We’ve moved!

After the traffic to our wordpress blog heads into the thousands, we’ve moved to a new site: www.ThePoliticizer.com

Follow us there to join the conversation.

www.ThePoliticizer.com

Thanks,
The Politicizer Team

Michele Walk, Staff Writer

On Tuesday, “President Obama told CNBC that the US is not in danger of overregulating the economy and that the outcome of the Iranian election will not make that much difference in his administration’s policies toward that country.”

You have got to be kidding me.

Even though I didn’t support Obama in the fall, I still had high hopes for him as a President. Perhaps he would bring beneficial change to America as a moderate, as he claimed during the election season. Since coming into office, I have disagreed with his policies more than agreed with them. A majority of these disagreements have been economic, especially his increased involvement in the American economy. He is expanding the Federal Government more than any other president, and is exercising control over the economy that is not his to exercise. GM, the company of whom we once said “what’s good for GM is good for America,” is now Government Motors, and we now have a “pay czar” that intrudes into the affairs of banks more than any other government post has. “Not overregulating?” Give me a break! However, despite  different viewpoints on how issues should be addressed, most of the time I could still understand and agree with his underlying intent: to provide genuine help for those in need.

However, his response to the current election crisis in Iran tells a different story. The Iranian people are begging for support from the rest of the world, and Obama and his administration, even though they are, in the words of Joe Biden, “deeply concerned” by the situation in Iran, have done absolutely nothing. How can he, as the leader of the free world, sit idly by as this crisis unfolds? We as Americans pride ourselves on our freedoms and liberty, and for decades our Presidents, Democratic and Republican, have actively encouraged the spread of freedom. Say what you will about George W. Bush (I myself was not a fan), but his foray into Iraq has at least brought the people more democracy than they have ever experienced and given them hope that they one day may be able to live under a government which reflects their own wishes. The Iranian people are demanding democratic representation, and have shown extraordinary courage in order to defend their fundamental human rights to liberty and freedom in the face of an oppressive regime. We should be assisting the Iranian people in any way possible. The Middle East is ready for democracy – now. So why aren’t we helping them?

Honestly, I’m flabbergasted that Obama doesn’t see his policies changing in the wake of this unprecedented turmoil in Iran. Mousavi, the opposition leader, publicly stated in his campaign many times that he would like to open up diplomatic talks with the United States. For an Iranian politician, he is rather moderate, especially in comparison to Ahmadinejad. If Obama were to recognize Ahmadinejad as a legitimate ruler, which his comment would suggest, it would be an insult to democracies across the globe and humanity in general. While there is no doubt that the United States would still oppose Iran having a nuclear program, to say that the Iranian peoples’ demands for democratic representation wouldn’t change a thing is absurd. The people of Iran, and indeed people everywhere, have the right to free and fair elections.  If Obama can’t stand up for freedom, what does he stand for?

Conor Rogers, Editor

In an unprecedented move by a US President, Barack Obama has very nearly refused to comment, act or speak out regarding a popular uprising, wherein millions of people have risen up, protested, and endured gunfire, beatings and brutality. These people are demanding nothing more than the right to vote and live as they wish – the mantra of the United States. This is not even to mention the fact that it is occurring in a nation that the US has been trying to get to embrace democracy for decades, or that the man they are protesting in favor of, Hossein Mousavi, is an avid supporter of the United States. Throughout history, the President of the United States has embraced democratic uprisings and the dawn of freedom at nearly every turn. The most famous of which can be summarized in one quote by Ronald Reagan, “Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall.” Reagan not only spoke out against the Soviet oppression of the German people, he traveled Germany during the height of tensions and sided with freedom for the German People, despite its risky international and political implications.

Fast forward to 2009, the protests are the same, and the goal is the same. The threat posed by radical Islamic governments is nearly the same as the Soviets. The difference: The American President.

Barack Obama promised change, but this is not what we had hoped for. Is he no longer the leader of the free world? Does the United States no longer speak out for, defend and ensure the freedom of people around the world? Has tip-toe diplomacy replaced our value of freedom for all?

I cannot be any clearer – people are dying in the streets, men, women and children are being shot, killed and beaten, simply for the right to vote – and the President of the United States says that he does not want to get involved.

Mr. President, when one chooses to run for President of the United States, that is a choice to get involved, and a choice to be the guardian of liberty. People are dying in the name of freedom, liberty is being suppressed, yet President Barack Obama has said nothing.

