Questioning Basic Assumptions

How Is it That Conservatives Seem Blind to Facts that are so obvious to the rest of us? Here are some examples:


Item One: Trickle-Down Economics
If the Consumer Drives the Engine of the Economy, how could a “trickle-down” theory possibly make sense? The wealthy already have more money than they can spend. But this concept has driven Conservative economic theory from Ronald Reagan all the way through to last month’s collapse.


Item Two: The Innate Wisdom of Self-Interest
Writing recently in The New York Times, conservative columnist David Brooks made the following statement:

“Economic models and entire social science disciplines are premised on the assumption that people are mostly engaged in rationally calculating and maximizing their self-interest.”

—David Brook, “The Behavioral Revolution.” The New York Times, 10/27/2008
[Italics Channeling Barack Obama]

Any Non-Conservative Student of Behavior Knows that simplistic reasoning such as this, when applied to a complex organism such as “people,” will err. “Economic models” based on such simplistic reasoning will fail.

And Failed, This One Has.


Item Three: The Self-Regulating Effects of Self-Interest
In Recent Congressional Testimony former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said:

“This crisis, however, has turned out to be much broader than anything I could have imagined. [T]hose of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief. ”

—Dr. Alan Greenspan, “Testimony Before the Committee of Government Oversight and Reform,” 10/23/2008

Any Non-Conservative Student of Human Behavior Knows, predicated on the flaw in Item Two, that “self-interest” has many competing claims put against it. The example of the Marine who throws himself on a grenade to save his comrade exemplifies that in a most basic form.

Chairman Greenspan’s Illusions About the Relationship between greed and self-interest seem too-naive even to consider: If such a relationship existed, then America’s initial need for regulation and oversight would not have arisen. It did not take the current crisis to make this clear.


Item Four: Vetting Sarah Palin
Over the Course of a Month, Kathleen Parker wrote several related essays, beginning with this one published on September 03, 2008:

Would anyone ever ask whether a male candidate was qualified for office because his daughter was pregnant?....[W]hat’s perfectly clear is that feminism today is not about advancing women, but only a certain kind of woman....There may yet be reasons to find Palin an unacceptable vice presidential choice, but making pro-life decisions shouldn’t be among them.

—Kathleen Parker, “Who needs feminists?” Washington Post Writer’s Group, 09/03/2008

But Then on 09/26/2008, Ms. Parker Wrote:

[I]t is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

The Most-Interesting Thing About the Belated Discovery of what for many had been immediately apparent is that Ms. Parker’s announcement of her discovery did not include an apology to those who could tell, from the nomination acceptance speech itself, that Governor Palin had these deficiencies:

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick.....and a more complicated picture has emerged.

—Kathleen Parker, “Sarah Palin should bow out.” Washington Post Writer’s Group, 09/26/2008
[Italics Channeling Barack Obama]

It Does Not Seem to Occur to Ms. Parker that the earlier critics might merely have seen more clearly than Ms. Parker managed to see. The changing circumstances may just have been the veil lifted from some Conservative eyes.


What Is Notable About the Conservative Failures and Epiphanies here is that the errors of reason which preceded each “Aha!” moment seem so clear to those of us not blinded by the folly of Conservative thinking for the past twenty-eight years. But how would one go about explaining the limitations of Conservative vision to self-confident Conservatives themselves? To those who generally (as in the example of Ms. Parker’s essays) seem content to decide first, and think later?

We Began With the Question, “How is it that Conservatives Seem Blind to Facts that are so obvious to the rest of us?” No ready answer arrives to clear the confusion. However, if the Obama-Biden ticket should prevail on Tuesday, thoughtful Conservatives of the Republican Party should have at least the next four years in which to figure out what has kept them so blind to many of the economic and political realities of life.

Roasting the Chickens

It Has Been One Thing to Poke Some Fun at the Bad Guys during their long years of success, while they remained insulated from the realities that affect the rest of us.

It Is Another Thing When These Chickens Come Home to Roost, and it is our henhouse that they land on—the one that they’ve dismantled for us.


Since the 1980 Election of Republican President Ronald Reagan, the regulations and the treasury of the United States have been under assault by a determined policy of “free markets” and “trickle down” and “supply side.” It will always be folly to run a government into the ground by both lowering its income and increasing its costs.

But This Has Been the Thrust of the Republican “Free Market” Idea. If nothing else results from the current debacle, let us at least hope that the practical lesson, which was somehow not logically clear-enough to the “Show-Me” nation of Americans before, now has been shown. We are actually living out the logical disaster of living beyond our means.

When Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Came Out to Congress and said, “Listen, you have to fix this thing quickly, and you have to give me $700 billion dollars, with no strings attached, to do it,” much of America doubted the move. Our “Hey, How Hard Can It Be?” President lost almost all of his credibility a long time ago. And now here he comes to terrorize us one more time.

President Bush and the Republicans have deliberately stuck America between a rock and a hard place.

Those Who Were Recently Referred to as the “Revolting Republicans,” get labeled thus because they waited until this last-minute, brink-of-disaster opportunity to speak up and say, “Hey! It’s a bad bill. We’re not gonna do it.”

Where Have These "Revolting Republicans" Been Up Until Now? And what political motive kept them silent before voting time earlier this week?

What Has Been Done Is Despicable. It has been despicable for the entire seven-and-a-half years. And the fact that there’s not much America can do about it right now is as infuriating to all the rest of America, who have the not-unreasonable attitude of, “Why should I bail out Wall Street?”

One Can Hardly Help But Wonder Whether This "Rescue" Request is just a feeble bumbler’s last-chance effort to completely empty out the coffers of the country, on his way out.

But the Current Evidence from the Markets tells us that indeed the President is right this time. At least he is right to the extent that Congress must act quickly. On the other hand, the arguments against this bill—with its made-up cost of $700 billion dollars—remain persuasively disturbing.

Six Years of Unbridled Control of Government, out of the past total of 28 years. That’s how long it took the Republicans to work their damage of de-regulation uncontrol. And this is the result.

Now, Please Listen to the Lesson Learned:

It Is Not Possible To Run Any Endeavor By Constantly Raising Expenses Above Income. Things must be paid for. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Now That the Republicans Have Seen It, and the rest of us have to help pay for it—

Can We Please Pass the Stupid Bill, and then move on to a reasonable relationship with fiscal reality?

Thank You.