In the end, however, one has to ask a more basic question. Why do we care about inequality at all?

Poverty, of course, is a bad thing. But is inequality? After all, if we doubled everyone’s income tomorrow, we would eliminate an enormous amount of economic hardship. Yet, inequality would actually increase. As Margaret Thatcher said about those who obsess over inequality, “So long as the [income] gap is smaller, they would rather have the poor poorer.”

Another Nobel Prize winner, F. A. Hayek, concluded, “The rapid economic advance that we have come to expect seems to be in large measure a result of this inequality and to be impossible without it. Progress at such a fast rate cannot take place on a uniform front but must take place in an echelon fashion, with some far in front of the rest.”

We should all seek a prosperous, growing economy, with less poverty, and where everyone can rise as far as their talent and drive will take them. Equality? Who needs it?

Well put.

It is quite remarkable that a man who renounced his membership in the Republican Party because he so despised the Ronald Reagan administration could now be running for the GOP nomination for president.

Read the whole post at Power Line.

First, it assumes that upward mobility in the United States is lower than in many other countries. This may or may not be true, depending on how it is measured. For example, how much credit should be given to official statistics as reported by various countries? Certainly, focusing on the official “poverty” level will give bad results, as discussed here.  But even using income percentiles poses challenges. For example, should welfare and other “benefits” in socialist European countries be counted as income? When I lived abroad, I routinely encountered people making more money than I did, for doing absolutely nothing. The individuals in question were not independently wealthy or trust-fund babies; they were merely beneficiaries of a very generous welfare state, which rewarded them for being unemployed and sitting around various public areas all day, which making no effort to find work. The artificial support given to such individuals may mask the natural cause-and-effect relationships between work and prosperity on the one hand and sloth and poverty on the other.  The NRO article, like most discussions of economic inequality, also totally ignores wealth, focusing only on income. There are good reasons for this, chiefly the availability of data on income and lack thereof on wealth, but the distinction is still an important one and is totally ignored in the article in question.

The second and more significant failing is in the article’s assumption that increasing upward mobility is always a good thing.  That’s not necessarily true.  Certainly, increasing opportunities are always good, but one can easily imagine a very high-mobility society with an extremely dysfunctional economy.  For example, imagine a tax system in which anyone whose parents were in the top 40% of the income distribution at the time of his or her birth pays a tax surcharge of 40% of his or her gross income, which funds are then distributed to those whose parents were in the lowest 40% of the income distribution.  This would, at least temporarily, result in incredibly high mobility, but it would be manifestly unfair and strongly disincentivize anything resembling ambition or hard work.  The point is that mobility is not the goal; opportunity is. Past a certain level, increased mobility can only be achieved at the cost of stability and fairness.  For every person who moves up the income distribution, somebody else moves down, because rankings are a zero-sum game.  Foster too much movement from the lower end of the distribution into the higher end, and you are by extension fostering an environment in which many of the highest earners suffer precipitous plunges in their incomes.

These are just some quick musings on the article; I would be curious to hear what others thought.

All your sophisters cannot produce anything better adapted to preserve a rational and manly freedom than the course that we have pursued, who have chosen our nature rather than our speculations, our breasts rather than our inventions, for the great conservatories and magazines of our rights and privileges.

~ Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

In fact, the Founding Fathers designed our Constitution so as to make it very difficult to bring about significant changes. New legislation requires majorities in both houses of Congress followed by a presidential signature. Constitutional amendments are even more difficult — the easiest method is for an amendment to pass both houses of Congress by two-thirds majorities and then be ratified by three-fourths of all state legislatures. This suggests the Founding Fathers were suspicious of quick and easy change.

The actual genius of America, and what makes our country unique, is precisely the opposite of change. It is that our country was founded on certain timeless principles, laid out in the Declaration of Independence and put into practice by the Constitution. These principles include the conviction that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, and to provide freedom of conscience, freedom of speech, and equal protection under the law.

and especially:

Our constitutional structure recognizes the value of stability, and that change can be (indeed, often is) more damaging than uplifting. It acknowledges that existing social structures and traditions are not merely vestiges of an ignorant past, but rather reflect the accumulated wisdom of our ancestors and the evolutionary fruits of centuries of social experimentation. It respects the organic nature of political communities, with their interdependent parts woven together in a web of complexity that confounds even the most well-laid plans of radical social engineers.

