Supplement to Prager Q&A

[RonD1120 58]

America's New Culture War:
Free enterprise vs. Government Control
By Arthur C. Brooks
Sunday, May 23, 2010
From: washingtonpost.com
-------------------------------------------------------

This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over
guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed
by a new struggle between two competing visions of the
country's future. In one, America will continue to be an
exceptional nation organized around the principles of free
enterprise -- limited government, a reliance on
entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces.
In the other, America will move toward European-style statism
grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy
and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not
reconcilable. We must choose.

It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big
government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the
administration's money and influence. Our leaders in
Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of
recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment
to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge
swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the
financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If
these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a
free enterprise nation.

I call this a culture war because free enterprise has been
integral to American culture from the beginning, and it still
lies at the core of our history and character. "A wise and
frugal government," Thomas Jefferson declared in his first
inaugural address in 1801, "which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to
regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and
shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned.
This is the sum of good government." He later warned: "To
take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and
that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to
others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal
industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of
association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of
his industry and the fruits acquired by it." In other words,
beware government's economic control, and woe betide the
redistributors.

Now, as then, entrepreneurship can flourish only in a culture
where individuals are willing to innovate and exert leadership;
where people enjoy the rewards and face the consequences of
their decisions; and where we can gamble the security of the
status quo for a chance of future success.

Yet, in his commencement address at Arizona State
University on May 13, 2009, President Obama warned against
precisely such impulses: "You're taught to chase after all the
usual brass rings; you try to be on this "who's who" list or that
Top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out
how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you
have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That's the
message that's sent each and every day, or has been in our
culture for far too long -- that through material possessions,
through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own
behalf -- that's how you will measure success." Such ambition,
he cautioned, "may lead you to compromise your values and
your principles."

I appreciate the sentiment that money does not buy happiness.
But for the president of the United States to actively warn
young adults away from economic ambition is remarkable.
And he makes clear that he seeks to change our culture.

The irony is that, by wide margins, Americans support free
enterprise. A Gallup poll in January found that 86 percent of
Americans have a positive image of "free enterprise," with
only 10 percent viewing it negatively. Similarly, in March
2009, the Pew Research Center asked individuals from a
broad range of demographic groups: "Generally, do you think
people are better off in a free-market economy, even though
there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don't
you think so?" Almost 70 percent of respondents agreed that
they are better off in a free-market economy, while only 20
percent disagreed.

In fact, no matter how the issue is posed, not more than 30
percent of Americans say they believe we would fare better
without free markets at the core of our system. When it comes
to support for free enterprise, we are essentially a 70-30
nation.

So here's a puzzle: If we love free enterprise so much, why are
the 30 percent who want to change that culture in charge?

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

So here's a puzzle: If we love free enterprise so much, why are
the 30 percent who want to change that culture in charge?

I don't think anyone, anywhere seriously thiinks that Obama wants to abolish the free market. Let's keep it real here, eh?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

But for the president of the United States to actively warn young adults away from economic ambition is remarkable.

Reading the full speech, I didn't take it as warning away from economic ambition. I took it as warning about making economic ambition one's _top_ priority and value. And I agree with him.

[yourmomma 0]

Since Reagan, conservatives have been trying to rewrite history. This is just another example. Hamilton won the battle. We are not an agrarian society and therefore require a central government that ensures sufficient credit to fund economic development. Since the inception of federally backed banks and the first bail outs at the turn of the 20th century, deregulation has been pushed for and achieved with the same results; Giant conglomerates deemed "to big to fail" who consolidate wealth and political influence at the cost of society. Jefferson, Washington, Madison all favored absolute regulation of finance. Meaning banks were ment to be small community trusts not a means of generating or consolidating wealth. Jefferson even wrote to Madison something to the effect of anyone who dealt with a federally charted bank was guilty of treason.

Starting with Reagan who made deregulation an ideological crusade ( which is funny cause Carter started deregulation. Airlines, railroads and trucking were all deregulated under carter) we have seen 2 massive collapses of financial markets requiring taxpayer bail outs to companies who in reality became wealthier while the small institutions and their investors lost it all. These collapses occurred because deregulation allowed institutions the ability to take massive financial risk while simultaneously putting all their eggs in one basket. Those in the financial world knew they were building a house of cards knew it was going to collapse and did it because greed overrides morality. Unregulated free markets are only a good idea in the eyes of idiots and oligarchs.

Edited because beer inhibits me from spelling pretty.

[turtlespeed 212]

You don't believe that making it harder to have to fend for yourself and giving out handouts is a bad thing?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[ChangoLanzao 0]

We can't let this happen! It's time for the second American Revolution!!

CLICKY