|
Politics, as a practice, always has been the competition of men and women
for power. Some may seek power to do good, others because it is personally
gratifying, self-esteeming, and rewarding. But many embark upon politics to "redistribute" income,
wealth, and privilege from one social group to another. Their thinking is guided
by notions of social concern and economic conflict.
Conflict doctrines are much older than the teaching of economic harmony. 17th
and 18th century economic thought, commonly called Mercantilism, fostered much
national conflict and led to numerous wars in Europe and the Americas. 18th
and 19th century Classical economists perceiving basic harmony of interests
in freedom sought to pacify the world. Adam Smith wrote of a great "propensity
to truck and barter" which, under competition, would lead to division of labor
and peaceful cooperation. But later critics of nationalistic and socialistic
persuasion were convinced that economic interests do not match, that private
capitalists are apt to be exploiters and spoilers. The most influential economist
of our age, John Maynard Keynes, recommended large-scale government economic
planning that would stimulate the market economy and promote employment. Many
Americans have been enamored with such stimulation notions ever since.
Since the 1930s Democratic and Republican administrations have taken government
economic planning far beyond the Keynesian proposal. They added countless social
and economic laws to benefit the mass of working people who now like to ask: "What
have you done for us lately?" And they may want to know: "What will you do
for us in the coming years? What is your agenda?" But government can only dole
out what it extracts from taxpayers, borrows from investors, or fleeces from
inflation victims; it has no treasure-troves other than the income and wealth
of its subjects. Yet, most politicians -- always looking over their shoulders
to see if their supporters and voters are still there -- never tire of promising
according to the voters' hopes. Their promises tend to divide the country into
beneficiaries who hope to reap and the victims who are forced to settle.
Social legislation and regulation were born from political strife, are enjoying
a full and varied life and tend to corrupt and weaken democratic institutions.
Americans don't like to be reminded that social legislation was the invention
of a German chancellor, Otto von Bismarck. During the 1880s he devised and
introduced a complex system of social security consisting of compulsory accident
insurance, sickness insurance, and old age pensions in order to entreat and
coax working people away from his political opposition. He was eminently successful;
the workers came to believe in their rights to benefits by law and decree.
German parliamentary procedure soon became an endless brawl about social benefits
and their ways of payment. Defeated and impoverished in World War I, Germany
faced the threat of civil war, with uprisings in Hamburg, Saxony and Thuringia.
The army ruled the land throughout a state of emergency from October 1923 to
February 1924. When, a few years later, the Great Depression descended on Germany
and countless labor laws and regulations strangled the economy and prevented
labor markets from adjusting, the rate of unemployment soared to 30 percent.
In deep depression and political disarray Adolf Hitler came to power.
Surely, no one is suggesting that the United States is following in the footsteps
of Nazi Germany. But this writer is convinced that the very ideological forces
that destroyed old Germany are gnawing at the foundations of American society.
They are visible in the race riots that occasionally erupt in American cities.
In 1965, a residential section of south central Los Angeles, called Watts,
was the cite of six days of race riots that claimed 34 lives. Riots again erupted
in 1992, causing the death of 58 people and approximately $1 billion in property
damage. If serious economic difficulties were to descend on the United States
with unemployment rising to Great Depression levels, we may see more burning
cities and bloody riots. Economic conflict doctrines permeate all levels of
information and education.
Mass media are the wholesalers and retailers of public opinion. Echoing and
reinforcing public thinking or even accentuating it, they love controversies
and confrontations. Tales of exploitation and unemployment excite readers and
listeners more than stories of steady improvements in working conditions. Ugly
encounter carries further than peaceful cooperation. In an election year, ambitious
politicians ever eager to garner votes busily fan the conflict. Speaking to
African-Americans, for instance, they may call for new policies that spend
more money on early childhood and other educational programs than on sending
people to prison. They may even suggest that there are more black Americans
in prison than in college, which, whether true or false, surely supports and
refines the conflict doctrine and points the way to more riots to come.
Social peace, like war, begins in the minds of men and propagates in classrooms
and the media. It is born of individual freedom and the unhampered private
property order. It lives in free societies that safeguard the lives and respect
the rights of their citizens. It dies when envy supplants morality and spurious
doctrines cause men to prey on each other.
|