There is a very thought provoking opinion piece by Robert Reich in the San Francisco Chronicle today. His thesis is that Unions have been central to the strength of our economy and the Republican efforts to undermine the power of unions are not good economic policy.
He notes that from 1945 to 1975 (roughly) America had strong unions and a strong economy in which middle class working folks saw the same increases in wealth (percentage wise) as the wealthiest persons (thereby funding the middle class ability to consume). From 1975 forward the growth of wealth by middle class workers began to slip as Unions lost favor and power. The middle class managed to maintain its overall standard of living first as mom started joining the workforce, then we started working longer hours, and finally we went into debt using our homes as collateral to finance our lifestyle. But in terms of the actual benefits of increased productivity that occurred during that period, it went to the wealthiest workers. He says "...now all these coping mechanisms are exhausted - and we are living with the consequences"
He anticipates that some will say you can't compare the post WW II era with today's global economy which is much more competitive. His response is to cite Germany. Germany has had strong labor unions for decades, currently has strong labor unions, and continues to experience strong growth and relatively low unemployment. In Germany the top 1% of German households earns about 11% of all income, and has for 4 decades. In the US by contrast the top 1% took home 9% in 1970, but today take home more than 20%.
My first thought after reading Mr Reich's piece is why did the US turn against Labor unions? I immediately remembered Jimmy Hoffa, and the other union bosses of that time period that basically ran their unions a lot like Ghadafi runs Libya. I remember hearing sensational stories of businesses being put out of business by excessive labor contracts. Unions were poorly regulated, glorified gangs in many cases, it was easy to think they were bad and turn away from them. But it appears they also contributed mightily to the strength of our economy, and it appears Germany has found a way to regulate unions and minimize the bad conduct.
I understand why a lot of business people don't like unions, and support Republican efforts to undermine union power. Life is always easier and less stressful when you have unrestrained control over your business. But that is exactly the thinking of most of the dictators in the world. It is an illusion to think that depriving people of power to exert some control over their work circumstances will be beneficial in the long run.
Instead of undercutting unions Republicans should either look at countries like Germany to see what formula they have devised that has allowed strong unions to work in partnership with business for decades, or find some other way to make business share the wealth they generate with workers to a greater extent, like linking the level of corporate taxation to the degree the corporation spreads its gains throughout the corporation.
Here is a link to the online version of Robert Reich piece: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/06/26/INRJ1K0LIL.DTL
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
Problems with Government unemployment insurance programs
The Federal and State governments created unemployment insurance programs as the nation lingered along in the Great Depression in the 1930's. The enormous job losses in the Great Depression were devastating to the workers who lost their jobs and their families, but also to the effort to restart the economy. When a huge part of your workforce is unemployed and completely without income, your consumer base is decimated. Unemployment insurance would make job loss less devastating for workers and also allow unemployed workers to continue to contribute something to the economy as consumers.
Now, 75 or so years later Democrats and Republicans in Congress still fight over the unemployment insurance program, mostly over extending benefits to the long term unemployed. Democrats tend to assume they are all innocent victims of the economy, Republicans have a suspicion many are shirkers who like getting money for free.
Both are extreme positions not reflective of the total reality. For various reasons some people who lose their job may work really hard at finding another position but still go long periods of time without getting reemployed through no fault of their own. Their job may have disappeared under a wave of new technology so they need retraining. The job market may be really dead where they live and they can't afford to move because they are tied to a house they cannot sell. They may be physically limited in the types of jobs they can perform.
Other people either because they are feeling a little depressed and helpless, or they are feeling angry and entitled, or they are just too laid back for their own good, may ride unemployment for long periods of time making little or no effort to seek new work.
It seems to me there is a middle ground between the Democrat view that everyone on unemployment is a victim working hard to get another job, and the Republican view that they must all be slackers if they haven't got a job yet. Here is what I suggest.
People who go on unemployment should be entitled to benefits in much the same way as the current system for a period of time. At a certain point, however, they should be required to do a certain number of hours a week of volunteer work for Government or non-profit organizations to continue to receive unemployment benefits (and continue to be required to document their search for work). The longer they are on unemployment, the more hours per week they will be required to work to retain the benefits. The organizations employing them must be required to keep records on their job performance and some form of publicly available evaluation of the individuals performance, accessible to potential private employers.