Now, it will be no surprise to anyone who reads my musings regularly (or has read the site description at the top of each page) that I wish the outcome had been a different one ideologically. I did not and do not care about the race or gender of any candidate for any office, but I care very much what he or she says and thinks. If the latter are our primary concerns, this election was a clear defeat for conservatives. As a conservative, I think that constitutes a loss for the nation. Of course, I don’t think the Republican Party ever had much chance of holding ground in this election. For that matter, classical conservatives (as opposed to neocons) had even less. We were hoping for a better result, not an excellent one. Alas, it was not to be.

CNN tells me the U.S. chooses “change.” It’s not clear to me, yet – or, indeed, probably to anyone – just what change America collectively thinks it will get, much less what it will actually get. That said, change is coming. Indeed, in troubled times of war, economic turmoil – the worst of which I sincerely doubt is over – political division, and a deep moral divide on countless issues, change is inevitable. There was never any question that the United States of America will be different in 2012 from what it is in 2008. The world changes fast enough on its own to guarantee that. The question is, given that we can collectively control some of that change, what do we do with that power, which we have now entrusted in President-Elect Barack Hussein Obama? We will start hearing and seeing the answer today, I suspect.

I have one final thought I want to share in this election wrap-up. One of the common responses to the election and re-election of President George W. Bush was to say, “Well, he’s not my President.” Indeed, already, some are responding that way to Obama; others are embracing him as “my” President (Senator McCain took the latter approach). Here is my thought on this topic: George Bush is not my President, nor will Senator Obama be. Nor was any of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter. I don’t have a President, and never will.

We, the People of the United States of America, we have a President, and we have elected a new one. This Nation must stand or fall as one. The trend of claiming and disowning particular officeholders based on their political affiliations is, I think, an extremely dangerous one. Our nation is defined in large part by a simple phrase: e pluribus unum, “out of many, one.” We had better take hold of that concept, before we produce many from the one People and one Nation we have inherited. And we had better all own this new President and claim him not as “mine” or “theirs,” but as “ours.” We need to hold him – and all who claimed victory last night – accountable to the People for what our government does in the next four years.

Members of the military have a time-honored saying: “We salute the rank, not the man.” Likewise, we – all of us – can and should honor the President and the presidency of this nation, regardless of upon whom that burden rests.

We have a President. We have a Nation. We are a People. Let us celebrate that, and let us see if we can unite in respecting those institutions and working in and through them for another four years, so that we still have them at that time.

- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France

1. Smoke and mirrors
2. Media spin
3. One party rule by super-majority: threat to checks and balances, or just another day in D.C.?
4. Who really pays

Smoke and Mirrors

As is always the case, lots of people are voting, for only slightly coherent reasons, at best. To pick just one example, a friend relays that she heard two people in a doctor’s office arguing about the importance of the Second Amendment. One of them declared, “Well, I’m pro-gun, so right there, I’m obviously voting for Obama.” I don’t get it. There’s really no telling what some voters have heard or think they’ve heard. But that’s not where the rubber meets the road.

No, where I get worried is cases like this one: a friend of mine blogs under the name Tommy Carcetti. He’s a true conservative; while we disagree on some issues, we do approach the world in much the same way. Here’s what he said in his most recent post:

I will admit that I like Barack Obama. There is a wonderful line from the 1961 classic film Judgment at Nuremberg – one of the judges on the tribunal asks Spencer Tracy’s character where he falls politically. Tracy responds “Me? I’m a rock-ribbed Republican… who thought Franklin Roosevelt was a great man.” That’s kind of how I’ve always felt about Barack Obama – I don’t agree with him on much, but I think he’s an excellent man who will make a very good president. He represents something fresh and new, and it is hard to overlook the history-in-the-making aspects of his campaign, too.

I know lots of people who would agree with this entire quote, and lots who would agree with it except for the Republican bit. But when “Tommy” agrees, I get worried. What I worry is this: between the outrageously long primary season, the overwhelming amount of press coverage, the hype over the nominees for Vice President, and the tendency of candidates to tack to the center during the general election, we’ve lost something key. That something, I suggest, is the rational reporting and true information required to tell the two candidates apart and see that their visions of our collective future are so fundamentally different that they cannot both be decent choices, nor can they both be unmitigated disasters-waiting-to-happen.

Take an issue: the economy, the war in Iraq, abortion, the judiciary, foreign policy, etc. With the possible exceptions of health care and immigration, the candidates are worlds apart. If you see good in some liberal policies and in some conservative policies, that’s fine, of course. The fact is, though, that the American public, whomever they elect, has to make stark choices about fixing or leaving broken certain aspects of our government. (Or if you prefer, the choice may be between breaking something and leaving it alone.) It cannot be true, however, that both men, by attempting to enact radically different policies, will do a very good job over four years; one way or the other, each will improve America or make it a worse place in which to live and work.

