It sounds quite noble for the Democrat Party to claim that it is “protecting democracy,” but given that the super majority of us are already pro-democracy, is this meaningful? A democracy simply means that, for better or worse, the citizens periodically choose their government representatives. Would it not be more meaningful to understand upfront where these political parties stand in terms of economic theory? Why can’t each party clearly proclaim that it is either “protecting free-market capitalism” or “protecting socialism”?
Because as you will see, protecting democracy by itself is not enough.
Recall that in 1932 the German Nazi party rose to power via democratic elections, with Hitler as its leader. More recently, Nicolas Maduro was democratically elected as the President of Venezuela in 2013, and has remained in power ever since, thwarting the will of the people. What these two examples have in common is that the scope and power of their respective governments expanded until democracy was no longer in effect.
Which leads to my observation that:
Democracy is most at risk when the government grows powerful enough to ignore it.
As the people of Venezuela are experiencing today, once lost, democracy is extremely difficult to restore.
Which implies that to truly protect democracy, the voters must vote in a way that constrains the size and scope of government. This is the opposite of socialism, which by its very nature requires a large and pervasive government.
The problem is that the allure of socialism is admittedly strong. Politicians that promote free healthcare, subsidized housing and student loan forgiveness are viewed by many as compassionate angels, whereas those that promote individual responsibility and lower taxes for corporations are perceived as cold-hearted bastards.
This exposes the inherent flaw of democracy, because like a moth drawn to a flame, people tend to vote for more free stuff. Winston Churchill best summarizes this when he said, “the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
Given that each step towards a more socialized economy requires an even larger government, why is it that the political party that continues to push for more socialism simultaneously promotes itself as the “protector of democracy”?
Looks like a case of doublespeak to me.
A shift towards socialism implies that the government makes increasingly more of the decisions pertaining to the reallocation of economic wealth. This explains why the defining sign of a socialist is that they constantly berate the wealthy and large corporations (the competing wealth allocation decision makers), blaming them for all sorts of immoral behavior, thus implying that a benevolent and caring government will make better wealth allocation decisions.
More doublespeak, as history has proven time after time that this is simply not true. Overly socialized economies tend to perform poorly, resulting in a gradual decline in the standard of living. A recent example being the demise of the Argentinian economy, plunging from one of the wealthiest nations to one with a failed economy, complete with hyper-inflation and mass emigration.
Such an economic demise is always accompanied by the devaluation of the currency, which is entirely the result of government overspending. Modern Monetary Theory academics were correct in claiming that a government that prints its own currency can never run out of money. But what they fail to point out is that a society can have plenty of money while running low on wealth. Blaming inflation on corporations and inventing fantasy terms such as “greedflation” is just more doublespeak. High inflation is a very efficient regressive tax, always required by an overly centralized, inefficient economy paired with a government desperately trying to distribute more of the promised “free” stuff.
My second observation:
A stubbornly high rate of inflation suggests that the economy is already too socialized.
As there appears to be no upper limit on the ability of politicians to promise and spend, the required redistribution of wealth becomes increasingly difficult to implement. Once the rate of inflation becomes too high to ignore, combined with the reality that only so much tax revenue can be extracted from large corporations and wealthy individuals, one popular next step is to promote class/culture warfare, to cast the blame for the economic weakness on a “privileged minority.”
Yes, this should bring to mind the 1930’s when the Jews were blamed for Germany’s economic misfortunes.
The grandest play is to create a fantastic new reason to expand the size and scope of government. What better reason than an existential threat to humanity? Could be a virus, or a gradual increase in the Earth’s temperature. Or both.
I am a moderate libertarian and deeply believe that the wealth-creating power of free market capitalism has raised billions out of poverty. I believe that government must be limited in size for free markets to thrive, for the standard of living to improve for all, and for modern technologies to be developed to properly address all future challenges.
While our two party system has for the most part prevented a Libertarian from becoming President, I was a co-sponsor of a recent CATO event in Argentina, supporting President Milei’s efforts to revive the Argentinian economy. Milei is the lone Libertarian world leader, democratically elected, trying something truly radical. Reducing the size of a bloated government.
I hope he succeeds.
Along with CATO I will also continue to support individual Libertarians running for office, one example being Justin Amash, attempting to become a Senator from Michigan.
At the national level, the best I can do is to vote as far away from socialism as possible, which usually means voting for Republican candidates. This does not imply that I am particularly happy with them, as too many Republicans voted for spending monstrosities such as the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,” the “Chips and Science Act” and the so-called “Inflation Reduction Act.”
These pigs required a lot of lipstick, with all directly contributing to the high inflation you are experiencing today.
As a believer in democracy, I will respect whoever you vote for. However, I encourage you to vote for what is in your best interest in terms of your future standard of living, and refrain from voting primarily along superficial factors such as gender or ethnic lines. Socialism is a terrible lie, and as our economy runs low on wealth, prices for housing, food and medical care will remain out of reach for many, with no easy solution. I am particularly concerned for the elderly that are dependent on Medicare and Social Security, two spending programs that will soon be insolvent, and that will require more economic wealth to deliver on their promises.
In alignment with my political compass, this election I will be voting for Trump. Not because of his charming personality, but because I believe in the wealth-creating power of free-market capitalism. Because our country needs a more efficient economy, and Trump and the Republicans are more likely to deliver this than the more socialist Democrats.
Comments