I have known a few people in my life in jobs that allowed them to use regular periods of unemployment as periods of paid vacation. I suspect they take far more out of the system than they ever contribute in unemployment insurance taxes. So we should also adjust the law to take into account people who are repeatedly on unemployment over their working career by making the initial period where no work is required become shorter each time they go back on unemployment.
It suits the political needs of Congress to deal in extremes, they have no motivation to fine tune the unemployment insurance system. The system won't be improved unless we the voters demand it.
Now, 75 or so years later Democrats and Republicans in Congress still fight over the unemployment insurance program, mostly over extending benefits to the long term unemployed. Democrats tend to assume they are all innocent victims of the economy, Republicans have a suspicion many are shirkers who like getting money for free.
Both are extreme positions not reflective of the total reality. For various reasons some people who lose their job may work really hard at finding another position but still go long periods of time without getting reemployed through no fault of their own. Their job may have disappeared under a wave of new technology so they need retraining. The job market may be really dead where they live and they can't afford to move because they are tied to a house they cannot sell. They may be physically limited in the types of jobs they can perform.
Other people either because they are feeling a little depressed and helpless, or they are feeling angry and entitled, or they are just too laid back for their own good, may ride unemployment for long periods of time making little or no effort to seek new work.
It seems to me there is a middle ground between the Democrat view that everyone on unemployment is a victim working hard to get another job, and the Republican view that they must all be slackers if they haven't got a job yet. Here is what I suggest.
People who go on unemployment should be entitled to benefits in much the same way as the current system for a period of time. At a certain point, however, they should be required to do a certain number of hours a week of volunteer work for Government or non-profit organizations to continue to receive unemployment benefits (and continue to be required to document their search for work). The longer they are on unemployment, the more hours per week they will be required to work to retain the benefits. The organizations employing them must be required to keep records on their job performance and some form of publicly available evaluation of the individuals performance, accessible to potential private employers.
I have known a few people in my life in jobs that allowed them to use regular periods of unemployment as periods of paid vacation. I suspect they take far more out of the system than they ever contribute in unemployment insurance taxes. So we should also adjust the law to take into account people who are repeatedly on unemployment over their working career by making the initial period where no work is required become shorter each time they go back on unemployment.
It suits the political needs of Congress to deal in extremes, they have no motivation to fine tune the unemployment insurance system. The system won't be improved unless we the voters demand it.
Thursday, June 23, 2011
A startling new look at the impact of immigrant workers
A new book about migration stands many of the canards of the current immigration debate on their head. It comprehensively makes the point immigration is unpopular in rich countries because people overestimate the costs of immigration and underestimate the benefits.
Most startling to me is the authors computation that if rich countries allowed a 3% increase in migration to expand their work force the world as a whole would be richer by $356 billion dollars. Completely opening borders so labor could flow freely from poor countries to rich countries would add $39 Trillion to the world economy over 25 years. That is more than 500 times what the rich world currently spends on foreign aid in a year.
This multiplying effect is a result of the fact wages in the rich world are a fortune by poor country standards, and since migratory workers tend to send large chunks of their earnings home to families, those remittances boost the poor country economy increasing their ability to become consumers of rich world products. (Unlike foreign aide, those remittances go to the people of the country instead of getting poured into the pockets of the government elite, or wasted in huge nonsense government projects)
Regarding highly skilled workers migrating to rich countries the authors note while "brain drain" hurts poor countries to some extent, it also motivates people to increase skills, and then some stay at home. Highly skilled immigrants also may start businesses in destination countries that increase the rich country employment base, so in the end brain drain can be a boost to local economies at both ends of the migration.
The authors review studies about how much immigrants displace native low skill workers and find the studies show the fear greatly exceeds the reality, the effect is relatively negligible (not to say the effect is not very real for some native workers). Migrant workers in fact sometimes create opportunities for native workers by starting businesses, or freeing up one spouse so both spouses can work.
One point in the book that particularly caught my attention was the authors point that migrant workers usually prefer to come when their services are wanted and go home when they are not.
That point brought to my mind the Bracero program we used to have in California where large numbers of people were allowed to come to the country each year to work legally in low-skilled jobs. They returned home when they were not working. As I recall that program was killed in a burst of anti-immigrant fervor some years ago. I wonder if a large part of our immigration problem now is because eliminating that option to come, work legally, then go home and come back again as work becomes available means people are more likely to try to smuggle in their family and put down roots so they don't have to deal with the enormous risks and dangers of border crossings.