The biggest concern I have here is that I’ve seen people on both sides of the aisle express completely absurd points, which cannot be supported by evidence or common sense. Either we’re not, as a nation, paying attention, or we no longer recognize rhetoric and dishonesty when we see it (no matter which side you think is better). Want proof? If you’re feeling sturdy today and have recently reinforced your faith in democratic processes and the participants therein, go read some of the thousand-something comments on this Newsweek column. Horrified? I was.

Media Spin

Is there really any debate over whether the media is balanced this year? A perfect example is a recent story titled, “Pelosi debunks triple threat rumor.” Aside from the obvious nonsense – nay, bunk – contained in the title, the story uncritically presents Pelosi’s views, including attacks on Republicans and McCain, without presenting the opposing argument nearly as fully. In fact, the article quotes Pelosi’s recent whopper, “But I do tell you that if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan.” No comment by the author, no mention of Republican critiques of that amazing statement. In fact, the entire article is structured around Pelosi’s thoughts – she says this, McCain is mentioned, she “debunks” his comments, McCain is mentioned, and the article devolves further into nothing but a statement of what she thinks and believes. No bias here.

One-Party Rule by Super-Majority

Speaking of Pelosi’s comment, the idea of one party – either party, any party – holding the presidency and dual super-majorities is just scary. Our entire system of government is structured around checks and balances between and within the three branches of government. In a modern political party, however, uniting that much power under one party’s banner practically gives that party’s leadership – and especially the President – nearly unfettered power of precisely the type the Founders of this nation sought to avoid. This should scare Republicans, Democrats, independent voters, and everyone else.

It’s not just Pelosi, of course. Senator Obama needs big, across-the-board, Democrat wins in order to enact the radical programs and reforms he preaches about on the trail (assuming, of course, he plans to actually deliver, which is a fair doubt in any political campaign). Chuck Schumer, in a fit of hypocrisy, jumped on the one ring party bandwagon, as well.

Who really pays?

Who will really pay for the outcome – whichever one it is – of this election cycle? It’s tempting to say only the rich pay for Obama’s plans, or only the middle class for McCain’s, etc., when one is talking about electoral politics. But this is too convenient a fiction. The reality is that we all do. Rich, poor, middle class, whether you pay taxes now or not, your future and that of your children hinges on the scope and type of economic and tax policies enacted now.

Americans disagree, still, on the wisdom of programs like Social Security. We all agree, however, that for decades everyone drawing a salary has been paying into the system, with a few very narrow exceptions, like that for ministers. That plan was intended to restore confidence and ease the burden of caring for one’s family to speed recovery from the Great Depression. Yet more than a half-century later, it’s not only still breathing; it’s the proverbial “third rail of American politics.” Touch it at your peril.

What is really on the line here is not the fate of Social Security or even the war in Iraq. It’s not Detroit manufacturing, Wall Street, Main Street, or Joe the Plumber. No, it’s much bigger than that. What’s at stake in this election is nothing less than the American Dream, itself. Americans can and do disagree about how best to preserve that dream and whether there are limits as to how far one can pursue it. The fact is, however, that it has been placed very much in play this cycle, as the people closest to acheiving that dream are seeing it slip away.

Like the Obamas in their earlier years, my wife and I have enormous debts. Not from spending irresponsibly or buying a house we can’t afford, but in the form of student loans incurred while we were pursuing a higher education in order to enter a profession and build a good future for ourselves and any future family. We have a high income, but a disproportionately huge tax burden and enormous payments to be made on student loans. If our taxes go up, despite our relatively large income, we will be hard-pressed to buy a home in the next couple of years (responsibly, anyway). The American Dream may be within our grasp, but it also might be taken away, or at least be capped arbitrarily by politicians who already have an average net worth near $7,000,000. If you wonder about the havoc this could wreak when this power is exercised arbitrarily, you owe it to yourself – and to everyone else – to read Thomas Sowell’s commentary on the topic.

Conclusion

Like I said before, this will probably be my last commentary until Tuesday. I don’t think I can persuade anybody, but I do need to vent, and I do hope everyone out there who reads this will think about what is at stake here and what vision for America is really best suited to preserve what makes this nation great. Even if you’re already sure you know, please: try to convince others to think about the same. Then get out and vote.