1
   

Why we're a divided nation

 
 
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 01:31 pm
I really liked this one. The solution, as always, is freedom .


Recent elections pointed to deepening divisions among American people
but has anyone given serious thought to just why? I have part of the answer that starts off with a simple example.

Different Americans have different and intensive preferences for cars, food, clothing and entertainment. For example, some Americans love opera and hate rock and roll. Others have opposite preferences, loving rock and roll and hating opera. When's the last time you heard of rock and roll lovers in conflict with opera lovers? It seldom if ever happens. Why? Those who love operas get what they want and those who love rock and roll get what they want and both can live in peace with one another.

Suppose that instead of freedom in the music market, decisions on what kind of music people could listen to were made in the political arena. It would be either opera or rock and roll. Rock and rollers would be lined up against opera lovers. Why? It's simple. If the opera lovers win, rock and rollers would lose and the reverse if rock and rollers won. Conflict would emerge solely because the decision was made in the political arena.

The prime feature of political decision-making is that it's a zero-sum game. One person or group's gain is of necessity another person or group's loss. As such political allocation of resources is conflict enhancing while market allocation is conflict reducing. The greater the number of decisions made in the political arena the greater is the potential for conflict.

There are other implications of political decision-making. Throughout most of our history we've lived in relative harmony. That's remarkable because just about every religion, racial and ethnic group in the world is represented in our country. These are the very racial/ethnic/religious groups that have for centuries been trying to slaughter one another in their home countries, among them: Turks and Armenians, Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Jew, Croats and Serbs. While we haven't been a perfect nation, there have been no cases of mass genocide and religious wars that have plagued the globe elsewhere. The closest we've come was the American Indian/European conflict that pales by comparison.

The reason we've been able to live in relative harmony is that for most of our history government was small. There wasn't much pie to distribute politically.

When it's the political arena that determines who gets what goodies, the most effective coalitions are those with a proven record of being the most divisive - those based on race, ethnicity, religion and region. As a matter of fact our most costly conflict involved a coalition based upon region - namely the War of 1861.

Many of the issues that divide us, aside from the Iraq war, are those best described as a zero-sum game where one group's gain is of necessity another's loss. Examples are: racial preferences, social security, tax policy, trade restrictions, welfare and a host of other government policies that benefit one American at the expense of another American.

You might be tempted to think that the brutal domestic conflict seen in other countries at other times can't happen here. That's nonsense. Americans are not super-humans; we possess the same frailties of other people in other places. If there were a severe economic calamity, I can imagine a political hustler exploiting those frailties, just as Hitler did in Germany, blaming it on the Jews, the blacks, the East Coast, Catholics or free trade.

The best thing the President and Congress can do to heal our country is to reduce the impact of government on our lives. Doing so will not only produce a less divided country, greater economic efficiency but bear greater faith and allegiance to the vision of America held by our Founders - a country of limited government.


Walter Williams
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,099 • Replies: 11
No top replies

 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 08:40 pm
Sounds good, but "Reducing Government" seems now to mean "Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted".

What needs to happen is that the real power brokers (Corporations) need to be made accountable by the PEOPLE!
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 10:30 pm
NeoGuin wrote:
Sounds good, but "Reducing Government" seems now to mean "Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted".

What needs to happen is that the real power brokers (Corporations) need to be made accountable by the PEOPLE!


My that is mighty socialist of you isn't it. In a govt such as ours you can't place too much control over businesses because that goes against what made our country great and what is the driving force behind innovation and technology. Do you really want to remove that drive to improve? Think about all the innovations we have in the world due to US companies.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 12:17 am
NeoGuin wrote:
Sounds good, but "Reducing Government" seems now to mean "Comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted".

What needs to happen is that the real power brokers (Corporations) need to be made accountable by the PEOPLE!


Corporation are made of the PEOPLE.

Until such time as true AI is developed, a Corporation cannot exist without people.

Led and fed by venal people, a Corporation will operate in a venal manner. Led and fed by ethical people, a Corporation will operate in an ethical manner. Surely you don't mean to suggest that all corporations are venal.

There is no question that the executive management of a corporation charts the course followed by the company, but it is ignorant to assume or contend that these people, alone, are responsible for corporate malfeasance. In every rotten apple corporation, there are legions of PEOPLE through the corporate ranks who are:

1) More than willing to turn a blind eye to corruption if it means their personal profit or security.
2) More than willing to adopt the corrupt practices if it means it will assist them in achieving their personal goals of power and wealth.
3) Perfectly happy performing in a mediocre, or worse, fashion if a poorly run company is too dysfunctional to either locate them or demand that they produce.

For every Ken Lay and Bernard Ebbers, there are thousands of PEOPLE who would happily follow in their footsteps.

This notion that there is some pure and noble group out there called THE PEOPLE, who would tear down all Corporations if only they had the POWER, is ridiculous.

Better to focus on why some people (no matter what their vocation or status) crave power and are willing to hurt other people to get it.