The book is "Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped our World and Will Define Our Future" reviewed by the Economist (May 28, 2011, p.87)
Most startling to me is the authors computation that if rich countries allowed a 3% increase in migration to expand their work force the world as a whole would be richer by $356 billion dollars. Completely opening borders so labor could flow freely from poor countries to rich countries would add $39 Trillion to the world economy over 25 years. That is more than 500 times what the rich world currently spends on foreign aid in a year.
This multiplying effect is a result of the fact wages in the rich world are a fortune by poor country standards, and since migratory workers tend to send large chunks of their earnings home to families, those remittances boost the poor country economy increasing their ability to become consumers of rich world products. (Unlike foreign aide, those remittances go to the people of the country instead of getting poured into the pockets of the government elite, or wasted in huge nonsense government projects)
Regarding highly skilled workers migrating to rich countries the authors note while "brain drain" hurts poor countries to some extent, it also motivates people to increase skills, and then some stay at home. Highly skilled immigrants also may start businesses in destination countries that increase the rich country employment base, so in the end brain drain can be a boost to local economies at both ends of the migration.
The authors review studies about how much immigrants displace native low skill workers and find the studies show the fear greatly exceeds the reality, the effect is relatively negligible (not to say the effect is not very real for some native workers). Migrant workers in fact sometimes create opportunities for native workers by starting businesses, or freeing up one spouse so both spouses can work.
One point in the book that particularly caught my attention was the authors point that migrant workers usually prefer to come when their services are wanted and go home when they are not.
That point brought to my mind the Bracero program we used to have in California where large numbers of people were allowed to come to the country each year to work legally in low-skilled jobs. They returned home when they were not working. As I recall that program was killed in a burst of anti-immigrant fervor some years ago. I wonder if a large part of our immigration problem now is because eliminating that option to come, work legally, then go home and come back again as work becomes available means people are more likely to try to smuggle in their family and put down roots so they don't have to deal with the enormous risks and dangers of border crossings.
The book is "Exceptional People: How Migration Shaped our World and Will Define Our Future" reviewed by the Economist (May 28, 2011, p.87)
Monday, June 20, 2011
I want to sign a petition to demand better Presidential debates
I wish I had the tech skills to set one up, maybe linked to facebook.
The existing Presidential debate format is like a pillow fight. We might as well tune in to watch alternating candidate TV commercials. The candidates handlers insure that the format shields their candidates from questions that might actually reveal the vacuity of their rhetoric. If they do get a potentially difficult question they just talk about something else and the media moderator's let them get away with it.
The process produces no information beyond the carefully scripted sound bites from each campaign. The partisans at both ends of the political spectrum get reassured, the voters in the middle get nothing - we end up judging candidates on how they look, or act, not the cogency of their ideas. Nixon was judged to have "lost" the 1960 debate with Kennedy because he had a bad make-up job. George Bush Jr. was judged to have won in 2000 because Al Gore was stiff and boring, and Mr Bush exceeded (silly) media expectations by not being completely incompetent at stringing together sentences.
We should set up ground rules about questions (no trick questions, no questions assuming unproven facts) and then let each candidate's campaign question the other candidate(s), with the right to follow up questions where the answer is evasive. Have an independent panel of fact checkers to keep them honest. Then we might actually learn something useful as candidates will have to answers about unpalatable truths instead of just telling us what they think we want to hear.
Candidates won't want to use this format, but if voters won't vote for a candidate who doesn't participate, they'll have to do it.
If there is some tech person out there who knows how to set up a petition and start it circulating I would sign it in an instant and send it to everyone I know.
The existing Presidential debate format is like a pillow fight. We might as well tune in to watch alternating candidate TV commercials. The candidates handlers insure that the format shields their candidates from questions that might actually reveal the vacuity of their rhetoric. If they do get a potentially difficult question they just talk about something else and the media moderator's let them get away with it.
The process produces no information beyond the carefully scripted sound bites from each campaign. The partisans at both ends of the political spectrum get reassured, the voters in the middle get nothing - we end up judging candidates on how they look, or act, not the cogency of their ideas. Nixon was judged to have "lost" the 1960 debate with Kennedy because he had a bad make-up job. George Bush Jr. was judged to have won in 2000 because Al Gore was stiff and boring, and Mr Bush exceeded (silly) media expectations by not being completely incompetent at stringing together sentences.
