Libertarian, a philosophy that has made its way to the forefront of the political arena and has made a major impact on everyday policies, is now, not only becoming a dominant influence in the Republican Party, but is having an impact on the views of many disenchanted Americans across the country. The last time libertarianism has garnered this level of attention is when Ronald Reagan was President and talked about the need for a very limited government. With the presidencies of George Bush, Bill Clinton, many Americans have come discouraged by the same old policies that, while in rhetoric and in theory, espouse views that are very different, but in practice, are just two sides of the same coin. George Bush, assumed the Presidency advocating a humble foreign policy and the need to downsize government, but as President, ran up deficit spending on nation building abroad under the disguise of our country’s interest in the fight against terrorism. Not only did George Bush run up the deficit on foreign policy, but on domestic policy, he doubled the size of the Department of Education and signed into the law the most expansive spending package on health care, Medicare Part D. Bush’s predecessor, Bill Clinton, although less discussed, was involved in an expansive foreign policy with the involvement of overthrowing dictators, propping up regimes, and going to war. Bill Clinton, coming from a party that believes more greater government spending stimulates the economy, actually cut spending and balanced the budget, the subject of debate today among liberals who believe his massive cutting policies may have had an impact on future economic growth. Leaving a number of people distraught about the integrity of the two party system, a renewed philosophy arose. The rise of Ron Paul’s two time run for President and spreading of the libertarian message that offered people renewed hope in the political arena, people, including myself, became enthusiastic about a new way that espoused a limited foreign policy and a hands-off government approach to solving our nation’s problems. This philosophy has captivated me over the course of the last few years, and consequently, my views became more aligned with libertarian solutions up until recently. While libertarianism may offer an attractive message about government being out of our social lives as well as out of the economic arena, the result of its overarching fiscal solutions would not serve to enhance our economic well-being, and thus the socioeconomic status of the nation. The major problem I find with libertarianism is its predominant reliance on the private sector. Libertarians believe that if problems such as crime, the environment, and our fiscal problems can be solved with no government intervention and the market solving these ills. Here’s the problem: the private sector care little about long term investment that would not reap short term profit gains. The private sector with individual entities and players acting in the market does not have an incentive to invest in the environment. With only the market forces of supply and demand, the market seeks to bring supply and demand to equilibrium in the short term. However, the market model fails to take into account problems with the environment, research and development that would and have had reaped benefits for generations. Also there would be no need to ensure fairness and a balanced economy across the board. If 90 percent of our nation’s people were living in poverty, but if 10 percent of the wealth of a very few happens to yield healthy economic gains and ensure market equilibriums, then libertarian economic policymakers would believe the market is working fine. The libertarian model, at least on economics, does not take into consideration a balanced economic policy so that the wealth of the nation ensures a broad and prosperous social climate across the country. Consider half of the states being plagued with criminal activity while one coast of the nation was extremely wealthy and had strong, stable and secure safety nets in place. We live in a country where there is no government looking out of the interest of their people. Democracy is about a nation of people and, yes interest groups, voting and ensuring that they have a fair shake in today’s economy. When spending has dried up and unemployment goes over 20 percent, which the actual numbers show now, we must have our government do its best to analyze and come up with solutions in order to have a balanced economy. With only limited influence from government, the private sector has no incentive to ensure that the potential of every individual is protected. There would be roads that led to nowhere, no parks and recreation and massive pollution and poverty. Sometimes government has to raise taxes and redistribute the money accordingly. Not only does this sure a balanced economy, but it ensures that we have full employment, and the talents of our nation’s people are being utilized to contribute to economic growth of our nation. With much prayer and conviction, these are some of the main reasons that I have decided to revert back to liberalism. Our two party system may not be ran by perfect men, but I have to believe that policymakers in Washington representing every voting person of every age and race, care more about the whole of our society, then a few wealthy individual running the private sector that only looks out for short term market gains. I’m happy to call myself a reborn liberal.
Posted on: Mon, 12 Aug 2013 02:24:44 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015