May 19, 2008

The Audacity of Government

As the sun shined down, the warm air was decorated with a cool breeze. A sea of faces stretched as far as the eye could see. Approximately seventy-five thousand faces, in fact, each waiting in eager anticipation for the greatest orator in a generation to grace their presence. Even the speaker, Sen. Barrack Obama, seemed astonished by the size of the crowd. To some, the crowd signified a new interest and optimism toward American politics. In reality, however, the size of the crowd reflects what is wrong with politics and the voting public.

It should be clear that what is wrong with politics is not Sen. Obama himself. I have not a horse in the race. Thus a heavily populated speech by Sens. McCain or Clinton would be abhorred just the same. The problem is not the person that the public fawns over, but rather that such a person exists in the first place.

It is not surprising that Sen. Obama has emerged given the current circumstances. The war in Iraq has been mired in mismanagement, housing prices are plummeting, inflation is rising, and globalization is causing uneasiness among laborers who must now compete with cheaper and qualified competition. Perhaps equally important is the fact that Obama is the anti-George W. Bush. He speaks well, oozes charisma, and promises a new dawn in Washington.

Yet turning to an individual is nothing more than misplaced hope. One can give speeches about change, hope, and optimism, but so long as these promises are predicated on the expansion of government, they are unfounded and unhealthy for the future of our nation. Take, for example, the recent “crises.” The food crisis has largely been the result of farming subsidization in developed countries and trade protectionism. The invasion of Iraq went smoothly, but the mismanagement in the aftermath has been disastrous. Critics have been quick to place this blame on the incompetence of the Bush administration, but in reality the fact remains that central planning – no matter how smart the planners – is impossible. No single mind (or group of minds) in the United States government or amongst its populace is equipped with the combined knowledge (cultural and otherwise) of the Iraqi people and businessmen. The housing crisis is also a result of interventionism. A Federal Reserve that kept rates too low for too long and a legislature that pushed for easier standards for those who were not deemed credit worthy by the market test artificially increased the demand for housing only to come crashing down when interest rates returned to more accurate levels. Even the adverse effects of globalization derive from the fact that the government had previously created artificial job security.

The problems that we face are largely the result of government intervention. Nevertheless, the American public is in search of a messiah to lead a government to correct for the previous failures. I am afraid that no matter whom they choose, they will be disappointed.

2008 Posted by Harrison Bergeron at May 19, 2008 1:12 PM

Superb Post, hb. I still am driving the borrowed car with the "Department of Peace" bumper sticker. That has had me thinking about how plentiful energy would be in this country without its own Department, not to mention how much better education would be. Housing?

Posted by: jk at May 19, 2008 3:32 PM

I agree with HB that the federal bureaucracy is so bloated that it has a life of its own. It's almost impossible for a president to shape it to his/her will if it doesn't want to be shaped. Witness GWB's difficulties in the Pentagon, Dept. of State, etc.

That said, the last thing we need as president is a policy wonk. The president should set the national tone and shape policy/perception in terms of ideals and goals. There are plenty of wonks to fight out the details in Congress.

This is especially true in foreign relations, where we cannot dicate policy to anybody per se. The president must be able to influence world opinion in our favor. "Coalition of the willing" could not be more apt. Contrary to the liberal media's slant, GWB has been reasonably successful in this regard.

It is for these reasons that Obama is particularly dangerous. His rhetoric will shape national policy and regulatory implementation. The federal bureaucracy is so liberal that it hardly needs a nudge to go spinning wildly to the left; Congress will not even be a speedbump.

Moreover, he would have a huge impact on our enemy's perception of our willingness to engage them and our friend's trust that we will back them. You can be certain that he will do neither.

Posted by: Boulder Refugee at May 20, 2008 1:35 PM | What do you think? [2]