that it was a hasty one:
Your focus is on the psychological (which Kevin H sums up nicely), not the absolute economic condition but the perceptions of it. To what degree should a society really try to deal with that (more to the point: to what degree CAN we deal with it, without trying to equalize results via govt programs instead of equalizing opportunities)? If barriers to upward mobility are removed and safety nets are provided for those who truly can’t earn a living, what more should be expected? Maybe it would be helpful if you’d state specifically where you feel our society is lacking in social programs.
Again, I don’t point this out in order to shoot down your response because I realize you didn’t have time to fully express your thoughts. I hope that you are able to do so later.
Although I agree with VDH that Republican and Democratic politicians are both a bunch of hypocrites that legislate one set of rules for us while they live by a different set of rules, I largely disagree with Paul’s comment.
For one thing, Paul, your depiction of the GOP as some kind of bastion of free market capitalism is odd, given the last six years. There might have been a time when the GOP actually did believe in smaller government and free market capitalism, but those days are long over.
Ironically, by depicting Republicans as a bunch of “survival of the fittest” laissez faire capitalists, you’re actually reinforcing the misleading talking points of BOTH Democratic and Republican politicians.
Democratic politicians are constantly playing the “class warfare” card– trying to paint Republicans as only caring about the rich and big business and trying to cut social programs that the middle and lower classes rely upon.
Meanwhile, Republican politicians are constantly reminding us how they believe in free markets and smaller government, despite the fact that this never seems to be the case once they’re in power.
For anyone who insists on seeing the eternal struggle between Democrats and Republicans as being “big government” versus “small government” or “socialism” versus “capitalism”, or some other such convenient dichotomy, this Daily Show clip (featuring an interview between Jon Stewart and Senator Chuck Schumer) is a MUST WATCH clip. After Schumer tries to pull the old “Republicans hate government” line, Stewart quickly attempts to disabuse him of this erroneous (and childishly simplistic) notion:
SCHUMER: But, listen, they [Republicans] hate government. They really don’t care about governing. Whether it’s Iraq, whether it’s Katrina. And it’s finally catching up with them.
STEWART: But doesn’t it seem that–
SCHUMER: (interrupting) So our job is to say what we’d put in their place. And we have to do that, in order to–
STEWART: Uh, right I see that. But it almost seems like, I mean, in a sense of–It’s not that they hate government. It’s that they hate government they’re not controlling. Because clearly their plans have been: They’ve nation-built.
SCHUMER: Yep.
STEWART: They’ve increased federal spending. It seems like, they’re almost steroidal Democrats. In a way–
SCHUMER: (interrupting) It should be so nice.
STEWART: I mean, it–it took you forty years of control to become corrupt. They’ve done it in five.
Warning: my day has revolved around a dental appointment, putting me in a ‘don’t mess with me’ mood.
————
Kevin H’s happiness quotient is very much to the point of where I stand. How we interpret that phenomenon points to the different political philosophies.
No matter who is to blame for what, I try to look at conditions in terms of what is in our national interest, a notion that should not be reserved only for foreign policy issues.
In dealing with that we have to balance the individual’s interests with the national interest.
The negative impact of having a large underclass is huge and touches on every aspect of life, not just buying power.
At Libby’s initial court appearance, he was accompanied by a top lawyer just to hear him speak the words ‘not guilty’. Contrast that with a court appearnce by a ghetto kid caught with a stash of pot.
Wealthy drug addicted kids caught prowling for a buy are whisked off to rehab. Poor kids in the same position go to jail to learn life lessons from hardened criminals.
Now let’s talk about individual responsibility.
The purists say that these inequalities are not their business, that the different outcomes reflect the irresponsibility of ghetto kids by landing themselves in a disadvantaged position.
My postion is that after we’re through blaming, the ghetto kid is going to live in my country angry and alienated and will likely produce a number of angry, alienated children.
So, I see it as my individual responsibility to prod politicians into addressing these issues, because, in the long run, it will benefit me, personally, if there are fewer irresponsible and angry folk living all around me.
In a nutshell, we disagree about what personal responsibility and the national interest mean.
As for the solutions, I say pragmatic, pragmatic, pragmatic. Save the idealistic talk for Sunday sermons and election speeches.
Domajot- I mostly agree. A huge underclass adds to costs to society in other ways—– increased crime, untreated health problems that clog the ER’s (the boy who died of an abscessed tooth is a good example of that), drug and gang activity, increase in unmarried teenage births , deterioration of our cities, increased caseload for social workers, parole officers, criminal judges, increased costs for incarceration etc.
