6/11/10

For the time being I am committed to the idea that attitude is the most important word in the English language, even though it is striking how often there is a reference to the need for balance. If we assume that two or more ideas are valid what we should strive for is the right balance. We should look for the midpoint, for that is what is required to make something sustainable. Attitude is still number one, however, because to find the midpoint we must have the right point of view. The right view is the “disinterested” view idealized by the Founders, a term they borrowed from the ancient Greeks.

Aristotle emphasized the need for moderation. Einstein was awed by the balanced forces at work in the universe, to the point where he assumed there must be a supreme being. Our Founders were concerned with checks and balances in government. Martin Wolf, who writes about economics in the Financial Times, says the economy will plummet unless there is a balance between production and consumption. Environmentalists say the world’s climate will become unbalanced if too much carbon is spewed into the atmosphere. Even Fox News says they want to be fair and balanced.

Our Founders worried a lot about the impact of factions, but were unable to find a good way to deal with the problem. So, they assumed that since there were so many special interests they would cancel each other out and this would allow equilibrium to be maintained. What the Founders failed to foresee was the’ feel good”factor, which has to do with religion being replaced in our culture by politics. It used to be that people were motivated by the desire to save their souls, whereas today it makes us feel good to believe we are saving the world by supporting politically correct ideas.

The left says the tea party activists hate government so much there is a danger it might lead to violence. But the left does not consider the possibility their hatred of business could bring a similar outcome. The right attitude is to consider business and government as adversaries as well as members of the same team. For the team to win there must be a recognition that each has a role to play in society, and the argument is only about how to achieve the right balance. The Founders understood that it made no sense for Congress to legislate if there was no executive branch to carry out the laws.

Daniel Henninger argued in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal (Obama Meets Toto) that we are clearly at the point where government must be reined in if America is to prosper in the years ahead. That is because government is inherently inefficient and we cannot afford to waste money anymore, since we do not have it. Henninger writes:

” Now government’s inefficiency has become indefensible and its fantastic costs, its oceanic spending, a clear and present danger.”Government is inefficient because it lacks the automatic stabilizer of competition (the invisible hand of the free market).

David Brooks writes in the New York Times today (Prune and Grow) that the stimulus package Congress passed last year will end up costing the average taxpayer $7,798, and the benefits are not obvious if we look at the employment numbers. One reason could be that business knows the government’s deficit spending will mean higher taxes and reduced profitability, so they are reluctant to put capital at risk. It is also true that much of the stimulus has been directed at keeping government workers from losing their jobs, especially members of the teacher unions.

One of the biggest impediments to economic success in America is the growing power of public service unions. It is difficult to maintain balance in this area because politicians and government workers are not adversaries. Instead, they have similar interests. Taxpayers are the victims, because when union leaders bargain with the politicians they say:” We put you there. If you do not give us what we want we will kick you out of office.”In fact, today the New York Times writes editorially that the White House is making a mistake when it criticizes what the unions were trying to do in Arkansas (The Message From Arkansas). The unions spent $10 million trying to defeat Blanche Lincoln in the primary because of her opposition to legislation favored by the unions. The NYT writes:

” Many on the left were unhappy with her for opposing a public option in the health care law, for opposing bills making it easier to unionize and for being more concerned about deficits than about stimulating the economy and creating jobs.”