The Economic Philosophies Do Battle

There are deep, emotional and opposing philosophical beliefs by many an American about our economic system. "Generally," the political right says the system is just dandy, that only the private sector can do things efficiently, that government is the enemy (except in military matters), that the free markets are supreme and never wrong, and that giving money to the country's wealthiest people via tax cuts will help everyone. The political left is "generally" against all of the above, to put it simply, calling tax cuts to the wealthy "trickle down economics," and generally supporting government intervention during downturns, and supporting government aid to help level the playing field and give a helping hand up for those not born into wealth, and to help those damaged by the sharp edges of capitalism. My "guess" is, most Americans hold opinions "somewhere in the middle" of all of this, with their opinions about specific aspects of the American economic system often colored by their own experiences, and also likely being at times contradictory. I also "assume" some Americans swing back and forth, depending upon the political winds, but again more likely swayed by their own perceived sense of how things are going for themselves and for the country at any given moment. These are the people who generally determine the outcome of national elections. During the self centered individualism of the 1920s, these kinds of folks leaned toward the more conservative pro-business approach mentioned above, and they voted Republican.* When that system imploded, bringing about the Great Depression, many of these people turned with a vengeance on their own previously held beliefs. Not only did they vote Democratic, but they helped to make the general liberal-progressive philosophy the dominant political philosophy of the country for decades, as the economic collapse showed them how we need each other, and how government can help, although sometimes imperfectly. Throughout that progressive era, the rich were still the rich and they did just fine.

For more than three decades now the country has moved in the direction essentially favored by those on the political right. I think it's a fair assumption to say that even many on the political right have a feeling the country has been going downhill. Part of the rationale for the Tea Party was that the country had to be righted (no pun intended). The funny thing was, many in the Tea Party blamed the newly elected Barack Obama as the culprit, rather than to look back at how wealth has ascended to the top in record amounts. You can like Obama, or not like Obama, but to act as if the country's problems all began when he took office is not only unfair, it's living in serious denial. They never admit that the economic philosophy they've supported has anything to do with the nation's decline. No, they're looking for scapegoats. Scapegoats who will give them a chance to keep from looking at themselves and at the ideas they've supported, because that's just too scary to face. Many arguments are not easily refuted until they have been tested, and the trickle down economics of the last few decades has had more than its day in court. It doesn't work, except for the upper incomes, where the richest 400 now control more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans; that is, almost half of the country.

Throughout the trickle down era there has been a war on government, and that's no coincidence, because the greediest of the superegos are far more fearful of what government CAN do, than what it can't do, when it comes to their self interest. The removal of regulations, tepid enforcement of existing regulations, one-sided trade deals, tax cuts heavily weighted to top earners, all combined to put many Americans in a stagnant income period, at best (in actual purchasing power), and many have not been "so lucky," as their incomes have actually fallen. We need regulation and adequate tax policy before the egomaniacs among the wealthy destroy all of us, a feat some nearly accomplished just a few short years ago, and from which we still have not fully recovered, although they have done VERY well in the same time frame. If you're further out on the left, these kinds of changes will not be adequate for you, but it's good to remember, progress is generally slow, and progressives need to start making progress on economic matters. Conservatives will fight tooth and nail to derail change, that's what conservatism does. It's also good to keep in mind, America's original conservatives in the era when the colonies moved toward independence, favored rule by England, but once independence was gained, conservatives joined in.

Coming soon; in fact, maybe next, I'll have some support for the wealthy, but I doubt conservatives will like it anyway.  

* While the two major political parties have changed dramatically since the 1920s, the post-Teddy Roosevelt Republicans moved much more toward pro-business stances, although in those times labor unions often supported the GOP, and black Americans were nearly 100% Republican. The Great Depression turned the tables so much and gave Democrats such a leg up, the Republicans had little room on the political spectrum to maneuver. They ever so gradually began their march to where they are today on the political right, with really no "liberal Republicans," a once common element of the GOP, and with moderately conservative members seemingly intimidated by vocal right wing activists. The party has moved so far to the right, former moderate Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George Bush Sr. rarely, if ever, even get a mention by today's Republicans (some Democrats mention them more favorably than Republicans); and, even Ronald Reagan's conservative credentials have been questioned by some on the right who have said he was "too moderate." Of course the pro-business and pro-wealthy tax cuts and other such policies of George W. Bush get a thumbs up from Republicans, but they rarely mention him either, as it's tough to criticize Obama and Democrats for bank and auto company bailouts, when it was Bush who started these programs (see note at end of this paragraph). Then too, federal deficits exploded under Bush, as a combination of tax cuts, unfunded wars, an unfunded Medicare expansion, unfunded homeland security, stagnant wages for many, lower wages for some (less tax revenue), and a later imploding economy saw the deficit soar to about 1.4 trillion dollars when Bush left office. (Note: The bailouts by Bush are to his credit, in my opinion, and Democrats can't have it both ways either, supporting Obama's moves in these matters, but denouncing Bush's. There most certainly needed to be "conditions" on the bailouts, but without the overall bailouts, we likely would have suffered a far worse collapse on the order of the 1930s. Bush was slow coming to the ballgame, always having touted "free markets," but in the end, he stepped up to the plate, with several Republicans in Congress voting against his proposals.)

WORD HISTORY:
Who-This common word goes back to Indo European "kwis/kwos," with the meanings "who," "which," "what," depending upon usage, with variations in pronunciation for usage also. This gave its Old Germanic offspring "hwas/hwos" (as the "kw" had softened to "hw") with the same meanings, but also "how," and again with spelling/pronunciation variations depending upon usage. This gave Old English (Anglo-Saxon) "hwa," which meant "who." This eventually evolved into modern "who." The variant spellings/pronunciations mentioned above evolved into modern English "whom" (for the object) and "whose" (for possessive or the genitive), while other forms evolved into "how," "where," "why," "which," and "what." Because of the wide number of variations, it is sometimes difficult to see the relationship of these numerous English words to each other, let alone to their Germanic cousins, but here they are for "who," and they all are from the same source as the English word: German and Low German Saxon have "wer," Dutch has "wie,"^ Frisian has "wa," Danish has "hvo," Norwegian has "hvem," Swedish has "vem," and Icelandic has "hver."

^ In German "wie" means "how."