By Robert Capehert
SO often in American politics, the fortunes of the vulnerable—those seemingly left out of the upward mobility of American promise—are persuaded by culture and the media that, of course, mere plebeians would be eons better off if they would support progressive policies, hence progressive candidates.
In most cases, that means statist Democrats.
Life is filled with a lot of
bullshit. One of them being, a presumption progressive policies lift smaller boats on rising tides, creating more income equality.
In strides City Journal contributor E.D. Hirsch, Jr., whom addressed reality with some discouraging news:
A number of notable recent books, including Joseph Stiglitz’s The Price of Inequality and Timothy Noah’s The Great Divergence, lay out in disheartening detail the growing inequality of income and opportunity in the United States, along with the decline of the middle class. The aristocracy of family so deplored by Jefferson seems upon us; the counter-aristocracy of merit that long defined America as the land of opportunity has receded.
Mr Hirsch’s point focuses on the importance of vocabulary, and its correlation to higher SAT scores—such scores being a good indicator of graduation rates from University, and colleges.
Higher education success, being the main way an individual acquires higher income status, thereby achieving better upward mobility. Mr Hirsch’s point is well noted. I suspect his research is based upon empirical data.
But what is interesting—and statistics bare this out—is how progressive policies actually attenuate income equality. Not only do progressive policies reduce the goal of income equality, but depress economic growth in particular—and economic growth is essential for wages across sundry vocations necessary for wage and opportunity expansion. Suffice to say, the often-spouted cliché of the left—“the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer”—is actually one of the more telling side-effects of progressive policies, anchoring the free market place in a snafu of regulatory madness.
In recent Republican politics, presidential nominee Mitt Romney did a able job pointing out the obvious: Barack Obama’s policies had the opposite effect of his intentions: increasing economic growth for more and more Americans.
President Obama’s policies have impoverished Americans.
Still, Romney whiffed—as Republicans are apt to do in our withering times—to point out the ideological reasons Obama’s policies failed; they would always fail, assuming what they assumed about individuals, markets, capital-formation, and economic realities.
Point of fact, Barack Obama was not a leader doing the best he could with a bad situation—and if the American people would just wait it out, things would get better.
Contrary to progressive myth, Barack Obama’s policies have made things worse for nations dumb enough to legislate such statist policies, disregarding historical and empirical data.
Facts matter. They always do, they always will. One such fact remains that American society—economically and otherwise—will improve only when the country in the majority rejects the kind of beastly central-control assumed by President Obama’s erroneous ideological convictions.