I would wager that Dennis and I agree on the 1st answer: The economy. We won’t agree on the second: Romney.
Without a recovery that revitalizes the middle class, all the discussions about taxation, defense spending, health care, women’s right, etc. become mute. We agree that the decline of the middle class and the growth of income inequality are real and matter. I see this everyday—highly trained, dedicated, hard working laboratory technologists in which both spouses work full time in order to have a family and raise children. This is wrong! It leads to high staff turnover as techs leave for jobs that pay $1.00 more an hour, that weigh the cost of day care for the kids versus working when the kids are not in school, and on and on. I work for a large corporation, and it is difficult to make the case that revitalization of the middle class is central to the business plan of corporate America.
Why Romney? I’m fond of saying that I would support the party that stands for a free market economy, a strong national defense, and personal liberty. Both parties fall short of the mark, but the right of center makes a stronger case in each category. But we are talking about the economy, so let’s focus on “free market” economy. The theoretical is simple. I am a classic liberal (as opposed to progressive and libertarian) who believes that individuals left to their own devices acting in their rational self interest have the best chance for achieving their success as they define it. The classic liberal believes in equal opportunity, and trusts that the results will be just. The classic liberal stands apart from the libertarian in that “equality” is irrelevant to the libertarian. Paul Ryan’s fascination with Ayn Rand comes to mind. The practical liberal believes that no person has an inherent right to be a Hitler, and opposes artificial distortions that result in social injustice. Paradoxically, the Christian classic liberal believes that individual salvation occurs in the context of community, and takes seriously the Biblical imperative to care for “widows and orphans” both individually and collectively. This position stands apart from the libertarian (Ayn Rand was an atheist after all) and accepts that government is a necessity (especially us reformed Christians who believe in the doctrine of the total depravity of humanity). The progressive places too much emphasis on the collective. The seeming paradox facing the Christian is resolved thusly: every political system will fail in the absence of a society with a sound moral compass, every political system must answer the question: what are we doing for the least amongst us? This plays out in the tension between the common good and the inherent freedom of the individual. Regardless, the economy as it stands now is unsustainable from any perspective, and will right itself eventually. But let us be clear: both parties believe in crony capitalism. The reason the economy is stalled is practical: business, both small and large, under the present administration faces tremendous uncertainty that precludes commitment to growth: the uncertainty of the regulatory environment (Dodd-Frank is a list of guidelines, the actual regs have not been finalized), the eventual impact of O-care on employers, and the coming changes in the tax code. The Democratic Party does not understand this. The Republicans, even with their commitment to crony capitalism do.
View Nephew’s response here
Leave a Reply