Progressive politics and effective governance do not go hand-in-hand

I'm happy for progressives. You vote your convictions, and you get the results you voted for.

Progressive politics and effective governance do not go hand-in-hand. Progressive politics is about bribing narrow constituencies into voting a group of politicians into perpetual power, so that they can buy off narrow constituencies, and use government's coercive power to implement social experiments that are doomed to failure.

Effective governance is about being concerned for taxpayers and the public good. These old-fashioned values seem to have disappeared, without anybody noticing it, some time ago.

It takes breakdowns and catastrophes for voters to distinguish between the two, and to get so fed up that they force politicians and bureaucrats to change. We may need a few more breakdowns in places like New York, Illinois, and California, and for those voters to rebel, before change will be effectuated.

Leftist ideology doesn't work in the real world. Leftist economics don't work in the real world. Those are observable facts.

The Constitution recognizes that citizens, individually and collectively, have natural rights that are derived from our Creator. In the interest of order and the common good, we grant some of these rights--a specifically and deliberately limited set--to government.

At some point, government began reversing this order--beginning with the Progressive Era and accelerating through the New Deal, the Great Society, and the Obama overreach. Now we have a large group of miseducated people who see government as a grantor, rather than a grantee, of rights.

In a limited government, people are left to decide many things for themselves. These things are decidedly outside of politics, as they should be.

The Church you go to is your own business, not the governments.

How to educate your children is your own business. Yet the government and union-run schools are rife with ideological indoctrination of our children.

Finance is not, or should not be, a political construct. One person wants to loan money; another wants to borrow. Government may play a role in establishing and supporting laws to ensure that the terms of the transaction are fully disclosed; government may support the establishment of markets. Government should not dictate the terms of the financing, such as who gets money.

Once politics becomes involved in finance, money is misdirected based on political ideology rather than based on market decisions (meaning, the aggregated decisions of millions of people about how they want to spend their own money).

In case some people haven't noticed, we already have a two-class society: those who contribute and those who receive. The upper 10% of income earners pay 50% of federal taxes; the bottom 50% pay nothing and most receive government transfer payments. We are thus incenting people to do little, and punishing those who do a lot.

Progressives, at their core, are socialists. Socialist believe that all wealth is the result of some crime committed by the "haves" against the "have-nots." They spin this invented concept into narratives that are used to hector political opponents, manipulate the media, and manipulate a large portion of the populace that doesn't delve deeply enough into the construct of these narratives to question them.

After 8 years of full-fledged assault on free market capitalism, it is logical to assume there will be even more such in the coming years if a progressives gain more power.

Conservatives have to pound the message that government is not the solution. That individual effort is the key. This will not resonate with the liberal left. They simply don't understand markets or they distrust markets.

I'm guessing there is a large enough percentage of Americans who inherently understand that the government causes many more problems than it purports to solve. I'm guessing there are enough that would understand an elected official who would say, we propose to get out of your way, so you are free to make your own decisions in your own best interest, and to provide necessary minimal government backstops in cases of extreme destitution.

No comments:

Powered by Blogger.