Lew Rockwell's Analysis of the Election

lew · 11-08-2006, 05:14 PM

More than three years ago, George Bush unleashed the dogs of war on Iraq, perhaps hoping that he would take his place among the "great" war presidents. It's strange how these guys imagine themselves written about in history books in the manner of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR, rather than Truman, Johnson, and Nixon. It's been more than 50 years since war immortalized a president, and yet they keep trying.

The dogs of war didn't build freedom and democracy in Iraq, or bring justice or peace. Rather, they came right back and ravaged the Republican Party in the election of 2006. This election has probably sealed Bush's place in history as a failed war president who used a period of national anxiety about terrorism for his own personal aggrandizement and the enrichment of his coterie.

That wasn't part of the plan.

The loss of the House and perhaps the Senate is all the more extraordinary considering that the failed (no longer any dispute about that) war on Iraq was the decisive issue at every level.

Think about this. We've grown accustomed to believing that economic interest alone dictates voter habits. From that point of view, voters have little to complain about on the surface. Unemployment is low, stocks are up, inflation is mixed but under control, and growth is not brilliant but creditable. The Iraq War is in the news constantly but it has little impact on most American voters. The draft is threatened but not likely. The war debt is high but hidden.

What do regular Americans care whether we were lied into war or that Iraq suffers under military occupation that is driving the country into the hands of fanatical Islamic theocrats?

Well, apparently many voters do care, even those who don't have family members fighting and dying.

Many people voted based on what might otherwise seem to be an abstraction. Bush undertook this war with arrogance and claims of god-like power. The result has been catastrophic. And apparently this amazing failure of government had an impact on the vote.

How very 19th century! How very extraordinary! It seems that a certain impulse toward idealism still can make the margin of difference. It's not only about economic interest. Issues of peace and justice and truthfulness really do matter, even now. Ideas and not interests alone can still change the course of history, even in an age of cynical democracy in which buying and selling votes is said to be what matters.

That's the good news. The bad news is that the party that has failed has also taken down some good ideas, among which is that vast increases in the minimum wage are bad for working people. The Republicans campaigned against the many ballot initiatives raising the minimum wage. Six states approved increases in the minimum wage. None of the increases will be devastating to the economies of these states, since they are still low in real terms. But one can only be aghast at the economic ignorance behind such ballots, which are pushed by unionized, high-wage workers precisely to block low-wage workers from entering in to job competition.

I suppose we should be glad that these are taking place on the state level instead of nationwide. That's some consolation. But they might also be harbingers of the essential struggle to come: whether the economy ought to be controlled and regimented or be permitted to be governed by free market exchange alone. These are the sorts of debates a normal country has. With war out of the picture, who can't but welcome such a debate?

As bad as these socialistic ideas are, Republican economic interventions such as Sarbanes-Oxley are to some degree worse than a minimum-wage increase. And consider too the Republican Medicare expansions. Who would you rather have ruling you? Social democrats or fascists?

It's a pathetic fact that the Republican Party squandered yet another opportunity to make a difference for the good in this country. They forever promise freedom but forever deliver despotism. They might have shrunk government, really cut taxes, balanced the budget, reformed money, freed up trade, or decentralized government. Instead, they threw it all away to defend an indefensible war.

If the Democrats inch us closer to socialism at home, the Republicans must share in the blame for having attempted socialist-style planning on the international level, and more welfare and economic controls at home, not to mention an expansion of the police state.

Let there be no more talk of the good guys and bad guys in the mainstream of American political life. The state in all its forms is the enemy, and both parties are part of the problem.

You think it can't happen? That there are too many interest groups dedicated to the permanence of power and planning? The election of 2006 shows that short-term economic interests alone do not always dictate the political future.

Publius · 11-09-2006, 12:37 PM

Scrum · 11-09-2006, 12:41 PM

Wow

hsmith · 11-09-2006, 12:43 PM

It's a pathetic fact that the Republican Party squandered yet another opportunity to make a difference for the good in this country. They forever promise freedom but forever deliver despotism. They might have shrunk government, really cut taxes, balanced the budget, reformed money, freed up trade, or decentralized government. Instead, they threw it all away to defend an indefensible war.

the republicans could have done great things, but they blew it...

lew · 11-09-2006, 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

the republicans could have done great things, but they blew it...

nbiggershaft · 11-09-2006, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by lew

The bad news is that the party that has failed has also taken down some good ideas, among which is that vast increases in the minimum wage are bad for working people. The Republicans campaigned against the many ballot initiatives raising the minimum wage. Six states approved increases in the minimum wage. None of the increases will be devastating to the economies of these states, since they are still low in real terms. But one can only be aghast at the economic ignorance behind such ballots, which are pushed by unionized, high-wage workers precisely to block low-wage workers from entering in to job competition.

meh i voted for it, mininimum wage was too low, that simple

DosEquis · 11-09-2006, 01:18 PM

Well written and i agree with most of it. However, I am still not buying we are on a path to democratic socialist hell. In general as a country we still have that sense of conservatism when it comes to things like healthcare and business. Those who want a socialist country are in the minority and none of their initiatives will pass. I also don't find a minimum wage increase to be that harmful but at the same time i don't think it will help much either. A very, very low % of the population is actually working for 5.15 an hour. Democrats are not market killers, and history shows this. Every elected official is a millionaire who needs market success. They won't cut their own throats.

