In the interest of mutual understanding, here some questions
for those on the left:
Distribution of wealth:
Would you prefer a world in which the bottom decile makes,
on average, $10 thousand per year and the top decile makes on average $100
thousand (a 10:1 ratio), or one in which the bottom decile averages $25
thousand and the top decile $1 million (a 40:1 ratio)?
More broadly, do you worry only about the conditions of the
worst off, or is there some amount you are willing to set back the worst off if
it has an overall effect of reducing inequality? The recession has had the
effect of decreasing inequality, as the best off had the most to lose; is
this a good thing?
Method of distributing goods:
For some essential goods, we allow a (more or less) free
market to provide the goods, and supplement the incomes of those worst off to
allow them to purchase the goods (food comes to mind). For others, the government provides the good
to the vast majority through public institutions (K-12 education). Do you have a strong intuition as to which of
these methods is preferable?
Education:
Our K-12 education system involves assigning students to an
institution and providing funding at the institutional level. Additionally, teachers are unionized so it is
more difficult to reward outstanding teachers or sanction those who are not
performing well. By contrast, our
college and university system features private and public institutions competing
for students who are able to secure government funding or loans at the
individual level, and allows institutions to make hiring and firing decisions
with a great deal of discretion. Our
colleges and universities are among the best in the world while the performance
of our K-12 system has been unimproved by steadily increasing funding . Should we attempt (through charter schools or
voucher programs) to expand the choices of all students, or should school
choice remain a luxury available only to those who can afford it?
Immigration:
As poor as some in America may be, those in many other parts
of the world are far worse off. In
addition to helping these masses, allowing them to immigrate lowers the cost of
goods and services for Americans. Should
we expand or completely liberalize immigration to expand the opportunities for
those who would seek employment here, or do we owe a particular debt to
those here who would be adversely affected?
Trade:
Similar in effect to immigration restrictions, trade
restrictions increase costs for all Americans and adversely affect those in other
countries who would do business with us, in order to protect particular
domestic producers. For example,
President Obama recently enacted tariffs on Chinese tires, which will benefit the
United Steelworkers Union but increase by 35% the cost of the cheapest tires,
making it harder for the poorest Americans to replace their tires when
necessary. Should we liberalize trade to
lower prices and send some of our business to those overseas (presumably less
well off) or need we defend domestic producers who are unable to compete at
these lower prices?
Interest Groups:
Generally, are you comfortable with directing broadly raised
tax revenues to specific constituencies and the accompanying lobbying? The average wages & benefits of UAW
workers at Chrysler and GM in 2006 were $152 and $147 thousand respectively,
making the UAW average more than 50% higher than the average PHD professor and
far in excess of the average taxpayer.
Ought we use taxpayer funds to insulate these interest groups from competition?
The War on Drugs:
The prohibition of some commonly used recreational substances
has vastly increased both arrests and violent crime. These detrimental effects have and continue
to disproportionately harm our most vulnerable, especially minorities. Nonetheless, Democrats have refused to decry
and at times escalated this “war”. Ought
we lift the prohibition on some or all of these recreational drugs?
I’m sure there are more hypotheticals I could come up with,
but these make my point - I believe increased government interference and
reduced choice not only does not benefit, but in most cases hurts those worst
off in our society. I understand why the
unions (be they teachers, steelworkers, autoworkers, police officers, prison guards,etc.)
and other potential beneficiaries of government interference and favoritism
would support the Democratic party; it
just doesn’t make sense why the idealistic progressives of my cohort do.