In the example of the boy who died, even if you callously look at cost- an 80$ tooth removal ended up costing $250,000 for the ER and hospital stay.
I’d say we disagree about very little domajot =) Very well said
Doma, when you talk about individual issues, you may well find more agreement then when making broad, general, categorical statements like that which Paul posted.
For example, I, a good Republican, have no problems providing for drug rehab and treatment for the poor kid caught with pot. Doing so is much cheaper in the long run. And I have no problem with government-funded education largely for the reason you lay out, that we all live in the same community, and I don’t want to live in a community full of poor, uneducated lay-about drug addicts, regardless of “personal responsibility.”
However, I also think that people, poor or rich, don’t change their behavior until they accept responsibility for their own actions. So I want that treatment to be supervised by a court, and I want it to be TOUGH. And I don’t want to let the kid off the hook because he whines about his tough lot in life. A lot of poor people have it just as tough and DON’T choose to commit crimes, so I’m not prepared to reward him for doing so.
There’s a balance to all things. Too much “aid” to the poor to prevent suffering, and there’s very little incentive to actually work at the bottom end of the spectrum. Not enough aid, and you wind up with horror stories like the kid who needed the tooth removed (which, I would point out, is obviously an extremely infrequent occurrence, or else it would not have made such big national news).
So I agree, let’s stop talking about ideologies generally and start talking about specific policies in a sane, pragmatic way, without labeling either side “good” or “bad”.
By the way, it’s really the libertarians who believe in survival of the fittest in the economy…
(that’s for you, nic!
“Too much “aidâ€? to the poor to prevent suffering, and there’s very little incentive to actually work at the bottom end of the spectrum. Not enough aid, and you wind up with horror stories like the kid who needed the tooth removed”
That gave me an idea for a weird type of tax law. Lets say you made $1,000 last year, then the government would give you $100 as a sort of welfare. Now next year you make $2000. You are now being more economically productive, helping the nation, so the nation should reward you more, so now this year you get $150. Of course this money has to come from somewhere, so people making $3000 would only get maybe $50, and people making $5000 or more would actually pay taxes. Obviously those numbers are only meant as an aid to the thought experiment rather than real numbers. Basically what this does is to put incentives to get people to $2000. The theory would try to peg that maximum reward situation at a economic level that would allow them to the socially mobile, so that their choices would then become their own responsibility. It kind of screws over those who truely aren’t able to produce so its not perfect…
I did not come to my personal judgment about the GOP lightly. Over 40 years of political involvement and activism it seems to me that the GOP has been the primary obstacle to:
energy independence, renewable energy, & conservation
a more universal and efficient health system,
clean air and water
International cooperation
reducing intrusion into our personal lives
decriminalizing victimless behavior.
rehabilitation rather than punishment
more accountability in government operations
control of the Military-industrial complex
The Dems have their weaknesses as well but for the issues important to me they don’t compare to the GOP. For instance I would prefer some use of Vouchers in schools but resistance to that idea does not rise to the level of tragedy as does the behavior of the GOP regarding the list above.
My hope for the GOP is to become the party of operational efficiency to use every tax dollar as effectively as possible.
Fair enough on the criticisms of the GOP, Paul, but that’s not the way you put it in the original post. The things that you are criticizing have little to do with the issue of how each party views economic policy in terms of intervention in the free market.
Domajot, I think that PatHMV makes a good point that when you get to the specifics of pragmatic solutions, a lot of Republicans (at least the voters if not the elected officials) would probably find a lot of common ground with you. But that’s why it’s important to focus on results instead of making broad, sweeping negative criticisms of the other party’s policies. The demonization happens on both sides, and I think we’re all tired of it; and even more importantly, I think we recognize that looking at the opposition party as the enemy is a barrier to getting good things accomplished.
Forgot to mention, domajot: thanks for taking the time to come back and comment.
And Kevin H: I am not familiar with the details but isn’t your idea somewhat along the lines of the Earned Income Tax Credit?
Actually I just Wiki’ed the EITC and as I suspected, it is just as you have proposed Kevin, but on a more generous scale:
Extending my remarks (oh, I could go on and on):
I think what we have essestially and tragically lost is the hope quotient, the impetus of faith that if you do this but not that, things will get better.
In many ways, we are sliding backwards. For every family boasting about a new home, there is another where grown children are moving back in their parents’ home because rents are incredibly steep and student loan repayment is daunting.
The war and our international lack of standing loom over everything.
Through it all, the Washingon crowd spends its time posturing with an eye to elections, rather than policy. Campaign fundraising corrupts at every turn. I think they all live in a hot house far removed from the cares of ordinary people.
