Why the Democratic Political Platform Creates Poverty

While one may describe this meme as propagandistic and one-sided, it carries an important insight.

The Democratic Party has always been notorious for employing the strategy of machine politics to maximize their influence. Andrew Jackson instituted the spoils system where the government provided political privileges to voters in exchange for their support.

The Democrats were able to perpetrate such blatant fraud with impunity because this country was significantly more corrupt than it is now. However, the increased political transparency compelled them to merely refine their strategy as opposed to abandon it. In other words, they simply discovered subtler and less conspicuous methods for achieving the same objective.

Instead of explicitly handing out government positions to the most steadfast party loyalists, they reward supporters by expanding government programs that benefit them. Two obvious examples of this phenomenon include the invidious "military-industrial complex"  and the aggrandizement of welfare programs.

While both appear benevolent because they have the potential to generate income, they are problematic because they disincentivize the private and the public sector from contributing to economic growth. Today's welfare state can hardly be described as anything but a spoils system in disguise: it hands out special privileges to the underclass in exchange for their support. Although this course of action diminishes the incidence of extreme poverty, it does little to provide its beneficiaries with resources necessary to enter the middle class. In part because of this, the government has an incentive to increase rather than decrease the poverty rate. For this reason, the image cited in the opening sentence provides relatively accurate description of the frequent consequences of the Democrats' long-term political triumphs.

While government contracts for large corporations create jobs, they are fundamentally anti-competitive because they allow these organizations to thrive without outperforming their rivals in the market. As a result, economic growth is stifled because these institutions reward alliances with the government more than efficiency and innovation. As a result, higher barriers to market-entry are created and the surviving enterprises often produce fewer jobs than the genuine victors in market competition would. This clearly contributes to poverty because government contracts eliminate more jobs than they create.

Since FDR's New Deal, the appeal to pity has always been the centerpiece of the Democratic political platform. However, it is a little known fact that this rationale is fallacious and famously so: it is known as the logical fallacy of argumentum ad lazarum. It is always a mistake to assume by default that acts motivated by the intention to assist the most unfortunate are morally justifiable. While very few could reject the moral premise that it is commendable to help the poor, there is a gap between people's actions and intentions. That is why the ostensible acts of compassion that the Democrats profess to engage in frequently lead to disastrous outcomes.

Pinochet Coup and The Disastrous Consequences of American Global Hegemony

This is an informative documentary on the indictment of Chile's former military dictator, General Augusto Pinochet for crimes against humanity. With ample financial and political support from the United States, Pinochet seized power in the September 11th coup d'etat of 1973. This event laid down the foundations of the U.S hegemonic foreign policy that subsequently led to 72 foreign interventions provoking a massive proliferation of anti-American sentiments in a myriad of underdeveloped nations where interventions have taken place. For all of the 20th century, the U.S was able to pursue these policies with nearly full impunity and minimal casualties. Nonetheless, the disastrous consequences of America's heavy interventionism in foreign countries reached this country's shores 38 years after the Pinochet coup, evincing the disastrous consequences of our hegemonic foreign policy.

Under Pinochet's aegis, Chile was transformed from an indigent Marxist state to a dynamic market-oriented democracy it is today. The junta accomplished this remarkable feat by comprehensively uprooting all political opposition through massive incarceration, torture and execution. Extra-judicial incarceration was perpetrated on over 30,000 innocent civilians, 3,000 were murdered and over 10,000 permanently displaced. Nonetheless, Chile remains the most stable, the most prosperous and the most democratic nation in South America.

Whether you applaud or decry General Pinochet's radical reforms, the relevance of this event to modern American foreign policy is worth noting. The democratization of foreign authoritarian regimes and the revitalization of their moribund statist communist economies often comes at an exorbitant cost.

The era of light skirmishes and casual conflict is over, no-one is fully immune to the threats of modern war. 

