Last night, I was watching a video blog on Green Mountain Daily that proclaimed “left is the new right.” Vlogger John Odum noted that during the last presidential debate, John McCain announced a plan for the government to bailout home buyers facing foreclosure. In Odum’s view, this is evidence that the new trend for politicians who want to be taken seriously is to move to the left, instead of moving to the right, as has been the case in recent elections. He sees this as the beginning of a new era in American politics.
I disagree.
Granted, in the midst of a financial crisis that is being billed as the next Great Depression, sure, both candidates are appealing to the people’s fears and promising to alleviate them with government money. But is this not going to be a lasting phenomenon.
For one thing, as I have said before, this crisis is not a failure of the free market. It is a failure resulting from the government’s manipulation of the economy. More government intervention in the economy will not re-produce the same prosperity that the last couple of decades did. Once people see that, they will once again reject what the left has to offer.
Secondly, there is not a conservative in the race. McCain has never been a champion of the conservative movement. Without a voice for conservative ideas in this race, they can hardly be declared dead. People do not have that option as a choice.
Another thing to consider is that in all other areas, besides the economy, both candidates have moved to the right, not the left. Despite having a very liberal record, Obama has positioned himself in the general election as a conservative Democrat, not a progressive one.
Obama runs from his record on gun control, proclaiming himself a champion of Second Amendment rights. He has flip-flopped his stance on off-shore drilling and nuclear power, to line up with McCain’s more popular positions. And the anti-war candidate we saw in the primary not only backed off his call for immediate withdrawal of the troops, but is now advocating sending more troops to Afghanistan and using aggression against Pakistan, if necessary.
Judging by Barack Obama’s sharp turn to the right, it would seem that the rumors of conservatism’s death have been greatly exaggerated.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Nice post.
I love how GMD is always proclaiming their importance in the blogosphere. There’s a deep need there that is obviously not being met elsewhere.
The prosperity you mentioned was an illusion for most, nothing but running up debts that could not be repaid. Ironically, this recession (or depression) may be the thing that saves us. China still needs us and can’t afford to dump the trillion US dollars they have on the currency market and watch us go under. Maybe we can get our heads straight and learn from our mistakes of the last 15 years (like NAFTA, outsourcing manufacturing to China and knowledge work to India).
You’re right on about Obama making a hard right to appeal to most Americans. Let’s not forget that the last Democratic candidate to openly declare his liberalism was President Dukakis!!
October 10th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
“The prosperity you mentioned was an illusion for most, nothing but running up debts that could not be repaid.”
Are you disagreeing with me on my own blog, Bob? Don’t make me ban your IP address.
The prosperity was very real. It’s just that people took it too far. People thought they could have it all and relied too heavily on credit, thinking the upward trend would continue indefinitely. Obviously, that house of cards came down, but our standard of living has increased overall. It might not have increased as fast without globalization, but it still would have (and we wouldn’t be owned by China).
You surely can’t be disagreeing with my assertion that the free-market leads to more overall prosperity than big government does.
October 11th, 2008 at 5:40 am
Bob is absolutely correct … that “prosperity” (notice the “”"’s) was nothing more than the credit card bills being rung up. That is exactly why we’re in the situation we’re in now.
As far as the free-market thingie … why don’t we start with an example of what you’re referring to, Charity? I can find no lasting examples of a non-regulated economy.
October 12th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
“my assertion that the free-market leads to more overall prosperity than big government does.”
Has never been proven. Kinda like that Zombie Jesus thing.
October 13th, 2008 at 9:49 am
“You surely can’t be disagreeing with my assertion that the free-market leads to more overall prosperity than big government does.”
Charity,
No, I’m not disagreeing with you on the free market. The problem is the debt and globalization gone wild. We (businesses and citizens) have traded our future prosperity (about then next 20-30 years) and possibly our national sovereignty for a quick buck and electronic gadgets.
JD,
Always a pleasure to read your off the wall comments.
Can you honestly say that the USSR (the mother of all big governments) had a level of prosperity anywhere near the US?
