As the push intensifies to implement President Obama’s bailout plan, a disturbing trend has emerged. Appearing in numerous articles, op-eds, and letters to editors, average Americans have been bombarded with the message that in light of the current crisis, partisan bickering and ideological posturing must stop. Typical of these pronouncements was this broadside from California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger during a CNN interview last November 10th, ”I think the important thing for the Republican Party is now to also look at other issues that are very important for this country and not to get stuck in ideology.” The governor’s sentiment has reverberated throughout the mainstream media and the Internet. On February 5th, Newsday.com offered that “Even in normal times, too much governmental energy is wasted on turf wars and ego clashes. But these times are not normal. Everyone is hurting or about to be. This is when we need more public service and less public posturing.” Just yesterday while speaking to the hard-hit residents of Indiana, President Obama warned, “We can no longer posture and bicker….” The financial crisis assailing the nation is just too serious to allow anything to delay passage of the bailout legislation. Worries about mounting debt, looming inflation, increasing dependence on government, and especially the specific targets of bailout money must be set aside. Now is the time for action. Ideological debate can wait.
Or can it? Americans would do well to ask themselves if the trade-off they are presented with is really a good idea. In return for the promise of a quicker recovery, citizens are being asked to grant enormous power to the federal government. Even if President Obama’s proposed rescue package does in fact work and shortens the recession, and even if inflation does not result from all the borrowing and printing of money, and even if our kids and grand kids can deal with the mountain of debt we are leaving them, is growing the federal government beyond its already bloated proportions something we should do? Is transferring unprecedented power to a relative handful of people really in our best interest, regardless of the short-term benefits? Is there an inverse relationship between the size and power of government and individual liberty, and if so, are we prepared to forfeit freedom in exchange for financial aid? Sweeping aside debate of such issues in the name of expediency may appear wise in the near-term when mortgages are overdue and jobs are disappearing. But in the greater scheme of things, surrendering liberty to gain security may cost us both.
That the United States is moving in the direction of socialism can hardly be denied. The growth of American government is in large part tied to a concomitant growth in, to paraphrase President-elect Obama as he lectured Joe the Plumber, a redistribution of wealth. More than half of the billowing federal budget is allocated to one social program or another, according to the Office of Management and Budget. With a liberal President whose political goals coincide nicely with those of the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, the trajectory of socialism in America will only increase. It’s a path many nations have previously trod, and we can learn much from their experiences.
A significant number of European nations experimented with socialism, beginning with Germany in the late 18th century. Italy and Russia were also early implementers of socialism, to their lasting sorrow. F. A. Hayek explained what happened in those countries in his The Road To Serfdom. Writing in the 1940s, Hayek warned:
“In recent years…the old apprehensions of the unforeseen consequences of socialism have once more been strongly voiced from the most unexpected quarters. Observer after observer, in spite of the contrary expectation with which he approached his subject, has been impressed with the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under ‘fascism’ and ‘communism.’ While ‘progressives’ in England and elsewhere were still deluding themselves that communism and fascism represented opposite poles, more and more people began to ask themselves whether these new tyrannies were not the outcome of the same tendencies. Even communists must have been shaken by such testimonies as that of Max Eastman, Lenin’s old friend, who found himself compelled to admit that ‘instead of being better, Stalinism is worse than fascism, more ruthless, barbarous, unjust, immoral, anti-democratic, unredeemed by any hope or scruple,’ and that it is ‘better described as superfascist’; and when we find the same author recognizing that ‘Stalinism is socialism, in the sense of being an inevitable although unforeseen political accompaniment of the nationalization and collectivism which he had relied upon as part of his plan for erecting a classless society,’ his conclusion clearly achieves wider significance.”
It is precisely these ”unforeseen consequences of socialism” and “unforeseen political accompaniment of…nationalization and collectivism” that Hayek traces back to a presumed humanitarian desire for “social justice, greater equality, and security,” noble enough in their intent. The problem lies in the methodology of those who would construct a just society. By necessity, planning must be centralized and reduce the number of choices available to the individual. In the end, when socialism runs its full course, individual liberty is abandoned, or crushed, in the name of a greater good.
We are not attempting to equate Obama with Stalin or suggest that approval of the stimulus bill will set America on a course leading straight to authoritarianism. However, granting politicians control of gigantic resources will be a step on the road to socialism, and therefore one that should not be taken lightly nor hurried due to an eagerness to alleviate unpleasant circumstances. We have already learned that ever increasing government intervention in affairs properly left to the private sector has a debilitating effect on the moral fiber of the citizenry. President Johnson’s Great Society programs virtually created America’s underclass, a subculture now proving remarkably resistant to rehabilitation. Alarmingly, 65 years ago Hayek saw the same consequence of socialism’s growth in England. Judge for yourself whether the following could apply to contemporary American society:
“The most important change which extensive government control produces is a psychological change, an alteration in the character of the people. This is necessarily a slow affair, a process which extends not over a few years but perhaps over one or two generations. The important point is that the political ideals of a people and its attitude toward authority are as much the effect as the cause of the political institutions under which it lives. This means, among other things, that even a strong tradition of political liberty is no safeguard if the danger is precisely that new institutions and policies will gradually undermine and destroy that spirit.”
Clearly, there is more at stake regarding the proposed bailouts than meets the eye, all the more reason to bicker and defend ideologies.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Core Values, Economics, Government Blunders