We confuse economics and politics.
Our political system is a representative form of democracy.
Pure democracy means that every person votes on every issue.
We elect representatives, which has two advantages:
it does not require that all of us vote on every issue,
and it buffers the angers and enthusiasms of the moment
from being put into place without the benefit of reflection.
Economically, we are a mixed system. No state
can do without some government-run systems.
Who wants the police, fire, military, park, utility,
education, highway, retirement, or even health systems
to be entirely private enterprises? A few. Not most.
Much of our economic activity is privately owned:
shops, restaurants, factories, road paving, hardware stores,
banks, farming, and most of what we do is private.
When we talk, we slip easily from political shorthand--
"democracy"--to economic shorthand--"capitalism", or
"free enterprise". They are not the same things. It is quite
possible for a democratic, or representative democracy,
to choose to have the government own, for instance,
the offshore oil resources, and develop it for the public good.
It is quite possible for a non-democratic nation, a
dictatorship, or a Saudi Kingdom, as an example, to
prefer economic capitalism, or massed capitalism.
Right now, our political turmoil is partly fueled by
a great fear of communism; almost a mindless fear
of communism, right straight out of the 1950s.
Who, in his right mind, thinks that communism is a
real possibility? Even Fidel Castro concedes that!
The John Birch Society of the fifties, with its post-WWII
fear of communism is displaying itself in a watered-down,
although powerful form. It speaks of "socialism" (an economic
system), as if it were the first step toward Soviet communism.
That, of course, is nonsense, as any glance at the number
of nations who choose limited socialism, in some form,
as a way to best manage parts of their economy.
Then we chant "socialism", whether in regard to health care,
education, or whatever we do not like, and accuse its
proponents of not being political patriots--or worse--
of not being loyal and thinking citizens. (See: "Obama")
How can one make clear and sensible decisions when
the conversation is a garbled mishmash of mindless slogans?
Our political system is a representative form of democracy.
Pure democracy means that every person votes on every issue.
We elect representatives, which has two advantages:
it does not require that all of us vote on every issue,
and it buffers the angers and enthusiasms of the moment
from being put into place without the benefit of reflection.
Economically, we are a mixed system. No state
can do without some government-run systems.
Who wants the police, fire, military, park, utility,
education, highway, retirement, or even health systems
to be entirely private enterprises? A few. Not most.
Much of our economic activity is privately owned:
shops, restaurants, factories, road paving, hardware stores,
banks, farming, and most of what we do is private.
When we talk, we slip easily from political shorthand--
"democracy"--to economic shorthand--"capitalism", or
"free enterprise". They are not the same things. It is quite
possible for a democratic, or representative democracy,
to choose to have the government own, for instance,
the offshore oil resources, and develop it for the public good.
It is quite possible for a non-democratic nation, a
dictatorship, or a Saudi Kingdom, as an example, to
prefer economic capitalism, or massed capitalism.
Right now, our political turmoil is partly fueled by
a great fear of communism; almost a mindless fear
of communism, right straight out of the 1950s.
Who, in his right mind, thinks that communism is a
real possibility? Even Fidel Castro concedes that!
The John Birch Society of the fifties, with its post-WWII
fear of communism is displaying itself in a watered-down,
although powerful form. It speaks of "socialism" (an economic
system), as if it were the first step toward Soviet communism.
That, of course, is nonsense, as any glance at the number
of nations who choose limited socialism, in some form,
as a way to best manage parts of their economy.
Then we chant "socialism", whether in regard to health care,
education, or whatever we do not like, and accuse its
proponents of not being political patriots--or worse--
of not being loyal and thinking citizens. (See: "Obama")
How can one make clear and sensible decisions when
the conversation is a garbled mishmash of mindless slogans?
Comments
Post a Comment