The University is the New Church

In the Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes repeatedly expressed concerns that the Church and the University had the potential to undermine the sovereign's authority. When I first read that passage as a naive college student, I saw no reason to challenge Hobbes' position regarding the subversiveness of the University. After all, I thought that the University was home to many massive protests and it seemed obvious to me that the primary purpose of institutions of higher learning was to promote critical thinking.

Yet, I did not quite understand why Hobbes thought that the Church could be equally subversive. I was confounded by that bizarre assertion because the Church appeared to have the opposite influence upon young people from that of the University. Instead of promoting critical thinking, it encouraged its patrons to adhere to a religious dogma and instead of participating in protests, it promoted obedience to authority. Then, sobering realization dawned upon me: I've thoroughly misunderstood that passage from the Leviathan. 

Hobbes was not saying that the University was potentially seditious because it promoted critical and independent thinking. In fact, he was saying the exact opposite: the University undermined the authority of the State in nearly exactly the same way the Church did. In the "Origins of Political Order", Francis Fukuyama documented how the political power of the Catholic Church diminished the strength of the centralized governments across Western Europe. By contrast, the Orthodox Church of Russia enjoyed considerably less power and for that reason, the Tsars were able to govern with an iron-fist. He documented a similar contrast between the deeply religious medieval India that lacked a strong centralized government and the relatively secular China that has been deeply authoritarian for most of its history. 

Hobbes' point was that similarly to the Sovereign, the University and the Church had tremendous potential to inspire unconditional obedience to their authority. In so doing, they can persuade their followers to developer deeper loyalties to institutions of religious practice or "higher learning" than to the government. Unlike mere craftsmen and ordinary people who serve to provide practical benefits for others in exchange for monetary rewards, the Church and the University claim that they serve a higher purpose in society. The former generally maintains that they help people obtain salvation, find meaning in life and throughout the epochs, it has been nothing short of the vanguard of public morality. In the deeply religious Europe, it was often presumed that it was impossible for one to be moral without being religious. However, in the secular Westernized society, the average citizen clearly adheres to a different set of values more akin to those espoused by the University. Such values include participating in a democracy by voting or protesting, thinking for oneself and serving the public good. While these ideals sound great on paper, the University has only been as effective at compelling people to abide by them as the Catholic Church has been at the prequel to the Protestant Reformation. 

In light of the fundamental changes to the Western collective consciousness, the University wields far greater moral authority than the Church. The traditional Christian values are often seen as antiquated, parochial and altogether out of tune with the sensibilities of the modern society. By contrast, the University emerged as the bastion of forward looking values where all sorts of causes for social justices are championed. Thus, Hobbes' insight is quite relevant today because the University remains a politically active institution. Although most protesters on college campuses believe that their actions are driven only by their independent thought, they've been more influenced by the culture of the University than they realize. This becomes apparent in light of the fact that most students struggle to form coherent arguments in defense of their position. We all know it, only a few students are critical thinkers and even fewer base their political attitudes on facts or defensible rationales.

I think we should seriously consider the idea that the University indoctrinates students just as much as the Church used to and Hobbes' wariness of the University was quite justified. Today, his fears are becoming a reality as the University poses a more formidable challenge to the U.S government than the Church did to the governments of medieval Europe. At the outset, this seems like a good thing because the government's power must be challenged as otherwise it becomes corrupt and oppressive.

 The problem is, however, the Church and the University are not immune to this problem. The Catholic Church compromised its integrity at the heyday of the sales of the indulgences and we're beginning to see a similar problem with the modern Academia. Rampant grade inflation and the proliferation of online degree mills likens the process of acquiring a degree to that of paying priests to reserve one's place in heaven. Similarly to the Catholic Church, the University promises its students extraordinary results such as "the joys of the life of the mind" and superior employment prospects, yet they rarely honor these promises. Only graduates with a small number of highly marketable degrees tend to reap the full rewards of a college education while the majority of their peers get buried deep in debt. As for the life of the mind, I can only refer you to William Pannapacker.