One of the dangers of popularizing economic concerns is that citizens respond in “knee-jerk” fashion to occasional troubles in the economy. Whether it be the housing market or automotive industry, the mainstream media outlets have a way of presenting these crises in a manner that provokes the average Joe to be filled with fear and indignation: “Quick children! Off to the store for bread and milk! Fill the cupboard with canned goods! Fill the car with gasoline! Down to the bomb shelter!”
In the wake of the recent election the expectation for financial salvation is apparent more and more. More attention than ever has been given to the perceived failures of free-market capitalism. Perhaps this is why in record numbers citizens turned out at the polls to vote for a candidate whose policy proposals can in many ways be surmised by his own words: “redistributing the wealth.” It would be a stretch to predict full-fledged socialism coming to the United States any time soon, but neither is such a prediction our purpose. Our purpose as discerning citizens is not to concoct radical, fear-driven predictions. Rather, it is to carefully explore what is really occurring that others aren’t willing to acknowledge, and to respond with truth.
When any organization is struggling to stay afloat, pressure is applied to its leadership to fix the problem. Sometimes the problem requires a band-aid and ointment. Sometimes it may necessitate a purging [read lay-offs] of certain parts in order to survive and eventually thrive once again. However, there may come a day when the problems facing the organization are far too mammoth for a quick-fix. Desperate times call for desperate measures (Yet even this raises the question as to what constitutes desperate “times” or “measures”).
With this in view, consider the perilous economic times America is facing. One need not have an advanced degree in economic theory to understand the words, “fiscal crisis.” Main Street and Wall Street feel the brunt of these financial woes. In customary fashion two things in particular take place: 1) Finger-pointing, and 2) Pleas for help. The ironic thing about these two is that they are both directed in the same direction: the federal government. Regardless of the executives and companies who are named as culprits along the way, the overarching entity known as “government” is always left to pick up the pieces.
However there seems to be a nuanced complaint these days. Though many cry out for the blood of CEOs and CFOs, many citizens are wary about such requests because if companies are hung out to dry because of their own fiscal indiscretions, then so do the thousands of innocent employees of those companies. A conflict of interests arises: will we seek justice, though it be at the expense of personal security? In the end, someone will lose.
All of these concerns notwithstanding, let us consider again the fallacy of the average American mind. Whenever times get tight, even tighter than we can remember in our own lifetime, affected persons seek a radical answer for a radical problem. There must be a silver bullet solution to slay the economic werewolf. Regardless of how improbable or unrealistic this type reaction may be, it still remains for government to respond to. But there is a very subtle transfer of power that takes place here. Before any American responds in either sympathy or skepticism toward the burden their new president and government is about to inherit, read the fine print: There is a great exchange about to take place. Though the government may be blamed for the financial woes of its citizens, the same citizens turn around and place in the hands of their government the obligatory power to change their destinies for them.
This great exchange has implications far too outstanding to be explored in any length here. Yet now that this reality is recognized by intellectually honest citizens, the second major concern of these troubling economic times can be considered. Again, the first concern is that even when an individual selects a culprit he can attribute his woes to, it raises some serious questions when he entrusts the power to change his circumstances to that same culprit. The second concern is the tendency of said culprit to be enabled to propose more radical solutions than he normally would be able to legitimately offer. Regardless of how one may feel about the Bush White House, consider the passage of the Patriot Act in lieu of the 9/11 attacks. Can anyone say without hesitation that this same act could have passed under any less fearful a climate?
So what economic solutions can we expect ultimately from the American government in the next few months and years? The recent bailout plan passed in October will hardly be the only piece of legislation that carries the scent of economic panic. The name of this very bill speaks for itself: Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008. But is it really one or two bills that are going to frighten us? It probably won’t. Most Americans don’t watch C-Span, but instead get their daily news from msn.com. While it may be much more challenging, it is the cumulative result of all of these economic plans and policies that discerning citizens need to be aware of. Simply put: what kind of country and economic system will today’s generation be handing to their children and grandchildren? I fear that in light of historical precedent and current political rhetoric, that type of system will be more akin to a democracy shaped more by socialistic ideals than traditional tenets of capitalism.
Now I don’t intend to develop this theory further. I am not an economist, nor a consummate historian. However, the discipline of rhetoric and philosophy has taught me one fallacy that the American public may be more susceptible to now than in some time. That fallacy is the perfect solution fallacy. This error occurs whenever an argument assumes that there is a perfect solution to a problem (i.e. the current economic crisis), and/or that a solution to the problem should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist even after it was implemented.
Consider the current free-market approach to economics. Is it perfect? No. Are there flaws in some way? There probably is. Can it be repaired? Most likely some of them can. But what most will do is because a certain system is imperfect and those imperfections seem to be intolerable these days, the baby gets tossed out with the bathwater. If we cannot completely address the problems of the American capitalistic system then there must be a better way that will fix all of our woes in one swipe. This delusion is preferable to believe instead of the reality that our problems may have to be endured and solved responsibly over time, with much patience, diligence, and humility.
Whenever a system breaks down, there could be a number of areas that need attention before the whole system needs to be tossed. Perhaps the agents in charge of the system need correction. There likely may be some changes that need to be made in the goals the system has typically sought to accomplish. But what does a nation do when the problems are more bound up in the system itself? What if the guiding morality of the system is inconsistent, or worse, absent? What if the moral foundation upon which the system was built has completely eroded? What if it never existed?
There questions demand serious answers, for we are living in serious times where truth is needed as much as it ever has. Who will be the truth-tellers in these murky economic times? They must not hide under a steeple or pew. They must stand, and speak.