Nobility is not a certain by-product of affliction, any more than corruption is the certain result of wealth and influence.

I am also puzzled by the sort of sentiment which seems to be expressed herein by NeoGuin:

We need to make the comfortable uncomfortable so that we can make the uncomfortable comfortable.

Seems like a vicious cycle to me.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 12:35 am
Don't forget that corruption does not start or end with the wealthy. There are plenty of poor people who are just as corrupt as there are rich if not more of them due to #'s.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Mar, 2005 11:10 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Don't forget that corruption does not start or end with the wealthy. There are plenty of poor people who are just as corrupt as there are rich if not more of them due to #'s.


Corruption begins with desire
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 12:20 pm
It just seems to me that "Limited Government" seems to limit the power the PEOPLE have.

While giving corps and the CEO's almost "unlimited" power.

And we know what tends to happen when the masses feel that the deomcratic process fails--don't we:(
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 12:44 pm
"Many of the issues that divide us, aside from the Iraq war, are those best described as a zero-sum game where one group's gain is of necessity another's loss. Examples are: racial preferences, social security, tax policy, trade restrictions, welfare and a host of other government policies that benefit one American at the expense of another American. "

Do you really think these are the issues that divide America?

Really?

Not abortion? Gun control? The evironment? Health care? The deficit? Gay rights? Education?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:19 pm
"It just seems to me that "Limited Government" seems to limit the power the PEOPLE have."

Actually, quite the opposite has been the prevailing political philosophy of American politics. For about a decade after Independence there was no Federal Government to speak of. States and localities strongly resisted the imposition of ANY governmental authority outside of themselves. The result was chaos. If Jimmy the Greek had been around to give odds, they would have been over 100 to 1 that the new nation would not survive the end of the 18th century.

Federalism, the driving force behind the Constitution and our system of government, favored a strong central government with authority to override State and local governments. Getting the Constitution approved by the People because of the strong emphasis on strong central government was not easy. Compromises were struck in framing the Constitution to help "sell" the concept to the individual States and the People at large. One of the most important means of defusing the opposition was the adoption of the Bill of Rights to protect individual liberty from the potential encroachment of Federal government into State and individual citizens lives. The Constitution was adopted, and the Federalist administrations of Washington and Adams restored order, security and economic stability to the country.

Jefferson, and his Democratic-Republican Party, opposed strong central government with wide authority (though they've always been more than willing to use it when in office). "That government that governs least, governs best" has pretty much been the nominal political platform and philosophy ever since. Only in recent times, since the mid-1930's, has there been a strong popular movement to increase the authority and reach of the central government. Those advocating larger and more powerful central government reaching into the private and daily lives of citizens has more frequently been the work of the partisans of liberal and progressive politics than the Federalists, who were more conservative than most Republicans of today.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 02:35 pm
Boomerang,

All public policies, especially those with nation or world-wide reach, affect us all. For almost every public policy one might imagine, there are both up-sides and down-sides, "winners" and "losers". Every interest group has its own agenda, and they all tend to believe their issue is THE central issue upon which all public policy should rest. Nonsense.

Political division is a natural thing, and though many deny it, such divisions are a healthy sign that we are still a free nation. We swing periodically between "left" and "right" extremes, but mostly this nation remains stable and centrist. At the beginning of the 21st century, more people have greater civil rights than existed even 50 years ago. The courts are open, government censorship in the United States is minimal consisting mostly of highly classified documents that should be kept from publication.

Far from exercising restraint in Federal intrusions into the affairs of States and individuals, this Administration has moved to interfere with that case in Florida where a State Court upheld the right of a husband to make a choice about whether his brain-dead wife might be taken off of physical supports. That's a more intrusive and to me offensive use of Federal power than using US military forces in Iraq. After all, the Constitution makes the President Commander-in-Chief so that he can exercise the military option without undue constraint by Congress or public sentiment. Where is the justification and authority for the Federal government to interfere in State business, or make decisions of a personal nature for a private citizen?
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 03:02 pm
I completely agree, Asherman, that dissent is normal and necessary.

I think reasonable people disagree on taxation, social secruity, affirmitive action (which I suppose is meant by "racial preference"). What I don't believe is that those are the issues that divide our country.

I completely agree, too, about our Gladys Kravits style of nosey neighbor government. Most of my fellow Oregonians, even the ones who oppose physician assited suicide, are tired of the government trying to throw roadblocks in our way years and years after the law passed.

I've refused to get pulled into any of the "Terry" threads because honestly, my opinion doesn't count for squat. And neither does anyone else's except her husbands.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 09:28 pm
Asherman:

It just seems to me that "reducing govenment" in current speak excludes things like tax breaks for corps and CEO's.

And includes things designed to protect the powerless from the powerful.

(If this sounds like some crazy mishmash of populism and socialism I apologize. I tend to view the world as interconnected knowledge)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Why we're a divided nation
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/30/2024 at 12:22:36