Volume 6, Issue 34
In this case, perception is not reality.
This is not a time wherein political philosophy is based on factual evidence extended on a reasonable path through an implementable strategy. Instead, political imperatives are argued and advanced towards a projected reality that doesn’t exist.
The Republicans
The Republicans talk of the necessity of balanced budgets and disciplined fiscal policy. Yet they never explain why this is critical as the basis for their economic beliefs. They reference free enterprise, small and family-owned businesses, and less government regulation. But they fail to counter their opponents with sound reasoning on why a government cannot print and borrow money forever.
In the past month, there have been no less than seven articles published in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post addressing the perilous economic conditions underlying world financial markets. These opinions are rendered by top secular economists and international bankers. One in particular was penned by Robert E. Rubin, U.S. Treasury Secretary from 1995 to 1999 under President Bill Clinton. In his piece he points out that the United States fiscal outlook is unsustainable. The government debt is too high. The European and world financial markets are at the precipice of an adjustment. His analysis is cogent and mainstream. He asks the question more directly, why won’t elected officials do anything about it?
As of the date of this report, not one single, solitary Republican leader at the national level has said anything in response to these articles. Why? One can only speculate. Referring to these bi-partisan experienced analysts to support the argument for fiscal discipline only makes political sense. It may, in fact, be that Republican leaders fear that the public will not understand and grasp the magnitude of the problem.
Cutting taxes has energized the economy. Holding spending at current levels is necessary for the debt-to-GDP ratio to be reduced. However, spending has been increased either to placate the Democrats or to appease the electorate. The current deficit is now projected by the Congressional Budget Office to be $1 trillion. The Republicans pursue an economic strategy that is not only unlikely to succeed, but seeks an unrealistic economic destination in which they do not believe is achievable.
Democrats
The Democrats preach an economic philosophy of government controls, regulation, and deficit spending. Government programs are more critical in essence than the growth of the economy. Free enterprise is a secondary concern. Literally, individual businesses are dictated the option to find a way to survive regardless of government imposition. Senator Bernie Sanders is a disciple of building an economic foundation based on free services. Expanded medical care and free college tuition are the principal banners of his crusade. He presents rational no ideas on how to pay for these programs and indicates no intention of determining sound fiscal solutions. In Senator Sanders’ case, he may, in his mind, see a mythical destination that has no basis in reality. His followers naively believe in his vision without questioning its validity.
Senator Elizabeth Warren is an advocate of total government regulation to achieve liberal social outcomes that are not naturally the product rendered by freedom in society. Her political theories border on socialistic democracy. Forget the fact that Europe has tried this experiment for hundreds of years and failed. This is in spite of the fact that European society is more amenable to government control based on the historical king landlord-tenant relationship. It hasn’t worked and it never will.
Progressives desire a destination that exists only in fiction.
An example of a normal political discourse is the debate centered on public education. We all agree that it is absolutely critical that all citizens have access to primary education. When discussing the efficacy of public education, private school education, or homeschooling, we are pursuing the same destination, a society that is well-educated. Even in our disagreements on curriculum, whether it be classical, a national standard, or revised for the digital age, we are pursuing tenets of the same destination. That is meritable, erstwhile debate for the public to conduct.
The reality of the destinations sought for society by President Trump and Mayor Breed are different in definition, but philosophically possible to achieve in reality. One may be true and the other false. Both may be false. Both may be true. But neither is a myth. This leaves public analysis where it should be, up to the individual to decide without the consequence of being led to a mirage of unreality.
What then is an individual to do?
We must all determine for ourselves what is real, what is possible, and what is fiction. We must take matters into our own hands and not follow leaders to a mirage. Economically, it is a proven axiom that you cannot print and borrow money forever. Excessive debt will enslave society, eliminate freedom, and suppress opportunity.
Republicans refuse to respect and be bound by this apothegm. Democrats are in denial of its authority.
To formulate a conclusion as the basis of one’s beliefs, first, humility must be embraced. There is no empirical proof for the purpose of life. We exist. For this to be true, something always had to precede us. This entity is commonly referred to as the great uncaused cause. Secularists hang their hat on gravity. Ironically, they are seldom bothered by the question of how gravity came into existence. A Christian believes that God created gravity. In God’s master plan, freedom and unalienable rights are paramount to order in society. The basis of all political philosophy should be that the individual is in charge of his or her own destiny. Secularists believe in the random nature of a cold dark universe. Man’s intellect, somewhere along the way, inexplicably developed as common sense. For man’s intellect to be the basis then for the rule and order of society, a government of mankind must control all order.
Each of us must decide from which our philosophy emanates. For both Christianity and secularism require a great leap of faith.
Seeking a political destination for society through a path that has proven to be a dead end, by means of a strategic process that is impossible to implement or sustain, is pursuing a delusional reality.
Leading our children to a mirage in the desert, left with no means to survive but to drink the sand, is a definition of betrayal. Regardless of one’s political philosophy, it is morally imperative to determine a destination of true reality based upon the lessons of history and respect for freedom.
My name is Marc Nuttle and this is what I believe.
What do you believe?