In an article in the Wall Street Journal last Monday (Mar. 4, 2013) entitled "Republicans and Their Faulty Moral Arithmetic", Arthur C. Brooks makes the case that free enterprise is the best way to improve the lot of the poor.
He cites a book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt in stating "---that citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak." He goes on to point out that other moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority register with less people and that raw money arguments don't register morally at all.
The article is not meant as a discussion of whether the public has its priorities right or whether conservatives need to discard their principles. What it is about is that the conservative value of free enterprise is well aligned with the public sentiment to take care of those in need. If conservatives hope to win elections, they need to better convey that message to the electorate.
Mr. Brooks finds the irony maddening. To quote: "---poor people have been saddled with generations of disastrous progressive policy results, from welfare induced dependency to failing schools. (The left"s) ---policies are gradually ruining the economy, which will have catastrophic results once the safety net is no longer affordable. Labyrinthine regulations, punitive taxation and wage distortions destroy the ability to create private sector jobs. Opportunities for Americans on the bottom to better their station in life are being erased".
Furthermore: "---the record of free enterprise in improving the lot of the poor both here and abroad is spectacular. ----the percentage of people in the world living on a dollar a day or less--a traditional poverty measure--has fallen 80% since 1970. This is the greatest antipoverty achievement in world history. That achievement is not the result of philanthropy or foreign aid. It occurred because billions of souls have been able to pull themselves out of poverty thanks to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship."
His conclusion: "By making the vulnerable a primary focus, conservatives will be better able to confront some common blind spots. Corporate cronyism should be decried as every bit as noxious as statism---. Entrepreneurship should not be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not. And conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, 'We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not'---and truly mean it."
There is still much to be accomplished. We know what works and what does not. The Brooks article points to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship as the reasons for a world wide decrease in poverty since 1970. To those I would add individual rights and limited government as indispensable components for a just and free society.
He cites a book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by Jonathan Haidt in stating "---that citizens across the political spectrum place a great importance on taking care of those in need and avoiding harm to the weak." He goes on to point out that other moral values such as sexual purity and respect for authority register with less people and that raw money arguments don't register morally at all.
The article is not meant as a discussion of whether the public has its priorities right or whether conservatives need to discard their principles. What it is about is that the conservative value of free enterprise is well aligned with the public sentiment to take care of those in need. If conservatives hope to win elections, they need to better convey that message to the electorate.
Mr. Brooks finds the irony maddening. To quote: "---poor people have been saddled with generations of disastrous progressive policy results, from welfare induced dependency to failing schools. (The left"s) ---policies are gradually ruining the economy, which will have catastrophic results once the safety net is no longer affordable. Labyrinthine regulations, punitive taxation and wage distortions destroy the ability to create private sector jobs. Opportunities for Americans on the bottom to better their station in life are being erased".
Furthermore: "---the record of free enterprise in improving the lot of the poor both here and abroad is spectacular. ----the percentage of people in the world living on a dollar a day or less--a traditional poverty measure--has fallen 80% since 1970. This is the greatest antipoverty achievement in world history. That achievement is not the result of philanthropy or foreign aid. It occurred because billions of souls have been able to pull themselves out of poverty thanks to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship."
His conclusion: "By making the vulnerable a primary focus, conservatives will be better able to confront some common blind spots. Corporate cronyism should be decried as every bit as noxious as statism---. Entrepreneurship should not be extolled as a path to accumulating wealth but as a celebration of everyday men and women who want to build their own lives, whether they start a business and make a lot of money or not. And conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, 'We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not'---and truly mean it."
There is still much to be accomplished. We know what works and what does not. The Brooks article points to global free trade, property rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship as the reasons for a world wide decrease in poverty since 1970. To those I would add individual rights and limited government as indispensable components for a just and free society.
I cannot agree more.....What Norm has stated, very frustrating and one of the most frustrating points I have ever encountered....(Brooks' quote: poor people have been ......). I wish more people would read: We Were Born to Shine....Because we Believe, by Ruth Stafford. This book covers in detail, what Norm states above. Ruth is a retired school teacher (46 years teaching) who happens to be a black woman. The book is written at a 5th grade level in the hopes people, as stated above, who have gone through the failed school system, may understand what she has written. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 2436; "unemployment almost always wounds its victim's dignity and threatens the equilibrium of his life. Besides the harm done to him personally, it entails many risks for his family." Hard to argue the meaning of these words! I struggle with globalization as I selfishly relate globalization and free trade to its affects on our country and her people. Like a teeter-totter, when one side comes up, the other side goes down. So while Brooks (above) touts the affects of globalization, he fails to acknowledge the affect on jobs in this country. Also, for every action there is a reaction.....and yes, I have researched the affects of manufacturing job losses vs. those jobs which replace them.....my findings: per a Wisconsin study: the higher paying manufacturing jobs are replaced with lower paying service industry jobs.
ReplyDeleteWhen the leadership in our country understands the reality of globalization and free trade, they will have to make the choice of either making changes which provide for jobs returning to our country, which entails all sorts of changes too numerous to mention.....or continue status quo which will be a great assist to "developing nations" or with the case of China......watch a communist nation supplant the USA as the top world power economically as well as militarily.
Hey Norm...some facts worth mentioning: the debt to GDP ratio of the USA has gone from 71.2% in 2008 to 107% for 2012. A few notable countries with debt to gdp ratio's over 100% are" Portugal @119, Ireland @118, and Greece at 170%. Other notables: China @22%, Canada@87%, Denmark @47%, Finland @52%, France @90%, and Germany @83%. The E/U averaged approx. 85%.......How do we turn things around? We must do two things, reduce debt and increase GDP. Obama's policies do neither of the two....KD
ReplyDelete