JULY
9, 2006 --
Let's
repeal the progressive program of 100 years ago.
Has the common good been well served by direct primaries, popular election
of United States senators, the income tax, the interest-rate tinkering of the
Federal Reserve Board -- the reforms of the progressive movement one hundred
years ago? I think not.
There is, for example, growing concern about the wisdom of the Federal Reserve
Board in holding to the Greenspanista view -- that a healthy economy is a
function of action by the Platonic Guardians at the Fed, and not the expression
of a free people, working
and producing in a free market.
Arguably, the Fed is in a win-win situation -- heads it wins, tails we lose.
If the economy sours after Fed action, the Fed will not admit that it is the
proximate cause of downturn, but more likely claim that its action will hasten
recovery.
It is, for me, troubling, that positive performance in the economy leads to
concern that the Fed will step in to to turn economic bloom into desert
-- and for the good of the economy.
(Interestingly, I have heard no comment from the Greenspanistas on the practice
of banks to squeeze credit card holders with 29.99% interest rates.)
Several images -- cliches if you will, come to mind.
The suggestion that the Fed is needed to keep the economy moving is like Dumbo
believing he can fly only by holding a feather in his trunk.
|
The interest
rate tinkering of the Greenspanistas also calls to mind the tinkering
of the Wizard of Oz, tinkering of the three card monte sort.
Acceptance of direct primaries has not resulted in nomination of candidates
widely supported by the electorate -- but encourage, instead, narrow selection
by party activists whose view of the common good, arguably, is skewed by zealotry.
Popular election of U.S. Senators has not removed the term "corruption" from
the political lexicon of our day and, arguably, it, has weakened state government.
Clearly there is likely tobe more interest in voting for state legislators
if the electorate is aware that their state candidates, upon election, will
determine who goes to the U.S. Senate.
The 17th Amendment was a declaration that the "progressives" were
wiser than the Founders. Experience has not, I submit, endorsed the confidence
of the "progressives."
It is time, I believe, to reassess "progressivism" -- to inquire
if our politics and economy are better off today because of the "progressive" reforms
of a hundred years ago. Indeed, the common good of our time depends, I think,
on such reassessment.
|
|
