Tuesday, October 18, 2022

Let's see if this one gets me into trouble

As I write this it is mid-October in an even-numbered year. Elections are weeks away. Yesterday, I saw Republican candidates heavily advertising their stand against crime. This morning one Democratic candidate advertised his support for gun control.

The Republican technique is to take a position on an issue: "crime". The Democratic technique is to take a position on one tiny fragment of that issue: "guns". Whose argument is stronger? It should be obvious: Everyone is against crime, but not everyone is against guns. The Republican argument has meat; the Democratic argument has none. Yet the Democrat seems to believe he is making a strong case. Why? Maybe the D thinks tougher gun laws will reduce crime. Maybe they will, I don't know; but gun laws are not the source of crime. This sad and declining economy of ours is the main source of crime.

On the economy, too, Republican arguments have more weight than Democratic arguments. The Republicans say "inflation" and, for better or worse, they don't have to say another word. The Democrats have excuses. 

Hey -- whichever party was in charge would be making excuses about the inflation, no doubt. But some excuses are better than others. Putin's war, the price of oil, the covid pandemic, the cost of the response to the pandemic, these can be strong arguments. Every Republican that got on TV would be using them all, and more, and all of them would be making the same argument -- if they held the reins. Democrats don't even try.

Here's how I see the problem: Republicans make strong economic arguments; Democrats make no economic arguments. Republicans always turn to economic principles when making their case. Among Democrats, both the candidates and the voters seem to avoid economics. As a result of these differences, Republicans are able to make arguments that are overly simplistic or outright wrong, and Democrats are still unable to respond effectively.

Republicans like economic solutions. It doesn't seem to matter to them that their arguments are from the early stages of capitalism when those arguments had some validity. Now, in the late stages, those arguments no longer hold good. Republicans don't care about that. And Democrats have no idea.

Democrats do not opt for economic solutions. They don't choose to fix economic problems by using policy to change the economy. Instead, they provide money to help people cope with those problems. That's how it looks to me.

I don't know what's going on in their minds. But it looks to me as if Democrats have something like "math anxiety" about economics. Dems seem to think that if they go for sound economic argument, they will necessarily come to the same conclusions as the Republicans.

I don't know how they could possibly think this, as it is based on the flawed premise that Republican economics is sound. But the problem is

This little piggy had bad policy

That little piggy had none

All we need, really, is a few tweaks to policy, and to vote for people who understand that the financial sector is more than big enough already.

3 comments:

Oilfield Trash said...

Polling results support what you are saying...

https://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/HHP_Oct2022_KeyResults.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2HigAxSmltEUKzSlPdUBHVxDRqP0P1GHHM4RXSfKv1KnoIYsi1Kurs-q0

Democrats are not working on issues most American think is important...Only 7% think the Jan 6th issue is important...Only 9% think Women right are important..Only 6% think the climate is important...

So they waste alot of time and money working on things that are not important to the American people and they then scratch their heads why people do not want to support their platform...

Lorraine said...

I've been hearing the phrase "late capitalism" for so long that I'm forced to conclude that the very concept of late capitalism is nothing but wishful thinking. Capitalism, unfortunately, is a hardy weed.

The Arthurian said...

Hi Lorraine.
You have been hearing "late capitalism" for a long time because that stage is not instantaneous.

If, as I think, the cycle of civilization is an economic cycle (like a massive business cycle), then "early" capitalism is the "rise to the peak" and "late" capitalism is the "decline from the peak" which leads to the end of civilization and a "dark age".

Things go bad in the late stage and continue to get worse for a long time. Probably the whole "Republic" period of ancient Rome (after the Monarchy and before the Empire) was late stage capitalism.

Your words "wishful thinking" and "unfortunately" suggest to me that you see things getting worse. So I would say you are seeing the late phase. But it seems you reject the "late phase" concept because capitalism has not ended soon enough, in your view. Be careful what you wish for!