Freedom or Fairness in 2012?

[4est_4est_Gump]

By Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
April 5, 2012 12:00 A.M.

This should prove to be an ideological election about the economy. Not all campaigns are so clear-cut. Sometimes moderate Republicans raise taxes (as George H. W. Bush did); at other times, pragmatic Democrats cut spending (as Bill Clinton did).

But this year, Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, will run an ideological campaign, calling for smaller government and lower taxes, against an equally ideological President Obama, who wants more government and higher taxes. In this divided red-state/blue-state era, the supporters of each candidate demand no less and will have a clear choice.

This year’s campaign sloganeering will remind us of all the classic American arguments: Was it New Deal big government or World War II–inspired entrepreneurialism that truly ended the Great Depression? Were we better off under Ronald Reagan’s or Bill Clinton’s economic policies? Was it unfettered Wall Street greed or Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae government corruption that caused the 2008 financial meltdown? And which model has better served its people: America’s or the European Union’s?

Romney will make the implicit case that his prior success in the private sector and his free-enterprise know-how will bring Americans more personal freedom and prosperity — even if the upsurge may result in more inequality.

If we simplify or cut tax rates, slash federal spending, pay down the debt, prune away regulations, and push ahead with far more fossil-fuel development, Romney will argue, then employment will improve and those with money now who are on the sidelines will get back into the game. The economy will expand, more wealth will circulate, and greater revenue from taxes will be collected. Whether someone ends up with more money than someone else won’t be as important as the fact that those in the middle and on the bottom will be better off than they are now.

President Obama will decry “trickle-down economics” and counter with an appeal to equality. He revealed his own views about fairness in April 2008. When asked about raising the tax rates on capital gains, Senator Obama replied that he would indeed raise taxes for “purposes of fairness” alone — even if such hikes led to less aggregate revenue for all.

In the last three years, Obama has made it clear exactly what he meant. Almost half of Americans pay no income taxes, and more people than ever are on food stamps. Government is larger than ever, and more rules regulate business. The president pushed through a takeover of health care that may prove to be the greatest federal entitlement since Social Security. He has borrowed $5 trillion in less than four years in an effort to fund more social services — a gargantuan debt that he believes will require more taxes on the top brackets to pay back.

Obama editorializes about “fat-cat” bankers, “corporate-jet owners,” those who junket to the Super Bowl or Las Vegas, and those selfish Americans who should take time out from profiteering, or who do not know when they have already made enough money. He believes that most Americans are not doing well because a few on top are doing too well — as the 1 percent shear the other 99 percent of the flock in a zero-sum economy. Only more noble and competent technocratic officials can ensure that unfettered businesses spread rather than hoard their profits.

Romney will counter that if farmers do not have to worry about new “green” regulations, if oilmen can drill on more federal lands, if businessmen know their taxes won’t go up, and if financiers believe they should make — rather than apologize for — profits, then more Americans will find work, more oil found will mean cheaper gas for all, and American businesses will win a greater share abroad of the world’s trade and commerce.

These are the ancient arguments that have pitted the liberty of the American Revolution against the egalitarianism of the French, the statist visions of John Maynard Keynes against the individualism of Friedrich Hayek, and the tragic admission that we cannot be truly free if we are all forced to end up roughly equal against the idealism that if we are all roughly equal then we are at last truly free.

In blunter terms, Romney’s message is that, if you have the money to drive a nice Kia, what do you care if a sleek Mercedes whizzes by? Obama’s answer, in contrast, is that you should care, because the guy in the Mercedes probably took something from you.

The election will hinge upon how many people who can’t now afford a Kia believe that they might be able to under Romney — and upon how many couldn’t care less about the guy in the Mercedes.

I don't know how clear a distinction there really is between the two, but there probably will be a great rhetorical divide, Obama has already dusted off dirtier water, dirtier air, starving children, late flights, activist judges...,

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

After the Court tosses his healthcare he'll be talking about how evil white conservatives took away his grand gift for the poor people.

You still think the full court press will fail?


Obama's working the wives...


He'll win.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I guess we'll see in a month or so.

I'm not holding my breath.


I still remember the confidence which with the conservatives predicted that McCain-Feingold would never withstand SCOTUS scrutiny.

I don't think they have the political will to overturn it either; it's a demagogue's paradise of an issue, one long parade of unassailable victims.



It would cost political jobs and the ensuant loss of power therefore the support for repeal will be tepid at best with two years ahead in which to put it behind...

 

[miles]

If Obama maintains his current course he'll almost certainly lose in November. The past couple of weeks were a disaster for him. That seems to be the MO of his regime, doesn't it?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

If Obama maintains his current course he'll almost certainly lose in November. The past couple of weeks were a disaster for him. That seems to be the MO of his regime, doesn't it?

Really?

I don't see how he can lose the messaging war.


I want to see him gone as badly as the next, but fairness trumps economy in Public Education...

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

His whole term has been a disaster, albeit covered up, ignored, and forgiven by the lapdog press.

He who controls the press controls the vote.

I've been reading a book about Berlusconi and how he used his media empire to twice be elected PM of Italy.

This election reads like the book with the exception being that our press believes they own their President, as opposed to him owning them.



It's uncanny, all the way down to the ties to organized crime.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It was consequently here that the ideal of the rule of law was first deprived of real content. The substantive conception of the Rechtsstaat, [a state bound by the rule of law]; which required that the rules of law possess definite properties, was displaced by a purely formal concept which required merely that all action of the state be authorized by the legislature. In short, a "law" was that which merely stated that whatever a certain authority did should be legal. The problem thus became one of mere legality. By the turn of the century it had become accepted doctrine that the "individualist" ideal of the substantive Rechtsstaat was a thing of the past, "vanquished by the creative powers of national and social ideas. ... This new formulation, known as the "pure theory of law" ... signaled the definite eclipse of all traditions of limited government....
Only a demagogue can represent as "antidemocratic" the limitations which long-term decisions and the general principles held by the people impose upon the power of temporary majorities. These limitations were conceived to protect the people against those to whom they must give power, and they are the only means by which the people can determine the general character of the order under which they will live.
FA Hayek

 

[unregistered]

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

By Victor Davis Hanson, NRO
April 5, 2012 12:00 A.M.



