My brother asked me the other day why I bother arguing with my dad about politics. “It’s not like you’re ever change anyone’s mind.”, he told me. I tried to convince him that I couldn’t speak for my dad but I wasn’t married to my ideas. I like to argue, but with every argument, you have to go in accepting the possibility of changing your mind. But he’s got a point about discussing politics in general. The majority of people, left or right, are incapable of critical thought and only repeat bland cliches they heard from someone else. Conceding defeat on even one topic is tantamount to rooting against your own football team. It seems like political discussion has replaced theology in the practice of mindlessly rattling off articles of faith that have no actual connection to the real world.

For example, Hillary Clinton just lately got caught in a huge lie with with surprisingly little effect on public opinion. I used to think you’d have to be insane to think you could get away with having an affair while in public office, but that’s downright reasonable compared to thinking you can get away with lying about getting shot at. Before Clinton even became the nominee, I laughed off Rush’s accusation about Hillary being a nominee, thinking no party could be so stupid as to allow the Clinton Drama become center-stage in American politics again. Now Rush is asking Republicans to fraudulently vote in Democratic primaries for her (suppossedly to maintain “chaos” but more likely because he is sick of 8 years playing defense). I understand Clinton lost a few points in the poll, but if that “gaff” can’t pry her out of the race, what on earth can?

But the real reason I bring all this up is the economy. That seems to be the one issue that Republicans always use for everything (probably because no one believes in the social issues of the 50’s anymore). Democrats tax and spend. Democrats are socialists. They want to “redistribute the wealth” and waste resources on “nation building.” Never mind that the last Democratic administration gutted welfare, passed NAFTA, and created the first surplus, “leftists” like Clinton and Gore are still said to want a “command economy.” Never mind that people who work for their money pay more taxes than those who make money off their money, or that the top 1% is receiving the largest share of national income since the first year of the Great Depression. According to them, money is only “redistributed” downward.

But by bailing out Bear Sterns, Bush has proven that he believes more in socialism than Clinton ever did, corporate socialism. Now, before I get accussed to “hating corporations,” I should point out that you can’t blame companies for asking for money any more than you can blame hobos. Companies are run by a board of directors who are obligated by their job description to make the most amount of money for their stock holders. So of course it’s no surprise they want to “capitalize” going up and “socialize” going down. But the problem is, they are the ones who caused this mess. Its deregulation that allowed Enron to destroy the job market in Texas and now its allowed banks to scam all these people out of money they didn’t have, and once again, the super rich that owns 90% of the wealth of this country got pissed at the middle class writing checks they couldn’t cash and are now refusing to invest the money that runs our economy. According to conservative and libertarian philosophy, we shouldn’t be bailing anyone out, but the problem with that is volatility. As unethical as it is to reward rich fatcats for failure (something Bush learned in his oil business days), it does stop the cascading effects from hitting the rest of the economy, which is why deregulation doesn’t help anyone.

I hope by acknowledging the banking system as our corporate masters and not wanting the economy to go into choas, no one reads me saying we should bail out Bear Sterns as a betrayal of my own principals. I don’t like playing Monopoly, but when the players break the bank, it’s better to start dishing out paper money. What upsets me more is that there is no new regulation standards that accompany them, because that is the only thing that is going to stop them from doing it again. Now that we’ve shown that we reward risk-taking by paying them whatever they lose at the slots, the banks will now be emboldened to gamble away the taxpayer’s money knowing we’ll bail them out again the next time it happens. I’d much rather see something like Stupidity Insurance for banks, but unfortuantely, this is the game we’re playing now thanks to the Conservative/Libertarian dream of a perfect self-regulating market system.

Then there’s gas prices. Bush complained that it was Clinton’s fault gas was at $1.64 and promised if he was president he would “jaw bone” OPEC. That’s a pretty funny description considering the “tough talk” amounted to saying: “If it’s possible, your majesty, consider what high prices are doing to one of your largest customers.” Actually, the mullahs are right on this one. It isn’t their fault. Supply and demand have little to do with what’s driving up oil. It’s speculation. Bush starts talking about attacking Iran, but doing that would cause oil to go up to $6, so speculators price oil up to $3 to hedge a bet even Bush isn’t stupid enough to call. This could be supplimented by opening up 1% of the strategic reserve, not only bringing prices down but making a profit for the government at the same time, but that’s not going to happen because oil companies like it this high.

So my big question is: what excuse do Republicans have? They have had over 7 years in power with both the Senate and the House on their side for the majority of that time. It seems to me, you have to come to 1 of 2 conclusions: either the presidency and the Senate have little or no effect on the economy, in which case the #1 Republican issue has been nothing but empty words all along, or Republican policy was in fact the cause of it and Right-wing Libertarians have traded away all their social issues for the economy we now have. I’m proud to call myself a Liberal but have never considered myself a Democrat. Still, if I did, I would be embarrassed if the Democrats were in power right now and would refuse to vote for them in the next election. Republicans, however, seem completely unaffected in their own convictions by the financial downturn.

This brings me to my point: is there any good reason to try and compare the effectiveness of economic philosophy with the current economy, or is it there always going to be some excuse that divorces philosophy from real life? Is economic theory really just another form of religion, something that’s pointless to talk about because no one is ever going to change their mind on something their parents told them when they were kids?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Politics/Story?id=4141964&page=1

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9246.html

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/03/08/in-2000-gop-trashed-dems-over-gas-prices/

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/politics/15772329/detail.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/29/business/income.4.php

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=736148

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/31/opinion/31krugman.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/opinion/17krugman.html