I've found myself recently unable to shy away from mixing my personal, professional and political lives.
Global warming deniers infuriate me (and not just because my brother is a prominent climate change scientist). Sarah Palin strikes me as one step removed from fascism (and yes, I know that's her perspective on Obama). In railing against these things I seem to automatically get tarred with an anti-capitalist, big government brush. Why do those things have to go together? Why, for example, is acceptance of the evidence for anthropocentric global warming, and therefore the belief that policies should be enacted, necessarily connected to a belief in big government?
A long time ago--I think at Bush 43's second election--I told my one employee at the time that I'd just voted. He told me that he'd also just voted . . . and that his votes had probably cancelled mine out. I was shocked. Here in my own midst was someone who'd voted entirely for the other side and I hadn't realized it because we seemed to have so much in common. Since then he and I have become good friends and we've learned that our political views are much more alike than they are different. But when he goes to ballot box, he throwns down on the side of candidates who appear to espouse economic freedom and small government, regardless of their other positions. When I go to the ballot box, my litmus test has to do with individual liberties like gay rights and issues like healthcare reform, regardless of whether the candidate has the sort of business perspectives I favor. Friends like him see the threat more from government regulation of economic affairs than a tendency to favor a blend of church and state. I on the other hand bite my tongue around big government approaches to healthcare and climate change because I'm terrified of the merger of religion and politics and of "no regulation" as a cover for corporatism.
What amazes me is how this group of people--our group--can't find common ground in the political establishment. For example, every venture capitalist I know voted for Obama. That doesn't mean that every VC out there voted for Obama but I'd think my largely New England sample would be a little less uniform. In fact, you'd think that a group that exemplifies rabid capitalism would en masse steer clear of the Democratic Party. But like me they simply couldn't stomach voting for a ticket that included a woman with a dim view of science and a highly favorable view of the value of the laying on of hands. (I'm convinced that without Palin, many people I know would have considered a McCain ticket. Biggest mistake of his life.)
A top VC, Fred Wilson, recently wrote a post called "Stuck in the Middle" articulating his support of Obama. The first comment on the post is a comprehensive critique. The comment states derisively that the current administration has drawn only 10% of its inner circle from people who have any private sector experience. Another commenter, sympathetic to the critique, declares that the pendulum is swinging back to an era where individual freedoms are favored (I think he's referring favorably to tea baggers and all that). There's that divide again: either you're from the public sector OR you believe in individual liberty; either you believe the evidence points to such a high probability of anthropocentric climate change that public policy is warranted OR you're against big government; either you believe in healthcare as a fundamental right that must be made available to all OR you're an advocate of small businesses and entrepreneurship. It seems that in the popular press and in the mainstream political establishment you can't be both sides at the same time: you can't be a believer in anthropocentric climate change AND a believer in small government; a believer in universal healthcare AND an advocate of small business. And THAT is just wrong and dangerous for our future.
Long ago I was taught that the ends of the political spectrum meet at the same point. I believe that the most radical position is in the middle and that the best of America exemplifies that position. Let's hope we can stay centered and don't fly apart.
1 comments:
Great post, thank you kindly for writing it.
I could not agree more with your points. I have taken some interest in a few approaches other people have taken to TRYING to address this dilemma, although none of them have had great success.
* Radical Middle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_middle) - An interesting attempt to find a truly different way that is not simply a compromise between Left and Right. I like their spirit, but it does not resonate with my personal views as much as I would like.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_America_Foundation - Is a self-proclaimed radical centrist organization that has succeeded in gaining real media attention.
* Big L Libertarians - The official libertarian party seems to be way out on the extreme relative to the US population and infuses the word Libertarian with an overly strong connotation (IMHO). That party is small in numbers and influence.
* Small L libertarians - I consider libertarians to be those who (like you and I) place economic and personal freedom high on our list of priorities. Such libertarians believe that free markets are powerful forces for freedom and prosperity, but that they are no panacea. Such libertarians believe there is an invaluable role for government in human affairs - but that government intervention has far less effectiveness than most people assume. Such people put a lot of weight behind well-proven areas of economics - they especially believe that incentives matter.
* Experimentalist (my own term) - This would be people who may bring any ideology to the table, but are willing to create fair experiments to test hypothesis and then LIVE by the results of those hypothesis. This category is my favorite, but it is one that has not proven extremely powerful politically.
Post a Comment