Mr. President, tear down this silence, speak up, and act like the leader of the free world.

Conor Rogers & Kathleen McCaffrey

In the wake of the financial crisis, corporations have gotten an even worse reputation than previously held. Pundits and politicians from both parties slam ambiguous “corporations” and “CEOs” for ruining America. Let me point out what none of these spectators have – it is thanks to the same CEOs and businesses that America became so successful in the first place. Any critic has committed one of two fallacies when they express this opinion:

One option is that this person actually believes that all corporations are bad and that CEOs are a bad influence – which would be a ridiculous and uneducated opinion. The other, and the more likely of the options, is that they realize that a large number of Americans are currently unfoundedly directing their anger at corporate America and are merely pandering to their collective rage. It is only a handful of corporate policies and legislative mistakes that have led to this crisis, yet the fair-weather politician begins to talk about what the voter thinks is true, rather than what actually is.

So what is the truth that many politicians are ignoring? Corporations create jobs, employ millions of Americans, give them opportunity to move up through promotion and merit-based qualification, and in the end, provide nearly every American with opportunity. Frankly, CEO’s guide the corporations that, in turn, create jobs. Statistics and job reports repeatedly show that the supermajority of jobs in the US are created through corporate, private enterprise – by small businesses and national corporations alike. No one has ever been hired by a poor man; jobs are born out of corporate wealth. Dismiss the literary merits of Ayn Rand if you will, but one of her indispensable messages in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ revealed the trickle-down system of power and wealth in this country. In a capitalist society, we are privy to corporate decisions that aim to please the consumer and are always trying to make some sort of progress in the name of profit. With the widespread government expansion that the Obama Administration is bringing forth, this concept of innovation will be lost with the decimation of profit incentive that government control brings to industries. Why would GM need to make a better product when the state will make sure they stay afloat either way? Reforming standards for mortgages and raising the down payments yuppies will make on their McMansions? That’s a job for people who will have to face consequences! Not the bailed out Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae! (Though it should be noted that government interference via “housing acts” made that particular mess in the first place. Not everyone can afford a great house – get over it.)

Government bureaucrats with nothing to lose are simply just not going to do as good of a job as an investor or broker with his or her job on the line. Without motivation, there is no performance, and when Washington, DC bureaucrats-for-life step in, there is no motivation for performance.  Yes, of course, some businesses fail and some businesses take down many people when this happens. However, the government’s alternative of trying to put the companies with failed business models and a record of malfunction, in the same league as companies with ingenuity will always be a recipe for failure at a cost to the consumer, the tax payer and the worker.

When Corporate America comes to mind, titles like ‘The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit’ and ‘Revolutionary Road’ do so as well. In a world so focused on the negative, it’s easy to dismiss corporate America as being such a faceless evil, stunting creativity and manufacturing the banal. More improvements in education, industrial manufacturing, marketing, and technology have come to fruition within the past sixty years than any other epoch in American history. This cannot be a coincidence – and it certainly was not facilitated by government intervention and planning. Thanks to corporations, opportunity was abound and advances driven by innovation have changed the face of our nation. Now, at the first sign of a crack in the armor of capitalism, some are calling for it to be thrown away. Corporations face punitive taxes, and at the sign of collapse, government ownership.

The father of modern Chinese literature, Lu Xun, wrote that we are all puppets to somebody else. Throughout Obama’s campaign, he tried to show that he was one with the common people and that his interests were in line with theirs. Four months into his administration we see that he believes Americans would like to have their hands in the pockets of the banking and auto industries with healthcare to come soon. While he may have felt like an appendage of the common man’s interest at first, leading to his popularity, Americans are waking up to find little difference from the CEO of GM and the CEO of America. The expansion of the government means a heavier influence on industry. The American consumer should be free to choose under a myriad of corporations trying to outdo one another than being shafted by only one state-sanctioned option. The corporation has to bear in mind the needs of the consumer and its competition, while the State merely works to stretch its dollars further. The corporation must win over the favoritism of the American consumer to be successful and prosper, while the American government only needs to write the consumer’s compliance into law. Corporate competition, not government, is the facilitator of the American dream and the gatekeeper of innovation.

