The Liberal Conflict
The left have always transformed their positions on issues, depending on which way the wind is blowing. They claim to stand for individual rights, while imposing government’s will on society. They stand for a Darwinian approach to life, as Erick noted,, until the situation is ripe for the usurpation of power to dominate the weak. The current financial situation shows the internal conflict of being a liberal. Their stands of personal freedom and “survival of the fittest” are being tested right now with the financial crisis. I’m going to look at their Darwinian views on a couple issues in America and then look at the financial crisis. I know it’s comparing apples and oranges, but it’s worth a look.Regarding abortion, the left sees abortion as a sacrament to their church of liberalism, look at the attention Mrs. Palin received for giving birth to Trig. More plainly, they promote having the “right” to end life whenever they see fit, as a personal freedom. Yet, giving birth to a baby with a special need is an injustice to liberalism because it contradicts their Darwinian view on survival and their yearning for power because it gives the power of survival to the family over government.
Same with the war on terror, when the war in Iraq was not going well, liberals were beside themselves with excitement that we were struggling. They conveyed that they were the voice of angry Americans that were unsatisfied with the war. They viewed America as the weak force in Iraq and that we were being beaten by a stronger force. They yelled from the hilltops how we needed to cut and run, that the war was lost, and we were losing lives in vain. They attempted to influence power on our military and national security. (which they eventually got, through the Obama election) Instead of appeasing these treasonists, we changed the strategy, remained in Iraq, and the success is evident. So much for the insurgency being the stronger force.
With economics, this is where the left abandons Darwinian Theory and personal freedom and decides business and economics is best operated by government intervention, think Keynesian approach with heavier involvement. If anything appeals to their Darwinian perspective, it should be the capitalist system that has made us the most prosperous nation in the history of the world. It rewards those that get up every day and work their tails off to get ahead in life. It rewards businesses that are operated well and have a desirable product. It punishes those that are lazy and eliminates businesses with terrible business models and products that are unwanted. It is the survival of the fittest.
That brings us to the stories of industry bailouts and government welfare handouts. Most of us are dead set against the government bailing out Detroit and purchasing equity stakes in financial companies. Companies made foolish bets, ran a model based on leverage and perceived profits, but they failed. Why bailout companies that failed? Failure happens every day, granted not on such a scale of these large companies.
TARP has caused companies to change their practices and transform into “banks” to get a piece of the pie. I don’t blame them, the government is giving away money without many preconditions, it’s what goes on with the “welfare queen”, but on a larger scale. Liberals perceive these companies as being weak because of this crisis, and the incoming liberal majority constituted government will save the weak by buying controlling stakes and eliminating the personal freedom of private business to operate the company. I don’t agree with it because it takes the freedom out of risking and succeeding or failing in business. Sometimes failure is not a bad thing because it teaches us lessons that we will use towards the future and make us better people, businesspeople, politicians, etc. Taking failure out of the equation prevents the lesson being learned and gives liberals ammunition that the free markets needed to be saved because they weren’t strong enough to survive.
Detroit has a horrible business model, selling mostly undesirable vehicles, extremely high labor costs, and heavily in debt. I’ve read arguments from both sides on what to do with big auto, I’m on the side of bankruptcy. Release ties to unused factories, dealerships, debt, and union contracts and start anew. Make a concerted effort to reform Detroit, it’s happening with airlines and retail businesses. Learn from the failures of the past and create a new model that will lean towards success. It’s similar to the educational problem we have, you can continue to throw money at an issue, and it’s going to the union and not to the model and product. Having Democrats pour money into a failing business will just delay the inevitable. I would advise the left to consider their Darwinian stance on business and stay the hell out.
As a business owner, I’d state we have a pretty good business model; it’s simple, we’re a ticket business in Boston that buys and sells tickets at a premium. Our products are desirable; Boston sports teams, theater, and concert tickets. However, in this economy, where people are panicking about spending money, I am taking a beating. Do I come begging to the government for funds? My company provides jobs, we’re having trouble paying our debts, and we’ve made some bad bets, I think we’re eligible. I’ve facetiously proposed to my guys that we become a bank so we can get a piece of the pie and Barney Frank can take a walk over and assume control of our business. But I’d rather the company die trying to succeed on our talents rather than giving up our freedom and tough position in the market to the “strong” government.