In retrospect, perhaps I should have watched the vice-presidential debate on my own. Though I consider myself a Democrat, the watch party the University Democrats hosted was anything but conducive to critical thinking. The audience was blindly consistent, cheering for Biden and hissing at Palin without much regard to what was actually being said. Despite the polarized atmosphere, I managed to jot down a few notes during the debate to pore over later. As I did so, I came to realize that for my very first election cycle, I was faced with an incredibly difficult choice: do I choose the fight against tyranny or the unfettered market? Let me take a moment to explain what that means.
Last spring I had the opportunity of taking the required course in American government with a contract lobbyist as lecturer, a man by the name of Louis Bacarisse. To be frank, my time in his class had a revolutionary impact on the way I saw our political system. Professor Bacarisse's premise was simple: the fundamental conflict driving American politics is and has always been the conflict between the small and the large interests (aka the poor and the rich) and their respective conceptions of tyranny. The small interests fear tyranny of the aristocracy, the type of tyranny we're most familiar with: a society controlled by a small, privileged elite. The large interests, on the other hand, fear tyranny of the majority, a socialist utopia in which their hard-earned wealth is redistributed to the masses. As our country was being born, two political parties arose to represent the two sides: the Federalists for the large interests and the Anti-Federalists for the small; today, these are the Republican and Democratic parties, representing the large and the small interests, respectively. Realizing that I was indeed a small interest, Prof. Bacarisse's lectures led me to acknowledge a political affiliation. It is because of him that I consider myself a Democrat.
That following summer I stumbled across an extraordinary documentary on the internet, one that would end up having an even greater impact on the way I viewed my world. It was a film adaptation of a book by Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw, a PBS enterprise titled Commanding Heights: The Battle for the World Economy. Essentially, the documentary describes the development of the global capitalist system. It starts at the dawn of the 20th century, when technologies like the telegraph and the radio were creating a deeply interconnected world, and works toward the present, chronicling the global move away from free markets in the aftermath of World War I and the move back toward them in the 1980s. It wraps up with a look at the challenges facing today's interconnected world, but throughout the film the message is clear: free [international] markets are the best markets. I bought the argument, and it is here that the challenge I face this election cycle was born.
I'm an economics major, and in my studies I've seen time and time again that free markets are indeed the best markets. They are fair, they are efficient, and they maintain a steady supply of the goods people want at the prices they are willing to pay for them. Government intervention, on the other hand, prevents the market from operating efficiently, causing shortages, inflation, and unemployment. In other words, my studies have shown me that free markets serve both my self-interest and the common interest. My understanding of our political system, however, paints a different picture: it tells me that the Democratic party, the party in favor of greater market regulation, serves both my self-interest and the social interest. Looking at this, quite frankly, I'm not sure what to do. Do I fight tyranny or defend the free market? Perhaps there is some way to do both?
Voting based solely on one principle is a bad idea. As we can see from Congress and Dubbyah, there's no guarantee that your party will actually favor their generally accepted economic (or ethic) principles. Take, for example, the bailout bill that was just passed. If Dubbyah were a true conservative, he would have vetoed that bill citing interference with the free-market as being an awful idea. He did not, however, veto the bill. Same thing happened with the economic stimulus package a few months back. Both of these measures were passed by an overwhelming majority, meaning that lots of people crossed party lines. I suggest you look at more than just who will handle the economy best; it's hard to tell who will do what in the future based on an incentive.
k