Free Markets

by  Lance Thompson

Many people I respect believe that conservatives cannot appeal to a majority of voters simply by saying “no” to the socialist agenda now guiding our government.  They say we must have an alternate positive plan, rather than simply obstructing the rush to totalitarianism.  I disagree.

A train headed for a washed-out bridge benefits immensely from anything that safely halts its headlong rush toward destruction.  If the passengers realize the danger, they would also perceive the value of halting forward progress.

But for those who require a positive plan, one is available and easily understood.  As so many profound ideas these days, it comes from the source of much modern wisdom–half-hour network comedy classics.  In the NBC series Seinfeld, the character of George Castanza suffered week after week from the results of his chronically poor judgment–lost jobs, broken relationships, public humiliation and personal embarrassment.  In one episode, George realizes that the source of his troubles is his own warped instinct to always make the wrong decision.  He further decides that he will, from that moment on, always do exactly the opposite what his instincts tell him to do.  Instantly, he finds success and happiness — all because he decided to “do the opposite.”

This is the positive alternative conservatives have been looking for.  Obama spends trillions of dollars we don’t have, and plunges the nation into debt we can never repay.  Saying no to this is certainly sane and responsible, but doing the opposite would be even better.  Instead of increasing spending, how about reducing it?  Would reducing spending play well with the electorate?   In a recent poll, Californians faced with a massive state deficit preferred the solution of reducing spending to raising taxes by a 3 to 1 margin.

Obama has abandoned long-time allies to their fates by canceling defense programs and dismissing vital relationships, gone hat in hand to our sworn enemies to apologize for America’s foreign policy, and demonstrated tolerance for outrages committed by rogue regimes.  Certainly ceasing these self-defeating behaviors would be a positive step.  But how much better to do the opposite–install missile defense systems in Poland because it strengthens a stalwart ally, support Israel in defending itself against terrorists on all sides and a nuclear-ready Iran, acknowledge and strengthen our special relationship with the United Kingdom, and show pride in and demand respect for the sacrifices generations of Americans have made to defend freedom and liberty throughout the world.

Obama has vastly increased government control of private industry.  The current executive branch is now in the executive suites of banks and lending institutions, automobile manufacturers, and soon health care providers.  Obama has bought a majority share of Chrysler with taxpayer money, then handed it over to union bosses.  Clearly, simply saying no to all of this Marxist nationalization of private industry would be a demonstration of sanity.  But doing the opposite would qualify as insightful and visionary.   Allow the ruthlessly fair free market to pick winners and losers rather than government bureaucrats.  If companies cannot compete, then they must fail and make room for those that offer what the public wants.  Artificially propping up inefficient companies rewards incompetence and punishes competitors who are actually doing things correctly.  Taking government out of private industry energizes, enables and encourages investment, innovation and success. 

Obama promises to raise taxes on the rich, on businesses, on the most successful entities in our society and economy.  This is a policy that, again, punishes success.  Not punishing success, and refusing to raise taxes, is a definite improvement.  But doing the opposite–reducing taxes on successful individuals and enterprises–is infinitely better.  Encourage and reward success with lower taxes, and we shall certainly have more of it.  Our economy will expand, employment will grow, revenues will increase, just as it did under Ronald Reagan, and in response to George W. Bush’s tax cuts.

I do not agree with those who say conservatives cannot simply be the Party of No.  A few administrations ago, “Just say no” was First Lady Nancy Reagan’s advice to kids to avoid drugs.  It was widely ridiculed by the Left and the media.  Yet drug abuse undeniably begins voluntarily, which requires an affirmative response, not to mention a substantial investment.  Just saying “no” when drugs are offered effectively eliminates the problem.

But for those who believe conservatives need a specific plan to counter the tide of socialism sweeping across the country, the solution is clear and simple.  Take any policy of the current administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress and just do the opposite.  In every case, such a course will result in greater success, expanded liberty, and a brighter future for Americans.

On the other hand, continuing in the current direction will result in America becoming a pitiful minor character in a show about nothing.

"Yet though hot socialism is probably a thing of the past, some of its conceptions have penetrated far too deeply into the whole structure of current thought to justify complacency.  If few people in the Western world now want to remake society from the bottom according to some ideal bluepoint, a great many still believe in measures which, though not designed completely to remodel the economy, in their aggregate effect may well unintentionally produce this result.  And, even more than at the time when I wrote this book, the advocacy of policies which in the long run cannot be reconciled with the preservation of a free society is no longer a party matter.  That hodgepoedge of ill-assembled and often inconsistent ideals which under the name of the Welfare State has largely replaced socialism as the goal of the reformers needs very careful sorting-out if its results are not to be very similar to those of full-fledged socialism.  This is not to say that some of its aims are not both practicable and laudable.  But there are many ways in which we can work toward the same goal, and in the present state of opinion there is some danger that our impatience for quick results may lead us to choose instruments which, though perhaps more efficient for achieving the particular ends, are not compatible with the preservation of a free society.  The increasing tendency to rely on administrative coercion and discrimination where a modification of the general rules of law might, perhaps more slowly, achive the same object, and to resort to direct state controls or to the creation of monopolistic institutions where judicious use of financial inducements might evoke spontaneous efforts is still a powerful legacy of the socialist period which is likely to influence policy for a long time to come."

-Hayek, in the Preface to the 1956 Edition of The Road to Serfdom.

Since the Great Communicator rode off into the sunset, the message of free market conservativism has been garbled and diluted and devalued. 

The Obama campaign used to great advantage Mr. Obama's rhetorical skills.  While even Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw admit that no one really knows Mr. Obama's world view, voters were clearly attracted to the Illionis Sneator's eloquence ... for no other reason than his prose--philosophically deflecting though it was.

Contrast Mr. Obama's rhetoric with recent Republicans.

If GHW Bush even believed in free market philosophy, he was totally incapable of promoting it.  Yes, he succeeded with snippets like, "read my lips ..." (which he obviously didn't believe).  But he was never able to communicate more than splintered slivers.  For much of his truncated presidency he acted like free market conservatism was an impedement to governing.

Newt Gingrich is a true believer in free markets.  But he was, and remains, a tsunamai of messages, and words, and ideas, and contradictions, and ... .  Dick Armey is good at staying on message and in focus, and is doing good work out of retirement.

GW Bush treated communicating with the American people like an unsavory chore.  He told America to watch what he does.  Well, his administration could easily have achieved one or even two years of balanced budgets.  Obviously balanced budgets just weren't that important.  Now, Mr. Bush's injection of socialism into America's financial system speaks eloquently of his distrust of free markets. 

Who can communicate free market conservatism to people bewildered by the innuendos and deception of America's bankrupt (literally ... and rather proud of their financial status) media?

Take a long look at Congressman Paul Ryan (Wisc.) and his Road Map for America's Future.  I've downloaded it--sacrificing a tree to print it out; the better to ruminate on it.

21st century conservatism needs 21st century communicators.  Regan was a 20th century hero, but that hero and that century have been buried with all due honors and tributes.  What The Next Right needs are fresh, clear, effective communicators.  Women and men who understand the times and who know what America should do.