We should set up ground rules about questions (no trick questions, no questions assuming unproven facts) and then let each candidate's campaign question the other candidate(s), with the right to follow up questions where the answer is evasive. Have an independent panel of fact checkers to keep them honest. Then we might actually learn something useful as candidates will have to answers about unpalatable truths instead of just telling us what they think we want to hear.
Candidates won't want to use this format, but if voters won't vote for a candidate who doesn't participate, they'll have to do it.
If there is some tech person out there who knows how to set up a petition and start it circulating I would sign it in an instant and send it to everyone I know.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Free markets v. Socialism - Sweden booming
Sweden has offered its citizens a cradle to grave social safety net for half a century or more. Liberal unemployment benefits. Retirement at age 67 with a good pension. Government funded Health care is provided to the entire population and is consistently rated high in world quality of health care rankings (quite a bit higher than the US). Their health care costs have run consistently at about 9% of GDP since he 1980's while the US, on the other hand, spends 16% of our GDP on health care and some estimates see that rising to 25% in the future. The average for western industrialized countries is 8% of GDP (per World Health Organization).
Yet despite offering it's citizens the best of Socialism, and having Government spending in many years account for more than 50% of GDP (meaning very high taxes) Sweden has still managed to have a pretty strong market economy and maintain a high standard or living.
An article in the Economist, (June 11, 2011 (p. 58)) now notes that while the US and England sputter along, Sweden's economy may have grown 6.4% in the first quarter of this year. The thrust of the economist article is Sweden's coalition government has trimmed the excesses of the socialist safety net while leaving it substantively intact and adding market friendly policies that have encouraged economic growth.
I always read Economist articles keeping in mind their basic editorial ideology leans a little bit towards being true believers in markets as the solution to all human problems. What I took away from the article and its statistical and historical facts is that smart policies that recognize what markets do best and also recognize what government does best can provide a strong economic foundation with a strong social safety net.
Here in the United States our politics are still infected with gut level hatred for any form of socialism. That hatred is left over from our McCarthy era guilt by association linking socialism to communism, and it has been kept alive by Capitalist true believers to maintain their grip on political power. As a result we have a market based health care system that is outrageously expensive but still doesn't cover big chunks of the population, the market based portion of our pension system is collapsing from the weight of its speculative excesses (that allowed the very wealthy to skim off the value), and we scramble to keep the long term unemployed afloat.
Sweden has proved over the last half century that you can combine markets and government social programs and have the best of both worlds.
Yet despite offering it's citizens the best of Socialism, and having Government spending in many years account for more than 50% of GDP (meaning very high taxes) Sweden has still managed to have a pretty strong market economy and maintain a high standard or living.
An article in the Economist, (June 11, 2011 (p. 58)) now notes that while the US and England sputter along, Sweden's economy may have grown 6.4% in the first quarter of this year. The thrust of the economist article is Sweden's coalition government has trimmed the excesses of the socialist safety net while leaving it substantively intact and adding market friendly policies that have encouraged economic growth.
I always read Economist articles keeping in mind their basic editorial ideology leans a little bit towards being true believers in markets as the solution to all human problems. What I took away from the article and its statistical and historical facts is that smart policies that recognize what markets do best and also recognize what government does best can provide a strong economic foundation with a strong social safety net.
Here in the United States our politics are still infected with gut level hatred for any form of socialism. That hatred is left over from our McCarthy era guilt by association linking socialism to communism, and it has been kept alive by Capitalist true believers to maintain their grip on political power. As a result we have a market based health care system that is outrageously expensive but still doesn't cover big chunks of the population, the market based portion of our pension system is collapsing from the weight of its speculative excesses (that allowed the very wealthy to skim off the value), and we scramble to keep the long term unemployed afloat.
Sweden has proved over the last half century that you can combine markets and government social programs and have the best of both worlds.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
Market theory - money as the only motivator
The theory of free markets that has dictated US policy for decades is based on the assumption that people are motivated to work and achieve almost exclusively by economic considerations, or, more succinctly, money. So law should view money as the primary way to motivate people.
In my experience this assumption is correct as to some percentage of the population but completely wrong as the large portions of the population.
Certainly we all like money, very few of us would turn down a raise in pay if it was offered. But some of us like it a whole lot more than others.
Many people work to make money, and where they can make the most money is the sole determinant of their job. In some cases it is just having lots of money to play with, in some cases it is because making more money than others is the way they validate their importance. Paying these people more as a carrot to increase productivity works if productivity goals are easily quantified (like increasing profits). If necessary they will sacrifice family, health and endure stress to achieve their single most important goal.
