|
Mail
Magazine 24...
Freedom or Fairness
in 2012?
by Victor Davis Hanson
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.
Source: victorhanson.com
Read this and other articles at Mail Magazine 24
|
|
|
|
