TOP NAV
BOOK
BLOGS 15
BLOGS 14
BLOGS 13
BLOGS 12
BLOGS 11
BLOGS 10
BLOGS 09
BLOGS 08
BLOGS 07
BLOGS 06
BLOGS 05
BLOGS 04
| Immigration: Mend It Not Rend It | Should Have Known |
by Christopher Chantrill
June 04, 2007 at 4:12 pm
CONSERVATIVES have responded with outrage to Hillary Clintons On-your-own society speech last week here, here, and here.
And well they might, for she tells a narrative about an America they never heard of.
Senator Clinton reminded her listeners at Manchester School for Technology about the United States of a century ago before progressives began their reforms. She told them it was a land of corporate monopolies, corrupt government, women without votes, workers without rights, a country filled with haves and have nots -- and not enough people in between.
In what way, we might ask, was this different from 1800, or 800, or 800 BCE? It was different in a curious way, a way that Senator Clinton from her Olympian height, apparently cant discern.
The so-called haves of 1900, lest we forget, were men like John D. Rockefeller, son of a traveling salesman, Andrew Carnegie, son of an impoverished weaver, and James J. Hill, a poor farm boy from Canada. Starting out in utter obscurity as clerks and telegraph boys they founded and built huge enterprises to deliver cheap oil, cheap steel, and transcontinental railroads to the American people. After they were done the Senator Clintons of the day came along and said that their astonishing achievements werent good enough. Even though Rockefeller had cut the price of illuminating oil by 90 percent they didnt like the way that Standard Oil was capitalized. Even though the railroads allowed farmers for the first time in history to sell their grain across the world they complained that the freight charges werent fair.
A century later we have just experienced another unprecedented business and technological revolution that has rained unlooked for benefits on the American people. Based on historical experience you would expect the Senator Clinton of our day to complain that the rain of benefits resulting from the information revolution and the complete reengineering of American business just wasnt good enough.
And you would be right. She complains of CEOs whove seen their pay go from 24 times the typical workers in 1965, to 262 times the typical worker in 2005.
Which CEO did you have in mind, Senator? Bill Gates? Michael Dell? Or the one-time friend of politicians of both parties, the well-connected Ken Lay of Enron? Tell you what, Senator. Heres a nickel that says that the average CEO is paying more than 262 times the typical workers income tax bill.
After all this extraordinary business revolution what does Hillary Clinton think? She thinks that ordinary people are invisible to President Bush.
If youre a worker who cant organize for fair wages and safe working conditions, youre invisible.
If youre one of the over 45 million Americans who dont have health insurance, youre invisible, too.
If your company has shipped your job overseas and you dont know how to pay your bills, well, youre invisible.
If you drive up to the gas station and have to pay $3.20 or $3.30 a gallon to fill up your tank, youre invisible as well.
You could, of course, get a job. There are only 368,000 people in the whole nation, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics in its May Employment Situation Summary, who say they want a job but do not believe that there is one out there for them. That is one quarter of one percent out of a civilian labor force of 152,762,000 people.
Senator Clinton seems to think that the 145,943,000 people with jobs are, under the Bush Administration, on your own. And she wants to change that to a were all in it together society.
Actually, she has a point. As a candidate for the leadership of the Democratic Party she is keenly aware that her party is the party of on your own America.
The Democratic Party, the exit polls tell us, is the home of single, secular people. They are people who are on their own physically, as they seem to have a commitment problem where people of the opposite sex are concerned. They are, as the book by Robert D. Putnam says, Bowling Alone. And they are on their own spiritually, not belonging to any community of faith. Not surprisingly they want government to fill the gaps in their lives and make up for the lack of a safety net that a family or a church community provides. In short, they want other people to pay for their safety net. As a good Democratic politician, Senator Clinton understands and encourages this.
The Republican Party, the exit polls tell us, is the home of religious, married people with children. They belong to families and churches, living their lives as were all in it together people. In addition, of course, those Republicans who are Christians believe in a God that loves them and want them to love Him right back. How together is that? And religious people, Arthur C. Brooks tells us in Who Really Gives, are more generous. They give more than secular people. When you give more, you get more, the philosophers tell us.
Conservatives should not feel too outraged by Senator Clintons narrative. It gives us an opportunity to present ours. And why not? Our narrative is better. It offers a hand up, not a hand out.
Ever since the beginning of the modern era the offer of democratic capitalism has been the same. It extends a hand up to the oppressed peoples of the world living in servitude on the land. It makes an improbable offer. Cast off your dependence and your servitude to your local lord and offer yourself in service to the whole of mankind in the market economy.
In the age of the welfare state, global capitalism makes another improbable offer. Cast off the humiliating patronage and clientage offered by the barons of the liberal plantation and offer yourself in service to the whole of mankind in the global economy.
The first step is the hardest, as the progressive Senator Clinton well knows.
Christopher Chantrill blogs at americanmanifestobook.blogspot.com.
Buy his Road to the Middle Class.
When we began first to preach these things, the people appeared as awakened from the sleep of agesthey seemed to see for the first time that they were responsible beings...
Finke, Stark, The Churching of America, 1776-1990
In 1911... at least nine million of the 12 million covered by national insurance were already members of voluntary sick pay schemes. A similar proportion were also eligible for medical care.
Green, Reinventing Civil Society
We have met with families in which for weeks together, not an article of sustenance but potatoes had been used; yet for every child the hard-earned sum was provided to send them to school.
E. G. West, Education and the State
Law being too tenuous to rely upon in [Ulster and the Scottish borderlands], people developed patterns of settling differences by personal fighting and family feuds.
Thomas Sowell, Conquests and Cultures
The primary thing to keep in mind about German and Russian thought since
1800 is that it takes for granted that the Cartesian, Lockean or Humean scientific and
philosophical conception of man and nature... has been shown by indisputable evidence to be
inadequate.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Meeting of East and West
Inquiry does not start unless there is a problem... It is the problem and its
characteristics revealed by analysis which guides one first to the relevant facts and then,
once the relevant facts are known, to the relevant hypotheses.
F.S.C. Northrop, The Logic of the Sciences and the Humanities
But I saw a man yesterday who knows a fellow who had it from a chappie
that said that Urquhart had been dipping himself a bit recklessly off the deep end.
Freddy Arbuthnot
Dorothy L. Sayers, Strong Poison
I mean three systems in one: a predominantly market economy; a polity respectful of the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and a system of cultural institutions moved by ideals of liberty and justice for all.
In short, three dynamic and converging systems functioning as one: a democratic polity, an economy based on markets and incentives, and a moral-cultural system which is plural and, in the largest sense, liberal.
Michael Novak, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism
The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness...
But to make a man act [he must have]
the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove
or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness.
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
[In the] higher Christian churches... they saunter through the liturgy like Mohawks along a string of scaffolding who have long since forgotten their danger. If God were to blast such a service to bits, the congregation would be, I believe, genuinely shocked. But in the low churches you expect it every minute.
Annie Dillard, Holy the Firm
When we received Christ, Phil added, all of a sudden we now had a rule book to go by, and when we had problems the preacher was right there to give us the answers.
James M. Ault, Jr., Spirit and Flesh
The recognition and integration of extralegal property rights [in the Homestead Act] was a key element in the United States becoming the most important market economy and producer of capital in the world.
Hernando de Soto, The Mystery of Capital