But many other people have a more diverse set of values, where making lots of money may be far down the list of values. Things like liking what they do. Treating other people with honesty and consideration. Having time to spend with family and friends. Taking care of their health. Taking pride in being good at what they do. There is a point where once they have a reasonable level of security paying people more will not lead them to be more productive, because they are unwilling to sacrifice their other values.
Using money as a motivator generally is pretty effective in the private sector, because the goal is so easily quantifiable (make more money). In the public sector where goals are diffuse and complex, paying too much money attracts the folks motivated by money, and crowds out very competent people whose basic inclinations are more in line with the service nature of the public sector. Public sector compensation should be structured to provide long term security, not riches.
In my experience this assumption is correct as to some percentage of the population but completely wrong as the large portions of the population.
Certainly we all like money, very few of us would turn down a raise in pay if it was offered. But some of us like it a whole lot more than others.
Many people work to make money, and where they can make the most money is the sole determinant of their job. In some cases it is just having lots of money to play with, in some cases it is because making more money than others is the way they validate their importance. Paying these people more as a carrot to increase productivity works if productivity goals are easily quantified (like increasing profits). If necessary they will sacrifice family, health and endure stress to achieve their single most important goal.
But many other people have a more diverse set of values, where making lots of money may be far down the list of values. Things like liking what they do. Treating other people with honesty and consideration. Having time to spend with family and friends. Taking care of their health. Taking pride in being good at what they do. There is a point where once they have a reasonable level of security paying people more will not lead them to be more productive, because they are unwilling to sacrifice their other values.
Using money as a motivator generally is pretty effective in the private sector, because the goal is so easily quantifiable (make more money). In the public sector where goals are diffuse and complex, paying too much money attracts the folks motivated by money, and crowds out very competent people whose basic inclinations are more in line with the service nature of the public sector. Public sector compensation should be structured to provide long term security, not riches.
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Striving to be an Armadillo
In the Washington hubris back around 2005 or 2006 a member of Congress from Texas famously sneered about middle of the road voters that they were like Armadillo's, they get run over from both sides of the road.
Ideologues from all sides of the political spectrum dislike moderation. Their intellectual worlds are built around logical constructs built on foundations of simplistic assumptions and characterizations about human nature and the world we live in. They like clean logic, they don't like the messy ambiguity that often characterizes life. Once they have their logical ideology in place they can be an expert on anything thereafter by plugging into the ideology and starting to talk, without the time consuming necessity of investigating facts or considering options.
Ideologues don't like moderates because moderates always seem to want to complicate their grand ideas with inquiries into whether assumptions are true.
If your only ambition in life is to be a politician its not a bad idea to latch onto an ideology. You can speak confidently and authoritatively on any subject, on a moments notice, while people actually evaluating options and facts are being silent. And a big plus is most voters don't have time to evaluate options and facts, in fact they don't even have time to listen to a long spiel about facts and options. They like a short sweet sound bite that is emotionally appealing and will often go with it.
Unfortunately, if you actually want to be a positive influence in your life, history suggests being an ideologue is probably not the way to go. In the United States the great depression of the 1930's and the great recession we are still recovering from both followed years of conservative ideology running the show. From 1921 through 1933 Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. That didn't happen again until 2001 to 2007. Both periods were marked by unwavering belief that cutting regulation on business, cutting taxes and cutting the size and influence of Government were the key to a prosperous future. Of course what actually happened at the end of each period was the two worst economic crashes in the last 100 years.
What about the Democrats you say? Evidence suggests the ideological left wing, while it certainly exists in this country, has never come close to the kind of power the ideological right has achieved. Unlike many Western European countries we have never had anything like socialist control of any branch of government. We have had a number of periods when Democrats controlled both house of Congress and the Presidency, and those periods saw the passage of Social Security, LBJ's great society, and the creation of lots of consumer and environmental protection legislation, but the periods where Democrats have controlled all branches of Government also included the years during WW I, WW II and the Korean War where big legislative initiatives were on the back burner. For whatever reason, no pattern of disaster following Democratic control reveals itself.
