solutions for economy

By Ralph Nichols

We do have the same objectives, most of us do. It's how you get there that we argue about, and those arguments are substantive because we all want prosperity.

Rush Limbaugh

March 19, 2008

Eric Mathison's column last week ("Working class GOPers acting like office wives") was riddled with the inconsistent logic of liberalism.

Not only that, after employing the "Progressive" label not long ago, Eric again used the L word to identify himself politically.

Two recommended readings provide perspective in this ongoing dialogue: Nobel economist F.A. Hayek's classic The Road to Serfdom, and The Communist Manifesto of Karl Marx.

Yes, that manifesto, which influences the socio-economic views of many liberals far more today than they realize.

An unequivocal qualification is incumbent at this point. Neither Eric nor other liberals I know are Marxists. Not at all. They simply want the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

But the guiding philosophy to which they subscribe has roots that can be traced to the international socialist movements of the 19th century, which eventually influenced and altered American political thought and economic policy with the advent of President Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era New Deal.

Like most liberals, Eric is troubled by the excesses and inequities of capitalism.

Thoughtful conservatives also recognize these problems, but they look first to the market place to remedy the wrongs and create opportunities - with a minimum of government regulation - for greater wealth and freedom for all citizens.

Liberals, on the other hand, look first to government to solve economic and social ills despite the lessons of history.

FDR's New Deal, for example, did not end the Great Depression. His centralized economic policies even made matters worse, delaying recovery until America's industrial might began building the planes, tanks, ships and guns that won World War II.

Dr. Hayek later warned that "the road to serfdom" inevitably results from central planning, which dismantles the free market system and destroys both individual economic freedom and personal freedom.

Liberals tend to dismiss this view as an over-reaction by someone who witnessed 20th century totalitarianism in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, especially since they believe that threat ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But the story doesn't end there. Liberals continue to believe in government solutions, with economic policies dictated not by the market place but by lawmakers and bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., and state capitals.

The result is a growing number of programs that redistribute wealth - a tenet of Marxism.

We need look no farther than the recent irresponsible spending spree by our Democratic-controlled Legislature and Democratic governor.

"You won't have prosperity if the government is in charge of handing [money] out to people, but that's what liberals want," Rush Limbaugh warned last week.

In promoting their social agenda - propped up by a belief not in equality of opportunity but in equality of results - liberals overlook the inconvenient historical fact that as government becomes more involved in economic policy, it exercises increasing control over individuals and their freedom.

They have no clear answer to a primary concern of conservatives: who will put the brakes on, and when, to keep us from passing the point of no return?

One of the key measures advocated by Marx for socialism to make "inroads upon the old social order" was "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax."

Fast forward 160 years to an appearance on The Dave Ross Show on KIRO Radio last week by Eric Liu and Nick Hanauer, co-authors of a new book, The True Patriot, which attempts to reframe the concept of patriotism in Progressive terms.

One of their elements of patriotism is a willingness - and obligation - by citizens to pay a sizeable percentage of one's income in taxes to reimburse society for what it has given the taxpayer.

When a caller objected to excessive taxation, which limits his ability to spend his earned income first on his family and then give to charitable causes that he supports, one of the authors shockingly retorted: "It's not your money! It's not your money!"

That is not patriotism. It is a confiscatory economic strategy straight from Karl Marx that, when employed by a central government, robs citizens of their freedom and leads to serfdom.

Yet many well-intended liberals fail to recognize this as they bask in the glow of feel-good programs that, in Washington, thanks in no small measure to our spend-happy Highline-area legislators, push this state farther into debt.

Their solution likely will be higher taxes, not fiscal restraint, especially if Gov. Gregoire wins re-electtion in November.

Contrary to what Eric suggests, conservatives are not opposed to limited taxation to support limited governmenment. We are against excessive taxation and spending, especially for programs that violate constitutional limits on government.

Two other measures proposed by Marx were "abolition of property in land: and "centralization of the means of ... transport in the hands of the state."

Again, his influence impacts liberal public policies, including some in King County and the Highline area, that abuse the government's power in the regulation and even the taking of private property, and in mandates to force people out of their cars and into public transportation.

To paraphrase Alfred E. Newman, "What? Us worry?" After all, these programs, proposed and enacted by local liberals, are just for the greatest good for the greatest number of people - and they take us only a another step or two down "the road to serfdom."

A point of clarification: Eric refers on occasion to Republicans and conservatives interchangably. But it should be remembered that while most conservatives are Republicans, not all Republicans are conservatives.

And most conservatives oppose wreckless, unrestrained spending by other Republicans, which contributed to the party's loss of Congress in 2006 and contributed to the nation's current economic woes.

The views of Ralph Nichols are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of Robinson Newspapers. He can be reached at ralphn@robinsonnews.com or 206-388-1857.