Posted on 05/23/2010 9:53:12 AM PDT by neverdem
America faces a new culture war.
This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new struggle between two competing visions of the country's future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise...
--snip--
To win, the 70 percent majority must come together around core principles: that the purpose of free enterprise is human flourishing, not materialism; that we stand for equality of opportunity, not equality of income; that we seek to stimulate true prosperity rather than simply treat poverty; and that we believe in principle over power.
This final idea is particularly challenging. In Washington, a lot of people think they know how to win. They say what is needed are telegenic candidates, dirty tricks and lots of campaign money. To them, thinking long-term means thinking all the way to 2012. In other words, they talk only of tactics, parties and power.
They are wrong. What matters most to Americans is the commitment to principle, not the exercise of power. The electorate did not repudiate free enterprise in 2008; it simply punished an unprincipled Republican Party.
But political turmoil can lead to renewal, and the challenges of this new culture war can help us mobilize and reassert our principles. The 2008 election was perhaps exactly what America needed. Today there is a very real threat that the 30 percent coalition may transform our great nation forever. I hope this threat will clear our thinking enough to bring forth leaders -- regardless of political party -- with our principles at heart and the ideas to match. If free enterprise triumphs over the quest for political power, America will be the stronger for it.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Amazing that this was in the Washington ComPost.
“that the purpose of free enterprise is human flourishing, not materialism; that we stand for equality of opportunity, not equality of income; that we seek to stimulate true prosperity rather than simply treat poverty; and that we believe in principle over power.”
Excellent Quote. We need to keep this ahead of us as a rallying cry and as a philosophy of every true conservative.
Government was givened a chance in the 1930’s till 1970’s. It failed with overspending, taxes and entitlements bankrupting the country. 1980’s till 2008 free enterprise was givened a chance. They gave Wall Street scheming, financial bubbles, too big to fail, liar loans, off shoring American jobs, H-1/H-2 guest worker abuse and support for illegal immigrant labor. Wealth based on borrowing and leveraging and schemes that past bankers/government officials never dare dream of in the past. Sept 2008 free enterprise almost destroyed the US economy. IT ALSO FAILED. Time for a third way, smaller companies, cash reserve before investing additional money in risky endeavors, companies cannot leverage and learn to pay with savings and not with credit/borrowing. This should be applied to government, business and personal fiancial practices.
So-called "Progressives" like Obama and Edwards focus on the wrong end of the spectrum in order to purchase votes from those who don't understand that you can't eliminate poverty by destroying the creators of wealth.
Both Edwards and Obama would have been better off reading that great moral philosopher, Adam Smith, instead of Marx.
Smith advocated individual liberty, because he understood that individual enterprise utilizes human self-interest to benefit all.
Marx advocated collective force by some imperfect persons in the society to confiscate and transfer the earnings of some to all.
Smith's idea, as implemented in the United States, produced liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for individuals and for a nation which became a bastion of freedom and breadbasket of the world.
Wherever Marx's ideas have been implemented, they have produced a coercive political power capable of oppressing individuals and producing poverty.
Smith investigated "The Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations," and found that individual enterprise and freedom produced both opportunity and wealth.
Tyrants use the Marxian idea to buy votes and amass power and wealth to themselves, leaving the masses in confusion and servitude to government.
The excess you allude to were hardly the result of free enterprise, instead the bulk of the excesses arose from rent seeking cronyism and politicians trying to buy votes by interfering with sound loan practices aid a abetted by fiat money loaned out at artificially low interest rates created by a the Federal Reserve. Further, creation of a morale hazard by bailing out failed companies was the antithesis of free markets. ,p>A more accurate term for you you describes corporatism. A true free market system would come closer to the end state you envision. The creative destruction of steep but short economic corrections quickly weed out those enterprise built on speculation instead of sound business.
The world government that obamimarx embraces no room for individual ideas or capitalism.
Only amazing until you look at the readers comments, then it becomes very apparent that the Post’s audience has either a malicious attitude towards capitalism or—to use a presidential word—is very “misdirected.”
