If we compare conservative and progressive beliefs about
our economic problems, we find both sides seem to agree on two points:
·
They agree it’s good for most
people to be dependent upon the offerings of private enterprise to meet their
daily needs, in ways that generate continuous profits for the owners of private
enterprise.
·
They agree that lately, too
many citizens are no longer dependent in profitable ways on private enterprise
because they’ve fallen into an unprofitable state of helplessness. They further
agree that, for our economy to thrive, we must encourage the helpless back into
profitable dependency, which means most robust adults must have jobs.
What both sides seem not to agree upon are the answers to these
questions:
·
Why have so many become
helpless, even though they still need to buy things from private enterprise to
survive?
·
What’s the best way to move
the helpless back into the workforce, so they can earn enough to buy what they
need without government support?
Note that the way you answer
the first question will determine the approach you support for resolving the
second question.
Conservatives propose that too many are choosing to behave in unprofitably
helpless ways because the government has pampered them, encouraging them to
rely on handouts instead of working. They believe eliminating government
support for these lazy, irresponsible folks will force people to take
responsibility for meeting their own needs.
Grover Norquist said, “Our goal is to shrink government to the size
where we can drown it in a bathtub.” That desire reflects an urge to starve the
beast they believe enables slothfulness.
While it seems harsh, conservatives justify their
strategy by claiming that raising taxes discourages hard work. They fear that taxing
workers too heavily in order to enable the helpless remain helpless only drives
more people to quit work and go on the government dole. They fear too much of
that would collapse our entire economy.
Alternatively, progressives blame businesses and the
aggressive strategies they’ve employed to increase their profits at the expense
of the working poor. Offshoring, wage and benefit cuts, and replacing workers
with machines and computers have negatively impacted jobs. Progressives believe
that’s driving the rise in poverty, which in turn undermines social services.
They believe the poor have almost no chance to lift themselves out of
helplessness and meet their needs without government support. As Bill Clinton
once said, “America just works better when more people have a chance to live
their dreams.”
Progressives believe the answer is to tax profitable
businesses at higher rates, eliminate subsidies and raise taxes on the wealthy.
They want to redistribute that money to provide jobs and services to assist the
helpless in becoming more self-reliant. While progressives are often accused of
having “bleeding hearts” and disrespecting the rights of business owners and
entrepreneurs, they justify their strategy by claiming that, in a civil
society, those who’ve been gifted much bear the burden of supporting the less
fortunate.
What’s fascinating
about that this debate, which has been waging for decades, is that neither strategy
works. Perhaps that’s because we’re so busy arguing over our points of
disagreement that we’ve not bothered to examine our points of agreement, to determine whether they’re guiding
us to ask the proper questions.
What if they’re not?
It’s an impasse similar to to our historic quarrel over
slavery. Conservatives back then believed it was appropriate for masters to
treat runaway slaves harshly, beating or lynching them to create reminders for
others in case they too were considering escape. Meanwhile, progressives argued
for new laws to force slave owners to treat slaves more humanely, believing
slaves would then willingly serve their masters out of gratitude for their
kindness.
Ironically, the argument wasn’t resolved until both sides
admitted (after a long and bloody war) that how to treat slaves was the wrong question. The correct question all along
had been to ask whether slavery itself was spiritually aligned with who we are
as a species. Was it life-affirming behavior on our part?
The same, I suspect, holds true for our economy. If we
stop quarrelling long enough over whether we should balance the budget or spend
more money to fix our current system, the question that may at last surface is
this: Is the way we’re operating spiritually aligned with who we are as a
species? Is it life-affirming?
If the answer is no – and that seems to be the true
answer – then we do next must, by definition, not support its continuation, but
support our own shift to more life-affirming behavior.
