Pragmatism is Relevant to Recovery: Misunderstood Difference of Liberal and Conservative Idealism
Much of the liberal media is writing that all elected officials should yield their own held convictions to the ideals espoused by President Obama because the election was a mandate for change. The Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, wrote in the New York Times that the last eight years resulted in the current catastrophe because of the Republican ideals of “wasteful government spending and the wonders of tax cuts”. Essentially he is saying that a clash of ideas occurred from which the conclusion can be clearly drawn that conservatism failed and that progressive liberalism is now proven to be the superior course we need to chart on our way to economic recovery.
The past eight years of George Bush were not demonstrations of Republican ideals. Gluttonous engorgement of the Federal budget was encouraged by both Democrats and and Republicans. Personal and corporate tax rates in the United States continued to rank as among the highest in the civilized world.
Mr. Krugman and others feel that the most important part of helping with a economic recovery is not through tax cuts but should be based upon aid to state and local governments. This no doubt assumes that a fair and equitable system will be developed to reasonable determine how to prioritize the aid, who gets aid and who does not, and how it will be overseen. The problem is that the prototypical solution in reality may not work.
Government is very much like an NFL football team. Ingenious plays involving intricate coordinated movements of players alone will not win games or lead to championships. Successful execution of organized human activities requires an understanding of what will work and what will not in real life settings not in the laboratory.
Initially the concept of giving the nation’s banks billions of dollars to stabilize the credit structure for private individuals and commercial enterprise seemed great in the ideal sense of how we understand our economy to work. Subsequently it has become a Pandora’s box to administer because of so many potential exploits that have been found.
The idea of capitalism and free markets was based upon a real perspicacity that wealth and commerce under a central controlling authority were inefficient and unfair. History has repeatedly shown that even when there is benevolent intent the outcome remains less than satisfactory.
The House of Representatives has an inherit weakness which is why we do not have a single legislative body as our sole government. Each Congressman is most responsible to his own district and is minimally accountable to the nation as a whole. Imagine giving everyone in a family a credit card with no limits but all coming from a single account and telling each family member that they are not individually responsible for payment.
Being a conservative means we have more than ideals and that when we espouse a design about how government should work we take into account not only the ideal world scenario but also the real world of how it will be rendered successfully. George Bush failed as communicator and somewhat as an administrator which does not prove that conservative ideals relating to our economy were disproven. Conversely, President Obama’s great oratory and affability in promoting Utopian egalitarianism does not corroborate that progressive liberal revision of economic principals will lead to prosperity.
Our nation’s historical economic supremacy in this and the last century was primarily based upon a fundamental reliance of those principals which take into account human nature not utopia. This is the reason no society has ever been ruled successfully by intellectual zealots.
Tony Magaña grew up in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M University, served as an officer in Army Reserve, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. The co-founder of Contempo Magazine has participated in Valley business for over 20 years.He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