In that regard, I have equal disdain for both parties. When they start their speeches with ‘the American people want…”, I want to scream, because all they seem to know about the American people is that they cast those precious votes.
==
I warned you. I’m in a foul mood.
Why would the wealthy becoming wealthier prevent the poor from getting further ahead, CS? Because the economy has grown at a given rate and the vast majority of the benefits have gone to the wealthy. While a certain breed of conservative tries to deny this I think a simple fact shows the truth of it. Over the last several holiday seasons the retailers who sell to the lower middle class haven’t done that well. Who has done a fantastic business? Nieman-Marcus and their brothers in ultra-high end retail. It’s an indicator that gets some attention but perhaps not enough.
One factor that some are beginning to understand is that in a system where hard work and experience are just as likely to be rewarded with a pink slip as a raise or promotion because of factors completely outside of your control and in turn that means your family can easily lose their home and their ability to see the doctor it produces a whole new attitude toward the American dream and your chance of achieving it. If you see it happen to people you know it sets the mind to thinking, doubting and questioning the happy ever after story about your reward for working hard and following the rules.
Jim,
You still haven’t given anything but psychological reasons. I agree with what domajot is saying (and what you imply), that there’s been an erosion of hope. But what ACTUAL barriers are there to economic security and upward mobility? The only one you cited was the possibility of loss of employment. OK, so what governmental policy has led to that? What govt policies do you think might affect it? If anything, business friendly legislation would more likely reduce this phenomenon because successful businesses don’t tend to lay off workers. So a growing economy, while possibly rewarding the business owners the most, will still tend to provide better job security for workers even if they aren’t recieving great increases in their income.
Mostly what you have focused on Jim is result, not cause. The fact of Neiman Marcus doing well does not cause Sears to not do well. The fact of wealthy people having more disposable income does not cause middle class people to have less disposable income than they previously may have had. While it’s true that those who already have disposable income will see any gains as additional disposable income, while those who are still struggling to meet basic needs may not gain much in the way of purchasing power for extras, there’s still a net benefit to all.
Frankly I think the middle class is doing itself in with consumer debt; they only thought they had more disposable income in years past because they were putting disposable goods on the credit card or worse, financing them via second mortgages on their homes.
I also think that a large part of the psychological issue is that our culture has become so materialistic that there’s a tendency to equate wealth with happiness. Then when the wealthy become wealthier, everyone seems to set the bar higher for the threshhold of wealth that they believe will make them happy. No longer is it enough to have a modest home, reliable car, sufficient food and clothing; instead it seems that folks feel poor if they don’t have flat screen TVs, expensive video games, clothing and tennis shoes for the kids, and the ability to eat out at restaurants or to buy lunch every day instead of brown bagging it.
Domajot also mentions young people moving into their parents’ homes. The high cost of education is one factor there, and I do think we should seek ways to address this; college costs have risen exponentially. In a lot of cases too though, recent grads have different expectations than past generations of young adults. Often the decision to move back in with Mom and Dad is a pragmatic choice, not a forced necessity, because they choose to save on rent in order to buy a nicer car or start saving up for a down payment on a home. There’s nothing wrong with that, but it reflects different choices rather than a failing economy. And again, I’m not generalizing this to say that this is the only reason that young people are returning to the nest; there are definitely some who have no choice and we should look at ways to ease their financial burdens if possible.
In some areas of the country too, housing costs have skyrocketed. Those tend to be local issues, sometimes a result of scarcity of land in desirable locations, sometimes a reflection of high regulatory costs of construction. Again, these are issues that should be addressed in a more thoughtful way to really get at the cause/effect and develop workable solutions. That requires a lot more thought (and putting aside biases) rather than resorting to canards of the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer.
Obviously I tend to look at the issue of poverty mostly from a bottom up viewpoint; I believe that if we remove barriers, poor people can and will be able to rise in economic stature. I reject the idea that the tax system should be a major means of redistribution of wealth (although I accept that it should be moderately progressive and I think ideas like the EITC which reward work in lieu of providing welfare are positive). I do see some room for working at the other end of the spectrum too though. I feel that anti-trust legislation (or possibly better enforcement of existing laws) is badly needed. I think that currently the mergers of many large companies is endangering the upward mobility of our economy. If you think of the pyramid structure (there are and always will be more people at the bottom of income earning than at the top), the best structure we can achieve would be a lot of smaller pyramids rather than a few large ones. This would be the best way, IMO, to address the high ratio of CEO: worker pay. I think the recent calls for CEO salaries to be tied to production are also appropos.
I’m also opposed to corporate welfare and obviously, to corrupt business/govt connections.