Feb 15
To Joe Carter and his blogpost that claims that progressives are trying to legislate policies that were thought to be unthinkable. Carter defines and uses the Overton Window to show how progressives are attempting to promote their agenda. This appeared in the Acton blog.
If politicians are adjusting the policies they support according to what the people will support, what should we say about many Republicans who adjust the policies they support according to the campaign donations they receive directly or indirectly from corporations?
Carter has defined what the Overton Window and includes how progressives are trying to push through what was unthinkable into laws, But he has not really told us why what progressives want in the New Green Deal was or should be unthinkable. And that makes the term a mere pejorative and thus a word used to manipulate readers of this article.
Carter obviously rejects the New Green Deal in its entirety. Does that mean that he rejects its efforts to clean the environment by how we update our power grid, or to make education affordable, or to ensure employment for every American? Does it mean that he supports at least some of those goals but thinks that the Federal government should not bite off more than it can financially chew by footing too much of the bill? Or does Carter support maintaining the current status quo?
The New Green Deal is an updated, more exhaustive version of FDR's New Deal which is despised and scapegoated by many current conservatives. Many past conservatives such as Presidents Eisenhower and Reagan were strong supporters of programs like Social Security while President Nixon started the EPA. But having succumbed to a spell cast by Ayn Rand, many current Republicans and their financial supporters want to eliminate everything from FDR's New Deal. And that is despite how his New Deal saved the people of our nation from many problems.
Many current conservatives oppose the new deals because of both the benefits they bring and that the federal government foots the bill. In the end, I'm afraid that the major opposition to the basic principles of either new deal is because those with wealth want to continually reduce their social responsibilities. I say social responsibilities because the people these deals would help are fellow stakeholders of the business interests and economic system that made those with wealth rich. That kind of rejection of the New Green Deal leans toward varying degrees of cold hearted selfishness.
At the same time, pruning some of the goals of and how we implement the New Green Deal based on feasibility can provide responsible objections to what the Dems propose.
I have my own reservations to the New Green Deal. Though I fully agree with the program's approach to updating our power grid, the deal does not address our most basic problem in America: the belief that one is morally obligated to work only for one's self-interest. That helping the vulnerable is always a choice, never a moral obligation. Though some government intrusion to mandate some help is necessary, the government needs to supplement its intrusion with new relationship structures between all of the stakeholders in the economy so that all work together. We need new structures so that we learn how to work not just for self-interest alone, but the interests of others, especially the vulnerable. Government should create new structures that make our economic system a participatory one, not one that revolves around elite-centered rule. If we continue with the status quo where we, especially the wealthy, believe that we are only obligated to work for self-interest, our systems and society will implode from selfishness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 16
to Michael Matheson Miller and his blogpost that asserts that using tariffs is not a good way to solve the problems caused by economic and social globalism. This appeared in the Acton blog.
We first have to deal with the inaccurate claim that economic globalization has brought a lot of good including a 'drastic reductions in poverty.' Yes, we have seen a drop in abject poverty, but other levels of poverty exist some of which are growing. In addition, wealth disparity has been increasing in many nations and between nations. Thus, economic globalization is not all that Carter says it is.
In fact, the term 'globalization' is really an ambiguous term. Globalization can revolve around many ventures. For example, international communism is a globalization of labor with their plights and concerns. I don't see Carter call for that kind of globalization.
The economic globalization that Carter consistently praises is actually called neoliberal Capitalism or neoliberalism. With neoliberalism, business owners face fewer and fewer restrictions and social responsibilities in the name of free trade. But we should also realize that the fuel on which Capitalism runs, especially neoliberalism, is greed in the form of following the maximization of profits ethic. The maximization of profits is a cannibalizing ethic in that all other moral and ethical values can be sacrificed if doing so increases profits. And with fewer regulations and supervision, those who are wealthy gain more power as they gain more wealth. And as they gain more power, they lose more accountability and responsibility.
What we have seen with today's economic globalization are some reductions in abject poverty. What we have also seen are worldwide gains in wealth disparity and increasing damage to the environment, as well as losses in democracy. For the more a nation embraces free trade, which is part of neoliberalism, the more it loses governmental supervision of businesses. And when the government is a working democracy, then losses in government supervision of businesses translates into the weakening of democratic controls over businesses. In the meantime, many of these businesses follow the maximization of profits ethic.
Carter's article is about how we can curb economic globalism while still passionately embracing neoliberalism. But if he is really talking about neoliberalism when he says economic globalism, then all we need to do is to substitute the term 'neoliberalism' for the term 'economic globalism' in the previous sentence to see the contradiction. It seems that what Carter is proposing is that non-owners care for the victims of neoliberalism while owners continue to follow the maximization of profits ethic.
There have always been varying forms of economic globalism. There was a form of economic globalism when America became a nation. But America did not embrace the economic globalism of its day. Rather, it used protectionism, such as using tariffs, to allow its fledgling industries to grow up and have a chance to catch up with their European counterparts. Our nation employed tariffs from its beginning to the FDR Administration. And that protectionism brought great benefits to our economy because it allowed our industries to grow and mature. Whether America needs tariffs or not is debatable. But those less developed nations that want to develop their fledgling industries could very well benefit from protectionism including the use of tariffs. To prohibit those nations from doing so is called 'kicking away the ladder.' The ladder in this case would be protectionism and it is a ladder our nation used to develop our then fledgling industries.
No comments:
Post a Comment