After the widely popular US Representative Pete Hoekstra lost his primary bid for governor, Danielle Leek of Grand Valley State University suggested that one of the explanations for Snyder's victory over Hoekstra might be the "crossover effect." She postulated that a number of Democrats might be certain enough of a Republican gubernatorial win in November that they would cross over to vote in the Republican primary for the candidate they would most like to see win. This is not a positive endorsement for Rick Snyder. Hey, I'm the guy most Democrats would like to see running Michigan (if a Republican has to do it.) That is the downside of an open primary.
This apparently less than ideal situation may have its advantages in other areas. What if it resulted in officials being elected who best represented the middle of the road? What if it eliminated the pressure from the fringes which presently warp many politicians? What if it brought about the coalition building like that required in a parliamentary system such as that of Great Britain? Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. Which leads me to another radical idea. Why not have all the issues decided on the basis of what the "other side" has to say?
Gore's scientific "consensus" on the human role in global warming is widely reported in the media as fact. The truth is that while approximately 2,500 scientists worked on the United Nations report on global warming, only about 25 wrote the consensus paper which expresses certainty about the human causation of climate change. Many of the remaining scientists asked to have their names removed from the summary when they read it. They adamantly disagreed with the summary committee's position. Let's give them a "vote" when considering whether to spend trillions of dollars to fight what just may be a chimera.
Or what about Obama's economists believing we can spend our way to prosperity (aka the stimulus package.) Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and many historians agree that his policies did not end the Depression, rather they turned a serious recession into the longest economic downtime in our history. In other words, the opposition which might have stopped FDR may have been right and decade long economic disaster might have been averted. Perhaps our thrill ride to insolvency could be stopped by such thinking today.
Or what about the wisdom of raising taxes to increase government revenue versus lowering them and encouraging growth which then builds the tax base. Confiscatory tax rates simply cause people to hide their money or move it out of the reach of the IRS. There is no proof from history that higher taxes increase revenue. On the other hand, lowering the tax burden, allowing people and corporations to keep more of their own money has always caused a spurt in economic growth and a resulting boom in tax collections. It worked for JFK; it worked for Reagan; it should work again.
Of course, I realize this strategy of letting the naysayers have more say could backfire on me. Not long ago there were many who were opposed to the surge in troops to Iraq which President George W. Bush hoped would end the war. It did. If Sen. Harry Reid, then Sen. Barak Obama and the rest of the opposition had kept Bush from executing his strategy, we might not have had the result we see today in that country. If we had followed the opposition's lead, we would have left the country to the insurgents instead of pulling out as we are now with some hope that the freedom our presence (and blood) bought will survive.
This apparently less than ideal situation may have its advantages in other areas. What if it resulted in officials being elected who best represented the middle of the road? What if it eliminated the pressure from the fringes which presently warp many politicians? What if it brought about the coalition building like that required in a parliamentary system such as that of Great Britain? Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. Which leads me to another radical idea. Why not have all the issues decided on the basis of what the "other side" has to say?
Gore's scientific "consensus" on the human role in global warming is widely reported in the media as fact. The truth is that while approximately 2,500 scientists worked on the United Nations report on global warming, only about 25 wrote the consensus paper which expresses certainty about the human causation of climate change. Many of the remaining scientists asked to have their names removed from the summary when they read it. They adamantly disagreed with the summary committee's position. Let's give them a "vote" when considering whether to spend trillions of dollars to fight what just may be a chimera.
Or what about Obama's economists believing we can spend our way to prosperity (aka the stimulus package.) Franklin D. Roosevelt tried that and many historians agree that his policies did not end the Depression, rather they turned a serious recession into the longest economic downtime in our history. In other words, the opposition which might have stopped FDR may have been right and decade long economic disaster might have been averted. Perhaps our thrill ride to insolvency could be stopped by such thinking today.
Or what about the wisdom of raising taxes to increase government revenue versus lowering them and encouraging growth which then builds the tax base. Confiscatory tax rates simply cause people to hide their money or move it out of the reach of the IRS. There is no proof from history that higher taxes increase revenue. On the other hand, lowering the tax burden, allowing people and corporations to keep more of their own money has always caused a spurt in economic growth and a resulting boom in tax collections. It worked for JFK; it worked for Reagan; it should work again.
Of course, I realize this strategy of letting the naysayers have more say could backfire on me. Not long ago there were many who were opposed to the surge in troops to Iraq which President George W. Bush hoped would end the war. It did. If Sen. Harry Reid, then Sen. Barak Obama and the rest of the opposition had kept Bush from executing his strategy, we might not have had the result we see today in that country. If we had followed the opposition's lead, we would have left the country to the insurgents instead of pulling out as we are now with some hope that the freedom our presence (and blood) bought will survive.
Maybe what I am really hungry for is a return to the good old days when issues were honestly debated. US politics today seems to be a winner take all kind of game where the loyal opposition is regarded as not just different, but wrong, even unpatriotic. This is unfortunate, because as Baron Acton observed correctly in the nineteenth century, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Bible also commends the practice accepting "many counselors" to reach wise decisions. What I pine for is what used to be called civility. I don't imagine that we'll ever agree on everything, but I dare to hope that we might learn how to disagree less disagreeably, and more honestly.
No comments:
Post a Comment