I’m part of a just-posted online Debate Club sponsored by U.S. News & World Report which asks “Is the United States a Nation of ‘Makers and Takers?'”
My contribution to the discussion is basically a reworked version of what I wrote last week about Romney and the infamous 47 percent remark, so there’s no need to regurgitate those remarks. Suffice to say that I gave an answer of “No” because Americans don’t (yet!) share the European belief that it is government’s responsibility to provide the basics of life.
What’s interesting is that the two other participants in the debate (Phil Kerpen and Scott Winship) who are closest to my views answered “Yes,” while the three leftists sided with me and voted “No.”
But not because the leftists agreed with me on policy, or because I disagreed with Phil or Scott. I think the strange divergence is a result of me being very literal (some would say pedantic) about the question that was asked while the rest of the participants addressed the broader issue of whether there’s too much or too little means-tested redistribution.
So allow me to take a moment to elaborate on my remarks. My answer was driven by my belief that American exceptionalism – limited government, self reliance, and personal responsibility – is still real. I linked above to one poll comparing American and European attitudes, but I also invite you to review very important polling data here and here.
But I’m not under any illusions that this is a permanent feature of the U.S. political landscape. People can be lulled into dependency. Indeed, some leftists are very honest about admitting their desire to turn more and more Americans into wards of the state. Bill Clinton’s pollster wrote a book in the 1990s in which he explicitly acknowledged that part of the debate over Hillarycare was about the degree to which the middle class would have to rely on the federal government.
And a recording of Barack Obama from 1998 has recently surfaced, and it reveals both an ideological and a political desire to expand government dependency. Here’s an excerpt from the Daily Caller.
The Daily Caller has obtained a complete audio recording of the October 19, 1998 Loyola College forum on community organizing and policymaking during which a future President Barack Obama said he favored the government redistribution of wealth. …Obama also said he viewed welfare recipients and “the working poor” as “a majority coalition” that could be mobilized to help advance progressive policies and elect their champions. …The full recording reveals that Obama saw welfare recipients and the working poor in Chicago as a “majority coalition” who could be leveraged politically.“What I think will re-engage people in politics is if we’re doing significant, serious policy work around what I will label the ‘working poor,’” he said… “They are struggling. And to the extent that we are doing research figuring out what kinds of government action would successfully make their lives better, we are then putting together a potential majority coalition to move those agendas forward.”
Set aside the policy arguments here about redistribution undermining progress in the fight against poverty and making it difficult for the less fortunate to climb the economic ladder.
What’s significant is the extent to which Clinton’s pollster and Obama both explicitly talk about redistribution as a political tool. Take money from a minority (i.e., class-warfare tax policy) and give it to enough voters to create a political majority.
I hate to admit it, but the evidence from Europe shows this can be a successful political strategy.
The only downside – as shown in this parable about beer and this great Chuck Asay cartoon – is that the scam only works so long as there are people willing to get fleeced.
I once argued on TV that leftists should be careful not to be too greedy because it doesn’t make sense for parasites to kill their host animals. And Michael Barone made the same point in a more eloquent fashion.
But I think this analysis is flawed. The Greek politicians who created the welfare state were very successful in buying votes. They’re now out of office, either dead or retired with fat pensions, as the house of cards is collapsing.
So if you’re Obama or some other current-day politician (and assuming you don’t care about the future), what’s the downside of expanding the burden of government spending?
P.S. You can vote for who had the best Debate Club argument, so please don’t hesitate to click the up arrow. Presumably thanks to readers of International Liberty, I’ve prevailed in previous debates on double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics.
[…] unfortunate self-interest in supporting politicians who want a bigger welfare state. Indeed, I’ve explicitly warned that some statist politicians explicitly want to create more dependency to advance their […]
[…] self-interest in supporting politicians who want a bigger welfare state. Indeed, I’ve explicitly warned that some statist politicians explicitly want to create more dependency to advance their […]
[…] self-interest in supporting politicians who want a bigger welfare state. Indeed, I’ve explicitly warned that some statist politicians explicitly want to create more dependency to advance their […]
[…] In other words, the White House is willing to sacrifice the rule of law (not to mention quality health care) in order to achieve a political goal of expanded dependency. […]
It is sad that the takers won the election.
[…] America Isn’t (Yet) a Divided Nation of “Makers” and “Takers,” but some on the Left Are Pu… […]
[…] prevailed in previous debates on makers-v-takers, double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics. With your […]
[…] prevailed in previous debates on makers-v-takers, double taxation, European fiscal policy, flat tax, Internet taxation, and Obamanomics. With your […]
I am a firm believer that our country was built on the ideas of limited government, self-reliance and personal responsibility. I hope these values win out. Ronald Reagan believed in growing the economy and putting people to work. I think we need to cut government spending and end the welfare trap but requiring work out of those who recieve like Bill Clinton believed. We must change the direction the our country is heading (which is to Greece).
[…] America Isn’t (Yet) a Divided Nation of “Makers” and “Takers,” but some on the Left Are Pu… […]
.
I agree.
However, after a certain point, the vicious cycle of convergence towards a European low growth Equilibrium — well, as we are now seeing that equilibrium is rather short lived on a historical time scale as Europe is entering its new rapid decline phase — takes a life of its own.
So has the point of no return passed for Americans? In my view YES.
The fact that Americans elected Obama in 2008 to fix Bush’s mistakes, the fact that about half of Americans see little danger in giving him another four years of pummeling American differentiation from the rest of the world, tells me that the remaining half of Americans are also mostly clueless about what propelled America to its current top prosperity spot in the world. With so many Americans oblivious to the root cause of American exceptionalism and success, the point of no return has definitely passed. The original historically serendipitous huge endowment of freedom that Americans were fortunate to receive at the creation of their nation, cannot last forever, unless recognized and revered.
It is no coincidence that virtually every other country in the world is different than America. People have an almost pre-programmed self-destructive tendency towards mandatory collectivism (served humanity well for 99% of its past virtually stagnant history, but is now destructive – but that is another topic…). The norm is that people CAN and WILL be lured into the self-destructive spiral of mandatory collectivism. Finally a competent orator has emerged to take Americans across in this journey of convergence to worldwide mediocrity. The process will not take long from this point on. We are living in an ever increasing pace of human change. Changes of fortune that used to take centuries, will now complete in mere couple of decades. Those Americans who think that is a fate for the next generation to reckon with, are fooling themselves.
As Europe suggests, an equilibrium of people willing to be fleeced can be achieved, albeit for a couple of decades. Because, in today’s world of three billion newly and (albeit partially) awakened and freed emerging world souls, the “European Equilibrium” is the equilibrium of growing at 1-2% in a world that grows by 5%. It is thus the equilibrium of losing 3-4% of your relative prosperity standing per year. So it is not an equilibrium that can last long — as Europe is now realizing, by entering the next phase, accelerated decline. Americans are on the same course. Too bad that the person that came forward to usher Americans in this self-destructive journey happens to be the first racially diverse president of the US. Too bad indeed that this great advance in racial diversity will be dwarfed by the ushering into systemic decline.
Thatchers observation has never been sucessfully answered. Greece is there now, they ran out of other peoples’ money. This idea needs to be buried under the grave stone of “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
This is how the Left finds new voters.