Free enterprise allows for the creation of corporations that represent sizeable portion of GDP and/or employ hundreds of thousands of people. If you are a CEO of such corporations you hold the power to be heard or bully politicians/regulators. A guy with a bicycle shop hiring 10 person cannot threaten Congress that if he does not get a bailout for his failed business he will bring down the US economy. GM and Chrysler on the other hand can. Their CEO’s basicly said if we go bankrupt we fire 100,000 workers and car part companies and dealers who rely on us will lay off another 900,000 workers. Thus 2 companies created by free enterprise can add 1 million people to the unemployment ranks. What typical politician wants to hurt his re election prospects by causing up to 1 million jobs loss???? In boom times, a CEO representing 100,000+ jobs or a banker representing 5 plus percent of GDP will be heard by gov representatives because pissing him off will have financial, economical and eventually political consequences. Worst, studies are now showing that the larger the corporations, there is a tendency the corporation relied on high leveraged loans for the expansion and sooner or later successor CEO attempting to out do last years profit will over reach and bring down the whole company because its loans are larger than its assets, thus pulling down the lender in the process thus triggering a financial crisis that politicians maybe forced to use taxpayer money for a temporary loan to prevent an economic downturn which will threaten their reelection prospects. The sad part local state governments operate in the same manner and the federal government may not be able to stop bailing them out because the state reps in Congress will force them to do so or face increased unemployment in their own states as hundreds of thousands of state workers are laid off and unemployed workers lose their unemployment benefits. Government does play a role in this diseaster, but I must point out that during the late 1950’s and early 1960’s interest rates were very low, you did not see banks and corporations leverage like crazy nor did you see consumers take out second mortgages to buy consumer goods either.
California: “European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution” = FAIL
Texas: “organized around the principles of free enterprise — limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces” = SUCCESS
Yes, it is time to choose.
There were a few good comments and I made sure I hit the recommend tab for those. The other comments left me feeling like I need a shower.
References http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_economy
There can indeed be a compelling interest to limit the size of corporations (or other non-government organizations such as labor unions) to prevent formation of quasi/parallel government like power.
It is indeed amazing to find this in the Wash Post. It’s very well written, and very unifying in its approach to the 70:30 division in our nation.
There are two good books out that freepers may not agree totally with, but should be familiar with. First book is call “End of Global Free Markets”. It describes the traumatized average guy in the street as the financial crisis hits him, and right now they are in no mood to place their trust in private corporations. This feeling is deep and real, and should serve as a red flag for any political candidate that keeps espousing faith in free markets and may end up losing elections and not knowing why. The second book is call “The Black Swan” which describes the problem of large global corporate practices that emphasize very little on cash reserves and heavilly relies on leveraging and debt to expand and create wealth. All that is good in boom times but when the economy goes bust these corporations are unable to cover the debt leaving the lender and ultimately the taxpayer on the hook for a bailout. Unfortunately acting just like large corporations, the consumer society also practices the same principle on a personal level adding to social woes as the economy tanks.
Obama and his thousands of 1960s Marxist-Alinsky campus/street-rabble, ideological parents have revealed that they want a Soviet USSR "So be it. You' ass is ours."
Obama's regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, et al speak openly of libertarian paternalism or paternal libertarianism, whatever -- so some say call it "socialized capitalism."
It means as far as I can figure that like free enterprise we are free to decide among options but government dictates the options.
Let's make sure that the liberty and free enterprise which we debate with the enemy of both are in fact the ones with the pedigrees -- not the phony ones of the Left.
It’s new in the sense that “The Cultural Revolution” was new to “The Great Leap Forward” in China. I think FDR took care of our great leap forward.
“Amazing that this was in the Washington ComPost.”
That’s what I thought! Wonder what happened.
Don't fear, there's a middle way. It's called "Fascism," and you're living in it.
Any knowledge person referring to these situations as free markets is deliberately being disingenuous, with the likely intent to undermine property rights and usher in collectivist social and economic schemes. The whole of debt we’ve dug could not happen to this extent without corporatism (if you’re not familar with the term, please don’t assume it’s rooted from the word corporation).
You are using the same arguments that Communist were saying after the Soviet Union fell. The East Bloc cannot be used as an example of Communism because they did not follow the true theory of Communism where the government authority will fade away as society transform to a true Communist state. Thus they argue that the public should give Communism a second chance. Free market people are using the same argument. Less regs, no government interference, super rich people are really politically benign and powerless in influence and the failure of Sept 2008 was not true free market, thus despite the economic meltdown and undue influence of free market corporations on government policy, the public should give free market a second chance. The average man on the street ain’t buying the theory anymore. Guess the world must find another economic system that is not based on Communism, Socialism, Big Government and Capitalism. That will be the challenge of the 21st Century America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.