The Land of Plenty--Thanks to Capitalism

Americans celebrated the Fourth of July this past Monday.  For European readers (apparently, I get between two or three French readers every day--merci!)--or people living in progressive enclaves in the cities or up north--allow me to explain how our Independence Day celebrations work:

- Tons of food:  As will come as no surprise, Americans love to eat.  What better way to celebrate the bounteous blessings of freedom than by consuming copious amounts of barbecue (pulled pork, of course, preferably mustard- or vinegar-based)?

- Fireworks:  We like to blow stuff up (not the way radical Muslims do--we do it for fun, or to protect the weak and defenseless).  Note that we are the land of glam metal and Kid Rock.  Again, what better way to celebrate prosperity than by exploding lights in the sky, all choreographed to the strains of "Rock Me Like a Hurricane"?

- Family:  Despite the rapid growth of children born out of wedlock, and increased rates of co-habitation (and decreased rates of marriage), we Americans still honor the importance of family as the building block of any productive society.  Families also instill the values of a nation, and are the incubators of the kind of self-government and personal self-control that are the cornerstones of a free people and a free republic.

There are, of course, many other reasons to love the Fourth of July--great weather, awesome parades, bald eagles--but what makes all of this celebrating possible?  How is it that even the least-fortunate Americans are able to enjoy a hot dog and fireworks on the Fourth?

 

Sure, it's not South Carolina pulled-pork, but I'd eat it.

(Source:  http://www.public-domain-image.com/free-images/food-and-drink/barbecue-grilling-food/porterhouse-steaks-grilling-barbecue-grills-meat)

The answer is the prosperity made possible by our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.  The Declaration clearly sets forth the right of all humans to "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."  The "pursuit of Happiness" is no idle phrase or call to hedonism; rather, it enshrines the freedom of any person to pursue that life which is most fulfilling to him, so long as he does not infringe upon the liberty of other free men.

The Constitution--which Abraham Lincoln called the "frame of silver" around the "apple of gold" of the Declaration--provides the legal and institutional framework to safeguard liberty.  The Constitution is also, as free-market economist Milton Friedman once said, the "rules" of the economic "game."  Not only does it protect the rights of individuals against the power of the state; it also spells out how individuals can pursue happiness by limiting the government's ability to jury-rig the economy in support of favored or well-connected interests (at least, that's how it's supposed to work).

The Constitution establishes an incredibly flexible economic framework that strictly limits congressional power to a few areas.  In other words, the Constitution enshrines a (lightly regulated) free market capitalist system.

Capitalism--when supported by a pro-growth government, protected by rule of law and the courts, and sustained by a free and responsible people--has done more to improve human life than any other economic or political system ever devised.  When China adopted free market reforms in the 1980s, it transformed from a massive, impoverished nation that experienced widespread famine and low productivity throughout the Maoist years into an economic powerhouse.

(China's continued reliance on corporatist schemes and non-representative authoritarian rule, however, has finally caught up with it; China will either become more free politically, or more repressive and, therefore, less productive; my bet is on the latter.)

 "The 'pursuit of Happiness' is no idle phrase... rather, it enshrines the freedom of any person to pursue that life which is most fulfilling to him."

Capitalism works so well that we occasionally seem to enjoy too much prosperity.  Throughout history, people have struggled against hunger.  Now, people in the Western world struggle to lose weight.  We often see the worst cases of obesity among the poorest members of society.  What kind of system creates so much food, at such a low cost, that it actually makes poor people fat?

For that matter, capitalism has created so much wealth, we can now afford to pay more money for food that is produced less efficiently.  The very hipster-elites that decry capitalism and "systems of oppression" at Bernie Sanders rallies can only enjoy their trust-funded non-GMO, organic, pesticide-free kale salads because capitalism gives people the ability to choose to eat these foods (for what it's worth, I'm on an all-GMO, factory-farm only diet).

Imagine transporting an American from 1933--during the Great Depression, and not even 100 years ago--to 2016.  He would be dumbfounded to find poor Americans struggling with fatty diets, and skeptical to witness the spiritual descendants of the New Dealers pushing for limits on the size of Coke bottles he could purchase.  He would also be blown away by the massive diversity of goods and services available (like the two-liter bottle of Coke).

Capitalism is not perfect.  It depends upon a fair and predictable legal system, and a people committed to self-control and self-government.  If anything, capitalism creates so much luxury that people become unwilling to do the work necessary to maintain their comfortable lifestyles.  It also creates enough wealth to shield its beneficiaries from poor decisions and bad moral choices, the costs of which are shifted to responsible citizens.

Nevertheless, capitalism is vastly preferable to the alternatives, and for every layabout there are dozens of eager upstarts ready to try something new.  To continue to enjoy its fruits, we must recommit ourselves to personal self-control, self-government, and moral instruction.  Otherwise, we'll party ourselves into perdition, all the way voting ourselves "free" goodies from the public treasury, because the prosperity we've earned will been seen as a "right," not a privilege.

Let's avoid this fate.  Let's exercise a little self-control--and demand it of our elected officials, too.  Then let's eliminate confusing, onerous regulations and once again unleash the creative potential of 330 million Americans.  That's a recipe for long-term happiness.