I also personally believe the nature of right and left ideologies makes Democrats in the United States less extreme in their views. Republican ideas are rooted in self reliance and personal responsibility - they are focused on what is good for the individual, and heavy with overtones of "leave me alone so I can do what I want". They flow easily from the values from our pioneer heritage, so as a nation we are inclined to be sympathetic to those values. The middle of the road in the United States is actually to the right of center by the reckoning of many other countries. But the frontier is gone. Most of us can't walk out the back door and go shoot our dinner, or chop up a downed tree to keep us warm. We can't get up and move because we now have a neighbor a mile away and we want our space. We are town folk, heavily reliant upon each other. Democratic ideas are rooted in that interlinked nature of society, in the common good, in shared responsibilities and tolerance. Democrats think consensus is a value in itself. Republicans think winning is the only value. So even when Democrats are in control Republicans have more influence than when the reverse situation exists.
In a functioning modern society you need both these views. They each have strengths and weaknesses and should be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. We need the selfishness that is at the root of Republican ideology because that is what drives much of our economic development. But Republicans often regard government as at best a nuisance (excerpt when they getting subsidies) but in fact Government plays a key role in creating a society that allows our culture and economy to thrive. We need the sense of group identity, or group responsibility, that underpins most Democratic ideology.
That's this Armadillo's view.
Ideologues from all sides of the political spectrum dislike moderation. Their intellectual worlds are built around logical constructs built on foundations of simplistic assumptions and characterizations about human nature and the world we live in. They like clean logic, they don't like the messy ambiguity that often characterizes life. Once they have their logical ideology in place they can be an expert on anything thereafter by plugging into the ideology and starting to talk, without the time consuming necessity of investigating facts or considering options.
Ideologues don't like moderates because moderates always seem to want to complicate their grand ideas with inquiries into whether assumptions are true.
If your only ambition in life is to be a politician its not a bad idea to latch onto an ideology. You can speak confidently and authoritatively on any subject, on a moments notice, while people actually evaluating options and facts are being silent. And a big plus is most voters don't have time to evaluate options and facts, in fact they don't even have time to listen to a long spiel about facts and options. They like a short sweet sound bite that is emotionally appealing and will often go with it.
Unfortunately, if you actually want to be a positive influence in your life, history suggests being an ideologue is probably not the way to go. In the United States the great depression of the 1930's and the great recession we are still recovering from both followed years of conservative ideology running the show. From 1921 through 1933 Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency. That didn't happen again until 2001 to 2007. Both periods were marked by unwavering belief that cutting regulation on business, cutting taxes and cutting the size and influence of Government were the key to a prosperous future. Of course what actually happened at the end of each period was the two worst economic crashes in the last 100 years.
What about the Democrats you say? Evidence suggests the ideological left wing, while it certainly exists in this country, has never come close to the kind of power the ideological right has achieved. Unlike many Western European countries we have never had anything like socialist control of any branch of government. We have had a number of periods when Democrats controlled both house of Congress and the Presidency, and those periods saw the passage of Social Security, LBJ's great society, and the creation of lots of consumer and environmental protection legislation, but the periods where Democrats have controlled all branches of Government also included the years during WW I, WW II and the Korean War where big legislative initiatives were on the back burner. For whatever reason, no pattern of disaster following Democratic control reveals itself.
I also personally believe the nature of right and left ideologies makes Democrats in the United States less extreme in their views. Republican ideas are rooted in self reliance and personal responsibility - they are focused on what is good for the individual, and heavy with overtones of "leave me alone so I can do what I want". They flow easily from the values from our pioneer heritage, so as a nation we are inclined to be sympathetic to those values. The middle of the road in the United States is actually to the right of center by the reckoning of many other countries. But the frontier is gone. Most of us can't walk out the back door and go shoot our dinner, or chop up a downed tree to keep us warm. We can't get up and move because we now have a neighbor a mile away and we want our space. We are town folk, heavily reliant upon each other. Democratic ideas are rooted in that interlinked nature of society, in the common good, in shared responsibilities and tolerance. Democrats think consensus is a value in itself. Republicans think winning is the only value. So even when Democrats are in control Republicans have more influence than when the reverse situation exists.
In a functioning modern society you need both these views. They each have strengths and weaknesses and should be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. We need the selfishness that is at the root of Republican ideology because that is what drives much of our economic development. But Republicans often regard government as at best a nuisance (excerpt when they getting subsidies) but in fact Government plays a key role in creating a society that allows our culture and economy to thrive. We need the sense of group identity, or group responsibility, that underpins most Democratic ideology.
That's this Armadillo's view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)