There is an idea brewing in our nation and at the heart of
this election that people like myself who prefer economic decisions to be made
by individuals in the market - are not as compassionate as people who prefer
those decisions be made collectively by politicians and ‘Central Planners’ in
Washington.
This belief has been held by at least some in society, and
from time-to-time has begun to grow, and then later decline. It is seldom even
thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.
Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a
worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in
all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort
on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.
When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American
conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that
conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their
incomes to philanthropic activities. Conservatives also donated more of their
time, volunteering for causes and actually donated far more blood than
liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results.
What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to
ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more
compassionate.
Milton Friedman pointed out that the heyday of free-market
capitalism in the 19th and 20th centuries was a period of an unprecedented rise
in philanthropic activity.
The Basic Point of Debate (and much disagreement) as a part
of this election is simply this:
Helping those who have been struck by unforeseeable misfortunes is
fundamentally different from making dependency a way of life.
Once again, as back in the 1980’s – we are facing a decision
and making arguments about what is good or even inherently bad about welfare.
Many on the left try to shut down the debate in order to
shut out conservatives by insisting that we are evil, lack compassion, greedy,
etc. Well… based on various studies, conservatives are provably compassionate –
so certainly people who are Democrats or otherwise are exaggerating when they
try to argue that we are greedy and lack compassion for the poor.
Here is a university study regarding this premise. The study
titled THE MORAL STEREOTYPES OF LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES; conducted by the University of Southern California, Los Angeles & the University of Virginia,Charlottesville, VA.
The questions and conclusion of this exhaustive included but were not limited to:
Who is most accurate and who exaggerated the most when it
comes to stereotypes about liberals and conservatives? Answer was - It depends
on the type or definition of morality.
In the end, the study concluded that people in both the
Liberal and Conservatives camps certainly exaggerate. The study answered the question – who was
most accurate when describing the morality or moral concerns of the opposing
side?
Conclusion –
Conservatives were most accurate about the individual-focused moral concerns of
either side, and liberals were least accurate. (Liberals were more likely to
exaggerate their position or about their perceived positions of others).
This again begs the question – “Is it more moral to have a
system that perpetuates dependency on government or charity? – or – Is it more
moral to have a system the provably lifts more people out of poverty and
eliminates dependency on government and charity? The results of the conservative
policies of the 80’s and 90’s. - we now know that welfare reform and
conservative fiscal policy lifted up the middle class and lifted more people
out of poverty than any other 10 to 20 year period in our nation’s history.
This question was at the very heart of the welfare reform
debates of the 1980’s; and it is again today. One of the greatest contributors
to the debates and the ultimate changes in policy came from author Charles Murray
who became well known for his book titled ‘Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980’ in 1984, which discussed
the American welfare system.
When conservatives accuse Barack Obama and some on the left
of ‘Class Warfare’ – what we mean is that although the big word on the left is
"compassion," the big agenda on the left is dependency. The more
people who are dependent on government handouts, the more votes the left can
depend on for an ever-expanding welfare state.
Optimistic Republicans who say that widespread unemployment
and record numbers of people on food stamps hurt President Obama's re-election
chances are overlooking the fact that people who are dependent on government
are more likely to vote for politicians who are giving them handouts.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt understood that, back during
the Great Depression of the 1930s. He was re-elected in a landslide after his
first term, during which unemployment was in double digits every single month,
and in some months was over 20 percent.
It is high time for us conservatives to boldly state the
truth – that we actually hold the moral high ground when it comes to the ‘results of our compassion’. I use that term because I wish to point out and acknowledge
that most liberals are compassionate people – they have a genuine heart for
people in need and want to help them. Most conservatives are also compassionate
– we just simply disagree on which policies and approaches actually help and
provide the best possible outcomes.
We now have the recorded history that concretely proves that
conservative policies have lifted more people out of poverty than any other
form of leadership.
Under conservative leadership in 1986 and by the latter year
the nation was well into a 96-month-long economic recovery during which 20
million new jobs were created -- the longest peacetime economic expansion in
modern American history.
·
20 million new jobs were created; Inflation
dropped from 13.5% in 1980 to 4.1%
·
During Reagan’s Administration, growth in
government spending plummeted from 10% ... The seemingly insatiable Federal
government was on a much-needed diet.
·
The net worth of families earning between
$20,000 and $50,000 annually grew by 27%.
·
Real gross national product rose 26%.
·
The prime interest rate was slashed by more than
half, from an unprecedented 21.5% in January 1981 to 10% in August 1988.
·
Given actual rates of inflation, through 1987,
the Reagan tax cuts saved the median-income two-earner American family of four
close to $9,000 in taxes from what it would have owed in 1980.
What about the 1990’s
under Bill Clinton – With a Republican Controlled House & Senate
Clinton ushered in a robust economic growth by COOPERATING
WITH CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP.
Clinton cooperated with Republicans in the 1990’s to:
- Cut spending – Obama’s plan dramatically increases spending.
- Lower personal and corporate taxes – Obama plans to raise taxes.
- Usher in welfare reform that ultimately reduced the welfare rolls by 54% and put millions into jobs – Obama recently wiped away the foundations that created success in welfare reform - under Obama’s leadership the welfare rolls have more than doubled and are at record highs.
In the mid to end of 1980’s the economy set new records of
growth that improved the lives of millions of Americans. This carried over into
the 1990’s. In 1996 the economy was still growing.
The time is long overdue for optimistic Republicans to
understand what FDR understood long ago, and what Barack Obama clearly
understands today. Dependency pays off in votes — unless somebody alerts the
taxpayers who get stuck with the bill.
The Obama administration is shamelessly advertising in the
media — whether on billboards or on television — for people to get on food
stamps. Welfare state bureaucrats have been sent into supermarkets to tell
shoppers that food stamps are available.
I am looking for Romney/Ryan and Conservatives to make ‘Moral Arguments’
for conservative fiscal policy. The results clearly show that our policy legitimately
has a better moral outcome than liberal policies.
Sources:
No comments:
Post a Comment