Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have two different approaches to fixing the economy, and the country. It's less about what to do than how to do it.
"We have systematically diminished the role and the responsibility of our government, and we have watched our market become imbalanced," said either Sen. Hillary Clinton or Sen. Barack Obama. "I just believe strongly that we are in great need of a total overhaul."
What "imbalance" are they talking about? Just what type of "overhaul" do they have planned and how do they plan to do it without making a complete disaster out of it? How do they plan on increasing the role of the government without also increasing its size? How do you increase its size without increasing its spending?
"It's been government research and investment that made the railways possible and the Internet possible," said the other. "It's been the creation of a massive middle class, through decent wages and benefits and public schools that allowed us all to prosper."
The first statement is Hillary Clinton's. The second came from Barack Obama. But either could be tucked away in the other's speech without anyone raising an eyebrow.
Uh, I think we have the private sector and not the government to thank for most of that. The Internet certainly got its start thanks to the government (although not due to Al Gore), but it didn't explode into the engine of creativity we see today until after the government got out of the way and allowed the private sector do what it does best -- innovate and discover new ways of doing things, creating new services and new businesses which in turn create new jobs.
Somehow I don't saying "we will run this country as well as we manage Amtrak" is a slogan that instills a lot of confidence in people. Or how about "we'll manage all sectors of our economy just as well as we run our public schools!" That is tantamount to what these candidates are saying. These two examples highlight why we don't want the government running our economy. I hope this is more rhetoric than actual intent.
Now if they said something like "we'll get government out of the way of commerce so all businesses can thrive, just like we did on the Internet!", they'd have my vote in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, that's not to be:
Step back, just for an instant, and appreciate the moment. The two candidates left vying for the Democratic Party's nomination are not running from government or quietly weaving a pale thread of populism around rhetoric meant to reassure whinnying bond markets. They are saying, forthrightly, that government is not the problem, unchecked corporate capitalism is. They may even be saying that the era of big government isn't over, after all.
Sadly, I don't think it is. While I certainly understand the emotional appeal of this rhetoric, I fear the economic consequences of political action taken on these grounds.
Read the whole thing.
2 comments:
I really don't think the nation can take 4 years of a Hillary Clinton presidency. She would rip this country apart.
Why the Democrats would want to nominate the most divisive candidate around, rather than the more likable, charismatic one that has appeal to independents and even Republicans, is beyond me.
In fact, one thing I've noticed is that party establishment candidates tend to be weaker crossover candidates. In other words, often the party machinery tends to favor those candidates that are actually the least electable, because they have the least chance of winning the swing voters.
In fact, one good thing the Republicans have going for them this time is that there was no true party establishment candidate and so the party seems to be coalescing around McCain, someone who does have crossover appeal.
I might add that I do think Hillary Clinton represents a unique problem for this country if elected.
First, there's the character issues for both her and her husband. Character counts in leadership, and these 2 have demonstrated that they do not have it.
How many more scandals would this country have to go through?
Second, there's the Bill factor: what role would he play? From the campaign conduct, one must surmise that Bill would pretty much do whatever he wanted. There are issues of him getting a de facto third term. There is a 22nd amendment for a reason, and this is the closest thing to an end run around that as we've ever seen.
There are also issues of having a co-presidency again.
Third, there's the fact that no one divides the country like the Clintons, esp. Hillary. Can this country take more polarization?
All in all, I think priority number one in this election needs to be stopping Hillary Clinton.
Post a Comment