Wednesday, October 27, 2010

What does Tuesday mean? Maybe a little.

With the 2010 mid-term election about a week away, the rhetoric is running at a fever pitch. Every election is important and this one is no exception. But this election is but a tree in a big forest.

I have seen it written many times that the US is 20% liberal, 40% conservative and 30% somewhere in the middle. I assume 10% are kids or surfer dudes.

The 2008 election was clearly as much or more a reaction (away from Bush) as it was an action (toward Obama). This year's result may be equal, but opposite. If 40% of the voters are truly conservative, they are unavoidably seething over what has happened in Washington the last 2 years and wield considerable power when provoked.

Liberals seem to be disappointed also, but that's only because there are still some components of our lives that remain private and untouched by government.

1994 made Bill Clinton a moderate. Against the will of his own party, he signed Welfare Reform, he sent troops in the former Yugoslavia to defend the Muslim population and, if his presidency was to have any lasting effect, he was forced to work with a Republican Congress. Nothing can make Barack Obama a moderate, but perhaps he will have no choice but to behave like one after next Tuesday.

Regarding the rhetoric on the campaign trail, the other day VP Biden said the following words in a speech:
“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive."
 Now I understand that Joe Biden is crazy, but I don't think this was off the cuff. This was actually written down, approved by staff and read off a teleprompter. They mean it. Or, more precisely, they want us to believe it so they pretend that they mean it.

I suppose I could spend the next few paragraphs citing examples and offering a philosophical foundation for not only why this isn't true, but also why it simply cannot be true. However, there are some things that one really should not have to argue.

The fact that Biden was not laughed off stage, the fact that people remained in the audience, the fact that this statement could actually be uttered on a national stage does not speak well of our mindset in 2010. Sure there will be a minor course correction on Tuesday, but it won't cure the disease.

It's clear that liberals have institutionalized certain segments of our population and made them less dynamic as a result. Urban poor (mostly black), labor unions, government workers and many universities can't imagine life without government sponsorship. In the case of urban poor, a generation or two of kids have grown up with enough empirical data to confirm that one's place in life is fixed and that sustenance arrives in the form of a government check every week, independent of your actions at school or in society.

But Biden's statement starts to leak into the productive, commercial segment of the citizenry. Innovation? It's a government thing. Investment in the future? Not without Uncle Sam. Placement of available capital? We'll take care of that. Central planning of the economy has been tried uncounted times throughout history and has failed reliably. Are we really taking seriously a man who promotes the idea here in the USA?

Why do political leaders espouse such things? Because it expands their power. But why do their followers lap it up?

That is a complete and total mystery to me.