Do you think that China has a level of prosperity anywhere near the US?
October 13th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Charity,
I only just started reading your blog and wanted to send a quick compliment. I enjoy reading GMD and found the link to your blog through their site. I enjoy the discussion on GMD but am struck by the comparison between that site and your own. On GMD it appears that any comment not in lockstep with the site’s contributors’ viewpoint is met by a swarm of attackers, in your case you receive a swarm of attacks yet are the sole respondent. Your responses are reasoned and rationale and I must admit you display a much higher degree of self control and restraint in your responses than I would be capable of.
Well done.
Pat Cashman
October 14th, 2008 at 1:53 am
“He has flip-flopped his stance on off-shore drilling”
So has McSame.
“And the anti-war candidate we saw in the primary not only backed off his call for immediate withdrawal of the troops”
…which he, of course, never made, ever.
“Can you honestly say that the USSR (the mother of all big governments) had a level of prosperity anywhere near the US?
Do you think that China has a level of prosperity anywhere near the US?”
Who exactly is seriously advocating that the USA embrace the economies of the former Soviet Union or China?? Hint: It’s not Obama.
October 14th, 2008 at 10:06 am
Mr Guy,
Read JD Ryan’s comment above, then the USSR remark will make sense.
October 14th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Bob said…
“Can you honestly say that the USSR (the mother of all big governments) had a level of prosperity anywhere near the US?
Do you think that China has a level of prosperity anywhere near the US?”
No. But that’s irrelevant to what I’m saying. I’m not advocating a state-run governmet with Five-year plans and such. Just one that doesn’t allow unfettered exploitation and puts the needs of investors and the rich over the public good, which is what we have now. The market is not “entitled” to handle anything, whether it be our healthcare, our defense or our infrastructure.
My point is like much of what Charity believes, they’re faith-based, not fact-based. SHe throws out a million thigs aoubt how it should be with very little evidence of why it may be true, other than “how she feels”. Like the notion that unregulated free-markets result in prosperity for all. ANd it’s not like we’ve ever had a free market here. But we continuously peddle this bullshit that only by deregulating can the system work. That’s dangerous, ans it puts the profit motive above the public good in many cases. There’s very little proof to support that claim, it’s a matter of faith,and there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.
October 14th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
JD,
First of all, I’d hardly say that our government allows “unfettered exploitation” of the American people. Even the people who bought homes they couldn’t afford got to live in them until it all hit the fan. And even now, they can foreclose and walk away from them. Yes this is a hard thing to go through, but the net of it is that you go from living in a house that you can’t afford to an apartment that you can afford.
Unfettered exploitation is a good description of the average Chinese factory worker today.
The freer the market is, the better able it is to adapt to the changing conditions that are inevitable, considering the amount of people that participate every day. The market is too complex to function with a lot of government restrictions. I personally don’t believe in a completely unregulated market, but the idea of adding more regulation is not the answer here.
(On a side note, when the government broke up AT&T and stopped setting long-distance rates, the price of long distance calls dropped considerably.)
Can you give an example of a country that has a lot of government control on the market, but is still prosperous?
October 14th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
From JD:
“That’s dangerous, ans it puts the profit motive above the public good in many cases.”
The profit motive is what gets us out of bed before sunrise in the dead of winter when it’s 20 below to go to work.
People’s altruism only goes so far. The profit motive works all the time. It’s not always for the best, but it works.
Another thing to remember is that ultimately, the buyer is responsible for how he spends his money. If you can’t afford it, don’t buy it. Don’t assume the value of what you are buying will continue to rise or that you will be making enough money in a few years to cover the increasing cost of your mortgage. Also, pay attention to your investments. Who didn’t know there was a real estate bubble going on?
October 14th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“Can you give an example of a country that has a lot of government control on the market, but is still prosperous?”
We have a mixed economy in the USA, which is the most sucessful type of economy the world over. Many, many of our allies have sucessfull mixed economies as well.
October 14th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Pat, thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it very much.