Rustics Have Opinions, Too

I've noticed something about the American Left, specifically those members who claim to be "cultured": they share a distrust and even hatred for rural Americans. They constantly mock the values, feelings, and politics of this oft-derided constituency, framing them as stereotypical "rednecks" or "good ol' boys" who spend most of their time polishing their guns drunk while watching NASCAR.

Let's face it: stereotypes exist for a reason. Think of any offensive stereotype and there's a kernel of truth to it. But that doesn't mean we should go around judging people based on those stereotypes. Liberals are making that point all the time, and in this case they're actually right. As usual, though, they fall back into their old, hypocritical ways when it comes to rural Americans. It's "hate speech" if someone insinuates that an Asian is good at math, but it's perfectly acceptable to laugh at someone who's only skin pigmentation is on the back of his neck.

I'm not saying that having a sense of humor is wrong. Maybe white guys really aren't as cool as black dudes when they drive. Dave Chappelle had tons of great material and Boondocks deals with race relations in the United States today better than any other show out there. I want to make it clear that I have nothing against humor. By laughing at stereotypes, we rob them of their power, rather than adding to it.

The same holds true for "rednecks" or "white trash" or whatever label one uses. If it weren't, Jeff Foxworthy would be out of a job. The problem arises, however, when we start to marginalize those Americans because of the stereotypes that exist. Such marginalization of African Americans, for example, would be roundly denounced by the left, and rightfully so. Unfortunately, liberals often celebrate when such marginalization is applied to the rural white American.

In an otherwise excellent article in Harper's Magazine entitled "Barak Hoover Obama: The Best and the Brightest Blow it Again," Kevin Baker indulges in this marginalization to a sickening extent [Note--at the time of this writing, the full text of the article is only available to Harper's subscribers]. The bulk of the article draws historical parallels between Presidents Herbert Hoover and Barack Obama. Baker's research is impeccable and his understanding of an oft-maligned (and extremely intelligent) former president is refreshing. He implicitly challenges the more common "Obama-is-to-Roosevelt-as-Bush-is-to-Hoover" analogy and draws some pessimistic conclusions about Obama's approach to passing many of his long-promised, radically liberal reforms.

A large part of Baker's argument is that President Obama is proceeding with excessive caution and is relying too heavily on Congress to enact the changes he seeks for the nation (naturally, many conservatives would argue that the opposite is true, but suffice it to say that Baker is approaching Obama's proposed reforms from the point of view of a liberal supporter--he actually thinks that cap-and-trade is a good thing). Baker maintains that congressional Democrats from states with small populations like Montana are stepping up after years of quiet service to challenge many of Obama's efforts.

The language Baker uses to describe these representatives and senators is thick with disrespect. He talks about their states as filled with tumbleweeds and ignorance. He implicitly challenges the notion that these congressmen--and by extension their constituents--have no place in contemporary American politics and that they should be brushed aside and ignored, all because they're impeding Ossiah's democratic-socialist vision. This viewpoint is shared implicitly and explicitly by most liberals and leftists. The thinking is that because these states have small populations--and don't have a good place to get sushi or gourmet coffee--they don't deserve to have a place in the American political system (not to mention the fact that Baker is encouraging Obama to squelch dissent and open discussion, supposed bedrocks of modern liberalism).

What's most disturbing about this reasoning is that it is anathema to the very structural philosophy of the United States Constitution. The Constitution clearly sets out to create a structure that gives states with large populations more power in the House of Representatives, while allowing states with small populations to maintain an equal footing in the Senate. The same theory exists behind the Electoral College. If our system was not balanced in this way, New York and California would always pick the next president and would exert a dangerous amount of control over national politics (with only conservative Texas able to balance things out a bit). Regional interests do not necessarily coincide with national interests, and what's good for New York may not be good, and may even be bad, for Iowa.

Yet liberals consistently ignore this inconvenient truth and view it as a stumbling block to their pet projects, whatever they might be. At the risk of sounding like a blowhard conservative talk show host, leftists in America today have no respect for the Constitution except when it is politically advantageous or convenient. Now, I am willing to admit that there are plenty of conservatives who probably treat the Constitution in the same way, but they are much, much harder to find. This disrespect cannot endure for long, regardless of the side.

Therefore, I applaud what these rural Democrats are doing. Maybe they are dusty old relics of the party, but that's for the Democrats to sort out themselves, and that should not invalidate what these men have to say. Maybe most of them are blowhards and are simply seizing their moment to be in the spotlight or to play to their base, but some of them have useful objections and suggestions. I don't want to give liberals any additional aid, but it seems to me that they could use all the help they can get in the more rural parts of the country. Taking the interests of rural Democrats more seriously would be a great start.

Kevin Baker and his ilk live in a world of trendy green advertising and mocha lattes. They have no respect for hard working rural Americans--oh, heck, we'll call them "rednecks"--who help make this country into the wonderful tapestry of ideas and cultures it is today.

Besides, who wants to watch Jeff Gordon race in a Prius?