Posted by
HvySlpr on Wednesday, October 01, 2008 12:44:09 AM
When talking to friends and co-workers I am pleased to find that I am not the only one happy about the miserable failure of the proposed bailout on Monday, with estimated costs of $700 billion. I say miserable because a large majority of Republicans (over 60%) and a larger than expected minority of Democrats (over 30%) voted the bill down. What I am disappointed in, however, is some of the buzzwords being used when explaining what should be done.
I hear many people say that Democrats and Republicans need to “compromise” and “reach across the aisle” to “fix” this problem. Democrats and Republicans both agree that something needs to be done. In an election year, full of self-aggrandizing and class-warfare, this is not a surprise. Fortunately, this is where the two Parties’ agreement ends. The Devil truly is in the details.
The left and right can both agree that there is turmoil, but philosophically, when it come to economics and the Federal Government’s role in the U.S. market, the two parties could not be on more opposite ends of the spectrum. At the very least, Conservative philosophy and Liberal philosophy cannot. While conservative philosophy believes that more government equals less freedom, liberal philosophy believes that the role of the Federal Government does and should have direct influence in private market affairs. The liberal philosophy believes in heavy regulation, whether the market is up or down, and heavy taxation on the rich and successful to fund government programs for the poor (i.e. redistribution of wealth). A similar philosophy was popularized in a book around the time of the American Civil War: Karl Marx called it Manifesto of the Communist Party. Slowly that philosophy became progressivism in the beginning of the twentieth century, fascism in Italy, and finally…modern day liberalism.
Simply put, conservative philosophy says that the market should self-dictate, self-regulate, and self-discipline in order to truly succeed. A belief that favoritism by the Government can negatively affect the market is at the center of that philosophy (laissez-faire for you economists). I tend to believe that favoritism (e.g., tariffs, subsidies and progressive taxation) is actually un-Constitutional.
Congress cannot possibly come to an agreement with this kind of philosophical divide. I am reminded of a quote from a wise man:
“Walk on road, hmm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape.” - Mr. Miyagi (Karate Kid)
Whether you voted for a Republican or Democrat, you voted for him or her for a reason. I am not going to vote for a Republican so that he can act like a Democrat, and the reverse is also true. Why would I want him or her to “reach across the aisle” when the other side of the aisle is wrong?…like it or not.