|
Contributors
Gary M. Galles - Contributor
Mr.
Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University.
[go to Galles index]
 A
Divisive Unity
Unity
under Kerry?...
[Gary M. Galles] 8/2/04
Although most pundits have concluded that the Boston Democratic infomercial
was mainly to tell Americans that John Kerry went to Vietnam, there was
a major subtext: Blaming President Bush for dividing the country and claiming
that under Kerry, America would again be united. Even allowing for the
usual convention puffery, that is patent nonsense.
You cannot
unify America about Iraq when many consider what has been done
as necessary and others
consider it unforgivable. You cannot unify America as "One
nation, under God," when some vehemently object to any such use of the word "God." You
cannot unify America about abortion when some view it as murder and others consider
it almost a sacrament. You cannot unify America with policies whose common thrust
is taking from some against their will to give to others. As long as government
is involved in such choices, political unity is impossible.
Los Angeles
Times political cartoonist Michael Ramirez may have
captured this best with a caricature
of a Democratic convention delegate holding up a placard
that says "Unify America," while wearing a shirt saying "Republicans
Shove It!"
Political disunity is inherent in disagreement over what the government should
do. If I believe wholeheartedly in "A" and you believe wholeheartedly
in "not A," there is no unifying position possible on the subject--only
the question of whose preferences will dominate. To claim otherwise is knowingly
to mislead.
Though they
were played down at the convention, Americans' "A" versus "not-A" political
disagreements are most obvious in international, military and anti-terrorism
policy. However, the Democratic Party's domestic platform is also replete with
policies that inherently create disunity.
Raising taxes on "the top 2%" to give things to others will not unify
the support of that 2%. Therefore, those who disagree are pilloried as undeserving,
so their disagreement can be ignored and unity proclaimed anyway. Neither such
a policy nor such attacks create unity, except among those who expect to share
in the largesse.
Higher minimum
wage and pro-union platform planks cause similar disunity,
by their nature. Unions use government coercion to deny others
the
ability to compete
for those "good" jobs, forcing them elsewhere, pushing wages down in
those areas. That harms all non-union workers, as well as customers of unionized
firms. Higher minimum wages cause similar harm to customers and those displaced.
The vast majority of Americans, who are harmed, are not unified behind such policies.
Similar effects
also follow from the many strands of protectionism endorsed,
however camouflaged behind labor and environmental standard smokescreens.
America
could only conceivably be politically unified behind a federal government that
did not go beyond those things that benefit all. But that list is very short.
As the Constitution spells out, it consists in little more than defending people
and their property. After all, national defense is essentially such protection
against foreigners, and the justice system is similar protection against our
neighbors.
Unfortunately,
however, with today's mind-set, even a government restricted
to those very limited areas that advance the "General
Welfare" would not
create unity. That because a great many want to benefit themselves at others'
expense and such a restriction denies them that. They would be unified only
in eroding the barriers that restrict the government from coercing
others on their
behalf.
It is a great
challenge to name an area in which Washington does not have
a deep, expanding involvement. And in every such area, its power is used to
rob Peter
to pay Paul. While that continues, every group claiming that if only they are
put in power, they will exercise it to advance American unity, is being disingenuous.
Only reducing government power over Americans' lives could ever unify Americans.
But what was promised in Boston was only the unity of 50% plus one, for expanding
the use of that power in their favor. That is not the unity our Constitution
promised; it is the tyranny of the majority our founders tried to prevent. CRO
copyright
2004 Gary M. Galles
§
|