Publius · 11-09-2006, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

meh i voted for it, mininimum wage was too low, that simple

Says who? Says you? Who are you to say what a company HAS to pay an employee?

nbiggershaft · 11-09-2006, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Says who? Says you? Who are you to say what a company HAS to pay an employee?

A responsible human being.

Publius · 11-09-2006, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

A responsible human being.

And what does being a responsible human being have to do with taking away the rights of employers/employees to contract freely on mutual terms of employment?

nbiggershaft · 11-09-2006, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

And what does being a responsible human being have to do with taking away the rights of employers/employees to contract freely on mutual terms of employment?

Because that contract system of mutual terms only works on paper. In reality if you don't have a decent minimum wage you end up with a system paramount to slavery, except with less investment risk by the owners. That's how things were once in this country and it'd be the first I heard anyone tell me things aren't better now than then.

hsmith · 11-09-2006, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Because that contract system of mutual terms only works on paper. In reality if you don't have a decent minimum wage you end up with a system paramount to slavery, except with less investment risk by the owners. That's how things were once in this country and it'd be the first I heard anyone tell me things aren't better now than then.

Yes, that is why you have rising wages and competing offers for employment

the last time i looked for jobs i had a $10,000 difference in offers

golly! without the gov't i would be working for min wage! no one would think to compete for my labor!

DosEquis · 11-09-2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

And what does being a responsible human being have to do with taking away the rights of employers/employees to contract freely on mutual terms of employment?

Business did it to themselves. They exist for one purpose, make money. Most will do what it takes, including low pay, long hours, and a lack of safety. All you have to do is look at history to see it. Some say "wuhl work some place else lolz". Well back then it was chosing between a shit sandwich or bag of aids. Because of organized labor movements we are where we are today. Today "wuhl work some place else, lol" will work for awhile only because of what they did then. We still have rules for business to follow and they are reasonable. If you dont like the rules established then don't start your own business. "Wuhl there goes all the jobs lolz"...no. Because as it sits right now with rules we have we are doing just fine economically. Business is making more money than ever. This "death to business" talk comes up EVERY time minimum wage is discussed and it is simply not true.

hsmith · 11-09-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

Business did it to themselves. They exist for one purpose, make money. Most will do what it takes, including low pay, long hours, and a lack of safety. All you have to do is look at history to see it. Some say "wuhl work some place else lolz". Well back then it was chosing between a shit sandwich or bag of aids. Because of organized labor movements we are where we are today. Today "wuhl work some place else, lol" will work for awhile only because of what they did then. We still have rules for business to follow and they are reasonable. If you dont like the rules established then don't start your own business. "Wuhl there goes all the jobs lolz"...no. Because as it sits right now with rules we have we are doing just fine economically. Business is making more money than ever. This "death to business" talk comes up EVERY time minimum wage is discussed and it is simply not true.

Min wage only hurts those without skills

when people aren't even worth the min wage to be hired because they lack any skills, they don't get hired and remain poor

what is wrong with paying someone a low wage to TRAIN THEM with a skill?

Publius · 11-09-2006, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Because that contract system of mutual terms only works on paper. In reality if you don't have a decent minimum wage you end up with a system paramount to slavery, except with less investment risk by the owners. That's how things were once in this country and it'd be the first I heard anyone tell me things aren't better now than then.

Please, show me the number of people that work minimum wage jobs. And of that number, show me the ones that are skilled, experienced workers (i.e., not teenagers or middle/high school dropouts). The only companies that even employ people at minimum wage levels typically employ first-time workers or those with absolutely no useful job skills.

NO ONE gets a minimum wage job with the intent of having/raising a family on it. They get it to get work experience and develop job skills. By raising the minimum wage, you're hurting the people that need those low wage jobs the most because their skills (rather, the lack thereof) make them a liability and unhirable the higher the wage goes.

hsmith · 11-09-2006, 02:06 PM

when will this tired argument of working in the industrial revolution end?

Publius · 11-09-2006, 02:07 PM

Dos, I'm not saying it will hurt businesses. The people it will hurt are teenagers/dropouts/etc. with no job experience and no job skills. It will hurt people that aren't worth hiring if you have to pay them $7 or $8 per hour.

Teenage unemployment is the highest unemployment rate in the country, and it's no coincidence that the number is higher in places with a higher minimum wage.

AVengeance · 11-09-2006, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

A responsible human being.

Then how about starting your own business, getting employees, and paying them well.

hsmith · 11-09-2006, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by AVengeance

Then how about starting your own business, getting employees, and paying them well.

that would be counter productive, then he would have to exploit people

see, anyone that owns a business hates people and only wants to take advantage of them

what kind of person would he be then!

DosEquis · 11-09-2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by hsmith

when will this tired argument of working in the industrial revolution end?

It won't. If the industrial revolution was something done in a responsible humane way there would be no such thing as labor unions, minimum wage laws, etc.

Organized labor and things like minimum wages were a result of the free market. People were tired of choosing between different shit sandwiches every day, and we still leave things in place to make sure we do not go back to choosing between shit sandwhiches. I get the impression you like the free market, just not some of the results that come with it. Things like unions and minimum wage.