I don't know how clear a distinction there really is between the two, but there probably will be a great rhetorical divide, Obama has already dusted off dirtier water, dirtier air, starving children, late flights, activist judges...,

All the conservative pundits whine about the 1/2 of Americans who pay no income taxes though the federal income tax was intended to exclude all but the Top 1% when it was enacted. Back in 1907 Wall Street melted down cuz of the usual bullshit pulled by bankers and investors. They demanded rescue by Teddy Roosevelt, who told JP Morgan to fuck himself. So Morgan and his thugees pushed for an income tax on all rich people, to pay for Wall Street bailouts.

Then Washington used the income tax to snare bootleggers like Capone, followed by Saint FDR snaring everyone to pay for the New Deal alphabet soup.

And here we are, conservatives pissing and moaning cuz more people dont pay an income tax.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It is true that only a fool will underestimate the MSM when it comes to controlling the dumbest aspect of the public at large when it comes to political coverage. I just happen to think that Obama is so fucked up as to confound even this mana from political heaven. I could be wrong however.

I'm hoping that you are not wrong, but at this age the cynic in me is saying that you are engaging in a bit of hopeful naïvety for some transformational change in the average voter who finds some great points in the OWS mob...

All the conservative pundits whine about the 1/2 of Americans who pay no income taxes though the federal income tax was intended to exclude all but the Top 1% when it was enacted. Back in 1907 Wall Street melted down cuz of the usual bullshit pulled by bankers and investors. They demanded rescue by Teddy Roosevelt, who told JP Morgan to fuck himself. So Morgan and his thugees pushed for an income tax on all rich people, to pay for Wall Street bailouts.

Then Washington used the income tax to snare bootleggers like Capone, followed by Saint FDR snaring everyone to pay for the New Deal alphabet soup.

And here we are, conservatives pissing and moaning cuz more people dont pay an income tax.

Okay James... calm down.

 

[RobDownSouth]

So "Freedom" and "Fairness" are mutually exclusive now?

That's good to know, chief.

 

[miles]

Really?

I don't see how he can lose the messaging war.

Yes, really.

His message is a plethora of lies, misinformation, and doubletalk. Many of his easily led supporters are the lowest common denominator who will believe anything and would vote for him under any circumstances. BUT...he won't get the turnout he did in 2008. The novelty has worn off AND he's pissed off a lot of people who took the bait in the last election and won't vote for him again. This is Romney's race to lose as long as the GOP runs a smart campaign (unlike 2008).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, they are.


Freedom is from government (in this context) and fairness requires it, but then, reading before attacking has never, ever been your strong suit or tactic.

Thinkers like you are what makes me so sure Obama will probably win.

If you ask your government to treat someone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, really.

His message is a plethora of lies, misinformation, and doubletalk. Many of his easily led supporters are the lowest common denominator who will believe anything and would vote for him under any circumstances. BUT...he won't get the turnout he did in 2008. The novelty has worn off AND he's pissed off a lot of people who took the bait in the last election and won't vote for him again. This is Romney's race to lose as long as the GOP runs a smart campaign (unlike 2008).

The problem is that it will all be reported as truth and most people don't have the time to think, or research, and trust the MSM to be truthful and they are salivating over the thought and ability to Palinize Romney and the Republicans; they are not about to give up their access to power (and parties) anymore than they wanted to lose access to Saddam's Iraq.

I'll bet he does get a good turnout because of the unending parade of unassailable victims which we will soon be deluged with and the impending ecological, economical, and medical disasters implied within a Republican take-over of government.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Oh joy, Lit is fucking up.

This may end up being a double post:

It was...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

test.

 

[miles]

Yes, they are.


Freedom is from government (in this context) and fairness requires it, but then, reading before attacking has never, ever been your strong suit or tactic.

Thinkers like you are what makes me so sure Obama will probably win.

If you ask your government to treat someone "fairly," the only way it can ever accomplish that task is to treat someone "unfairly."
A_J, the Stupid

Say what?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Say what?

It was a reply to stupid is as stupid does, not you.

 

[unregistered]

 

[miles]

The problem is that it will all be reported as truth and most people don't have the time to think, or research, and trust the MSM to be truthful and they are salivating over the thought and ability to Palinize Romney and the Republicans; they are not about to give up their access to power (and parties) anymore than they wanted to lose access to Saddam's Iraq.

I'll bet he does get a good turnout because of the unending parade of unassailable victims which we will soon be deluged with and the impending ecological, economical, and medical disasters implied within a Republican take-over of government.

It will be reported as the truth, but the MSM doesn't have the same captive audience they've enjoyed in the past. Their credibility has been circling the drain, and yes, they'll participate in Romney's character assassination. But people are slowly learning to take what they report with a grain of salt.

Let's make a bet on turnout .

 

[RobDownSouth]

I love the smell of AJ ad hominem in the morning. It smells like...victory.

It was a reply to stupid is as stupid does, not you.

Actually, the concept of "Fairness and Freedom are mutually exclusive propositions" is a classic example of "stupid is as stupid does".

Somalia beckons, Freedom Boy. I hope you can untangle your "daughter"'s passport issues soon so that you might emigrate there and enjoy a true glibertarian paradise.

 

[miles]

It was a reply to stupid is as stupid does, not you.

Which one? There are so many.