The world blew up this morning at about 8 o’clock. There is nothing left. According to the New York Times, women, children and minorities suffered the most. Vladimir Putin vowed he would restore the Soviet Union, even though it is now scattered in fragments somewhere in space. Chavez says America did it, of course. Obama blamed it on Bush.
“The United States are gone, all 57 of them”, noted President Obama, then added “Well, at least it’s a complete transformation. My only wish is that Martha’s Vineyard could have been spared”. The insurance industry is in a panic as you might expect; they had exclusion clauses for losses due to war but not for this.
Al Gore termed it an environmental disaster. He said it never would have happened under his administration. He held his home state of Tennessee responsible. “My own friends, the people who knew me best let me down. If I had carried Tennessee the Supreme Court would not have been able to revoke my election.” The Sierra Club expressed concern that the fracturing of earth into a collection of asteroids presents a threat to already endangered species on the other planets. “If one of the big chunks, like Africa for instance, hits one of the smaller planets the impact will be devastating”, a representative explained.
Harold Camping called in long distance and said excitedly, “I called it! I was just a little bit off on the date”. Paul Krugman insists it could have been prevented if the government had only raised taxes and spent more money. But when asked how in the world (excuse the passé expression) that would help, all he returned was a silent grin. On the political front, the 99% are enraged. The group is protesting that their rights have been denied because they no longer have any place to demonstrate.
The good news is Palin channeled Ronald Reagan and reports that he smiled and said “Take heart. I have unshakeable faith in the resourcefulness of the American people. A great hill will be rebuilt and the United States will shine brightly from the top of it once again”.
David Brooks, writing for the New York Times laments, Where Are the Liberals? “This should be the golden age of liberalism” he says. And yet, declared conservatives outnumber declared liberals by a factor of two to one. “How can that be?” he asks.
“The Republican Party is unpopular and sometimes embarrassing” says Brooks, inferring that conservatives and the Republican Party are one and the same. The author is perplexed as to why the foibles of the Republican Party don’t lead more conservatives to join the liberal camp. One has to wonder what he thinks the Tea Party is all about.
Brook’s reasoning is also myopic. The relative popularity of the two philosophies was put to a test in the 2010 elections. The rest of us know who won that popularity contest. And embarrassment? What could be more embarrassing than having to grant waivers to more than 1,200 companies and over 4 million employees to excuse them from compliance with a law that was so poorly constructed there was little other choice? The answer is granting waivers to a law your own Party rammed through Congress against the will of the people; that’s what could be more embarrassing!
“Over the past 40 years, liberalism has been astonishingly incapable at expanding its market share.”
Now I ask what is astonishing about the fact that something that doesn’t work, doesn’t sell very well? Mr. Brooks thinks he has the answer.
The most important explanation is what you might call the Instrument Problem. Americans may agree with liberal diagnoses, but they don’t trust the instrument the Democrats use to solve problems. They don’t trust the federal government.
You can bet your belly button they don’t! And it is not just the instrument they don’t trust; they don’t trust the players either. Holders of the liberal point of view put their faith and trust in the wisdom, integrity and leadership of an elite few, oblivious of the fallibility of man. When it fails they blame the few. Even after it became obvious that the Soviet Union was failing the Russian people, the left didn’t find communism to be at fault. The problem was simply that Stalin was the wrong man for the job.
Finding a better instrument to play the liberal theme isn’t the answer to the problem. The liberal theme itself is the problem.
When a private enterprise operates with the same efficiency as the government, the private enterprise runs out of money and declares bankruptcy. When a government runs the government as governments do, and runs out of money, the government does not declare bankruptcy; it raises taxes.
Nothing is more inefficient than a central planning government. Ask Adam Smith. Many people believe President Reagan ended the Cold War. That may be, but he had help from central planning, not ours, but theirs. The economic system in the U.S.S.R. was Socialism about as pure as it gets. The government planned everything. Eighty years of central planning left the Soviet empire financially destitute. Reagan held all the cards. All he had to do was play them.
That’s history, now to the present. China is the dominant Communist country today. China’s Socialism is less pure, but still heavily imbued with central planning. The Australian video China’s Ghost Cities and Malls is an eye popping revelation of what can happen when central planning goes wild.