Lizzie & The Bern
It is eminently possible that Joe Biden’s candidacy is two or three gaffs away from a meltdown. In that case, Liz and Bernie are next up in the tank. They are socialists. Bernie avows that. Liz says she is not a socialist, but that statement is not true. I will not call her a liar because I don’t know what she believes in her heart of hearts, but her tsunami of detailed policy proposals are all socialist to the core.
Part of the problem may be semantic. Socialism has changed. It used to call for government ownership of the means of production. That plan didn’t work too well in practice, so the socialists have shifted to micro-management of the means of production. That is the sense in which Liz is a socialist. She wants to substitute her judgment for that of owners and managers in the private sector. She wants to run you life . . . for your own good . . . because her judgment is better than yours.
The first problem with our socialist candidates is that neither of them has any track record of successful management. Bernie was for a time the mayor of a small town. As far as I know, Liz has never managed anything. Turning the U.S. economy over to either of them is a leap off the cliff hoping for a safety net.
The more basic problem is that central planning has been a massive bust every time it has been tried. Successful operation of a business endeavor requires constant adaptation in order to make payroll and improve productivity, which is THE ONLY source of wealth creation. The challenges are constant — changes in consumer preference, technological change, behavior of competitors, skill set of the managers and work force . . . The list could go on for pages. No central planner has the wisdom or exposure to begin to mandate the myriad of adjustments required. Private ownership also has the ultimate motivation. If you get it wrong, you go broke. Check out the Fortune 500 from 50 years ago. You won’t recognize most of the names on the list. Public managers have no such motivation. There is no punishment until the whole system goes broke (see Russia circa 1990).
There is an exception to this observation. That’s Singapore. Under the direction of an astute and public spirited individual, they combined the roles of political leader and CEO. Singapore is a government/conglomerate. It remains to be seen if Lee’s successors can keep the doors open. That accomplishment was possible due to inspired leadership, a small polity, an educated/homogeneous work force and a strategic location.
China is trying to emulate the polity/conglomerate model. I don’t think it will work. The economy is too big and too diverse and the corruption is too endemic. I believe their progress from peasant poverty to middle income status was caused by eliminating collective agriculture and opening up about a third of the economy to private enterprise. As our President is fond of saying, “we’ll see what happens”.
Just because central planning has been almost always and everywhere a failure does not mean we won’t try it. The lure of free stuff paid for by “the rich” is strong. Liz or Bernie could win. We could wade boldly into the socialist swamp. Our electorate is historically illiterate because history is little taught in our schools. That which is taught demonizes capitalism and American exceptionalism.
My only hope is that we will ultimately be able to wade back out of the swamp. Once the electorate realizes that the free stuff comes with micro management of their lives, they may revolt. That’s what happened in England between 1946 and 1980. In the immortal words of a buddy of mine, “we learn by doing”. When we worked together, he usually uttered that line after a major debacle.
