Sometimes it’s hard to sit idly by and watch things happen. For those who pay attention to this website or the things I say in public, you know I have my opinions about politics and the parties in general. I am neither Republican nor Democrat, conservative nor liberal; I identify closest with the former, but I hesitate with my particular cup of Kool-Aid.
The Republicans are projected to lose in Congress big time in November. As far as parties go, it’s a very good season to be a Democrat. Although there is a sea of difference between conservatives and liberals, here, I would like to draw a line of demarcation between the two parties based on only two ideas, one foreign, and one domestic. Basically, the ideological divergence between parties boils down to (1) the proposed magnitude of our government, and (2) foreign policy decisions made in Washington for the betterment of our national security here at home and abroad. For the first in this little series of posts on my website, I will analyze the size of government first.
Size of Government
I call upon current events to illustrate the predicament at hand. In my last post, I referenced the Big Oil CEOs on Capitol Hill to paint the Oil Crisis for what it is: a crisis. Now, I want to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats with the words used by the Democrats concerning the American Oil Industry. First, I cite Congressman Bob Kanjorski’s call to establish a “Reasonable Profits Board” to determine when salaries are “obscene” enough for the U.S. government to take. This is not unlike Ayn Rand’s “Fair Shares Board” described in her classic, Atlas Shrugged. Next for analysis, the words used by Congressman Maxine Waters during the Judiciary Hearing, in which she actually said the following:
“And guess what this liberal would be all about? This liberal would be all about socializing — er, uh. [Pauses for several moments] …. would be about … [pause] … basically … taking over, and the government running all of your companies.”
The word she was hunting for is “nationalize.”
These instances are not removed from the Democratic Party agenda, though; their likely Presidential nominee, Senator Barack Obama opposes a gas tax holiday, but supports a “Windfall Profits Tax,” fulfilling the ultimate purpose of Kanjorski’s “Reasonable Profits Board.” This board would vastly expand the scope of government, bolster its role in our economic structure, and effectively emasculate our capitalist society. The intention behind such proposals, besides basic class conflict, is to tear apart any supposed monopoly, to “trust bust” Big Oil, in the parlance of Theodore Roosevelt.
So let me do something crazy here and include some numbers in defense of Big Oil. According to the U.S Census Bureau, the earnings of America’s Oil and Natural Gas Industry are equal to 8.3 cents per dollar, while the Computer Industry earns 13.7 cents per dollar, the Pharmaceutical Industry earns 18.4 cents per dollar, and the Beverage and Tobacco Industry earns 19.1 cents per dollar. Why weren’t these CEOs brought before Congress for a public browbeating? The answer is simple: the price of gas is high, it’s important to Congress’ constituency, and Congressmen want to seem as though they are accomplishing something – anything but drilling – to lower the price of gas. Chastising these heads of industry, who serve the people of this country with their product, is a simple way to do just that. If nothing else, these hearings have exposed how power hungry, or brainless, some of our elected officials are. I’m not sure which is worse.
Dropping the Ball
Throughout history, socialist nations have failed; they do not prosper. We are not a socialist state, at least not yet. In this situation, people must rise up and say something, to “stand athwart history, yelling, “Stop!” If we do dive into big government socialism, with a mutually-entitled partnership between the citizen and the state, the first of our political freedoms to go will be our financial freedoms; when you decide to buddy up with government, Buyer Beware. On the foreseen size of government, Republicans must distinguish themselves from their liberal counterparts.
At this moment, however, populism prevails. This is evident by two major recent bills, the GI Bill and the Farm Bill, both passed by Congress last week, both pending veto, and both arguably to the detriment of the Departments of Defense and Agriculture for mere constituent support. The Pentagon protests the GI Bill, as it will give servicemen the option for a free college education upon leaving the military after three years of service, creating a budget and manpower strain on our government’s national defense assets. In the case of the pork-laden $300 billion Farm Bill, more than half the subsidies will go to families who earn more than $200,000 a year. These bills were sadly passed by Democrats of course, and our Republican friends, who apparently lack the moral courage to stand up for what is right.
Maybe Republicans deserve to lose. There is no counter-argument offered to the liberal notion that, for the good of the nation, we should collectivize, to rise in a collective voice, sacrifice our individual rights for the nation (see section on “Liberty” in my post, Nolo Contendere). As William F. Buckley Jr. said, “Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” He also said, “One must bear in mind that the expansion of federal activity is a form of eating for politicians.” Both statements are applicable when speaking of Mr. Kanjorski and Mrs. Waters in particular, and our Democratically-controlled Congress in general.
Now, however, we stand at a crossroads in our nation’s history. Congress, and the Presidential hopefuls, have the choice to lead or to legislate, to propose or simply protest. There will be change in November, and the choice on Election Day is ours.