The populist Sanders-left (which is actually broader because it includes Tucker Carlson and others called rightists) is partly correct and partly incorrect about what happened to the Democrats last Tuesday.
They say correctly that the Democrats failed because they have taken non-elites for granted, patronizing and subsidizing some (minorities, for example) and disparaging and penalizing others (regular bourgeois working Americans of both sexes and all skin tones and ethnicities). This is usually stated as "The Democrats have betrayed the working class."
This is good as far as it goes, but it goes not far enough. The elites have taken some Americans for granted. Meanwhile, a large swath of Americans, especially those between the coasts, have been treated like outhouse-using country bumpkins if not outright racists and patriarchists. Remember Obama's sneering reference to people who in troubled times seek refuge in their guns and bibles?
It was only a matter of time before an officer-seeker would voice the concerns of the disparaged. It happened in 2016 and again this week. Enough of those people struck back on Tuesday, benefitting Trump and humiliating Harris. People will take only so much abuse or condescension before shouting, "Cut it out!"
Where the Sandersnistas go wrong is in prescribing a warmed-up Marxism. Not full-out nationalization of the means of production, mind you, but heavy government interference with everyone's market relations: a minimum wage, rent control, price ceilings, usury laws, tariffs, product regulation, immigration barriers, etc. They think this is what the "working class" needs. (Ironically, government control of nominally private enterprise is an essential feature of fascism.)
But no, intervention is not the answer, though class bigotry blinds the Sandersnistas to that fact. The same could be said for the MAGA architects. These measures have long harmed people, especially the intended beneficiaries, and they will do so in the future. But you have to know something about economics to understand that. They don't.
The first thing the "working class" needs to do is reject the Marxian notion of an inherent class conflict between business and employees. The market economy—the profit-and-loss system void of government regulation and subsidy—is good for all because, as Ludwig Mises spent his life teaching, we all have a deep harmony of interest in freedom, social cooperation, and rising living standards. Surface disputes are insignificant compared to that deeper compatibility.
The industrious "class"—all contributors to the creation of wealth (which excludes politicians and bureaucrats)—should reject the "left" and the "right."
1 comment:
"Ironically, government control of nominally private enterprise is an essential feature of fascism."
,,, which has worked so well in the past. Oh, but they did it "wrong", while self-appointed mavericks of a new, improved industrial policy will get it right.
It's funny how the word "fascist" is bandied about nowadays, when many of the people pointing their fingers at others might consider doing a bit of self-reflection on the subject of projection first. In any case, individuals with positions that can be backed by reasoned discourse don't have need to fish for derogatory (and likely mis-defined) slurs to use against their opponents.
Post a Comment