Noah Baron, Staff Writer

According to AMERICAblog, Barack Obama’s legal team — likely on instructions from the White House — filed a motion to dismiss a legal challenge to the “Defense” of “Marriage” Act (DOMA). The full-length, fifty-four page assault on the Constitution and queer constituents can be found here. Among some of the claims the team makes are:

* Homosexuality is comparable to incest and pedophilia. Maybe if the Obama administration lawyers had a basic understanding of reality, they might comprehend that since children aren’t able to consent (unlike adults, the persons in question in same-sex marriage) the comparison to homosexuality is not a very good one. They might also understand the fact that incest has been scientifically linked to genetic problems in offspring, whereas homosexuality…not so much.

* DOMA is fine because it saves the federal government money. (Funny, I don’t recall that being a concern of the Obama administration.) Besides, aren’t our rights priceless? Or something? Maybe? This nonsense goes on and on; I encourage every person who voted for Obama to read this in full and then seriously reconsider voting for him again. You can’t write this off as simply him doing “his best” for gay people in today’s political climate: this was a relatively minor proceeding (i.e. whether the case would be able to go to court or not) and Obama would have been perfectly capable of distancing himself from the actions of his legal team. Instead, he chose to aggressively seek out and destroy the rights of same-sex couples. I was happy to see that a number of gay-rights groups, including the ACLU, GLAD, Lambda Legal, and HRC, among others, wrote a letter to the Obama administration complaining about his desertion of gay Americans. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone who even vaguely recalls the Clinton administration. In fact, the Democratic Party has a strong tradition of trying to double-cross gay people. To me, the recent actions of the Obama administration, combined with his announced refusal to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell for a long time, are merely a vindication of my belief that an Obama White House wouldn’t mean anything for gay rights.

Barack Obama should be absolutely ashamed of himself.

This has been cross-posted on The Match (http://www.thematch.wordpress.com) and The Commentariat (http://commentariat.columbiaspectator.com)

The Politicizer Staff, In Solidarity.

Though we are liberals, conservatives, moderates, Republicans, Democrats and independents, the struggle for freedom by the Iranian People is one that cannot be ignored. The Politicizer joins the growing chorus of blogs and social media users demanding freedom for the Iranian People and stand with them in solidarity. Today the Politicizer goes green, the color of the Iranian freedom fighters.

There is no greater cause than the fight for liberty. No matter what country it rises up in, let freedom ring.

Conor Rogers, Political Editor
A brief note about the connection between the 2001 and 2003 US Wars and Iran today

It is no coincidence that the first ‘election’ in Iran following the successful implementation of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan has been met with demands for rights, true democracy, and openness in Islamic government. Calls for liberalization are being trumpeted by thousands of people marching in levels not seen on the streets of Tehran in decades.

Let me be clear, as a middle-of-the road Republican, I was not fond of how the Iraq war was initially handled, nor the fact that information was apparently manipulated by Rumsfeld et al during the course to war, call me a surge supporting-Petraeus Republican if you will, yet these recent developments may in fact vindicate the use of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq regardless of how one feels about the run up, or the initial handling of it.

The Bush Doctrine, at least part of it, said that if a stable democracy was set up in the Middle East, it would lead to the spread of democracy in the region and since democracy (according to the doctrine) has been an effectivemethod to prevent the rise of radical Islam in states (see: Malaysia, Turkey), it was a way to defend against terrorism. The second part of this doctrine of course being that pre-emptive war was an acceptable means to defend the nation, in this case, by implementing western-style democratic government.

As protests roil Iran, this writer wonders whether or not these protests are connected to something larger, something that perhaps includes the cedar revolution in Lebanon in 2004, and the rise of democracy in the Palestinian Territories, and the return of Pakistan to a full democracy, all major steps by Middle Eastern nations towards democracy, freedom and even capitalism following the 2001 and 2003 invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The President always believed he would be vindicated by a safer, democratic and prosperous middle east after he left office…I wonder if we’re beginning to see it already.

Cynthia Meyer, Staff Writer
How the Obama Administration is repeating the deadly mistakes of the Clinton foreign policy.

The American public is distracted. Right now, we are in the middle of a deep recession. Unemployment is the highest we have seen in decades, and your average Joe is worried about keeping his job and supporting his family. And while it is important that we be concerned about this rapid expansion of government through “stimulus” (spending), bailouts, and “spreading the wealth around”, we often have the tendency to let issues that seem urgent divert our attention away from issues of equal or greater importance. Usually, and regrettably, the neglected issue is one of foreign policy and national security. For example, while mass genocide was being committed by Nazi Germany, we were distracted at home—and it wasn’t until it directly affected us, it wasn’t until we got hit with Pearl Harbor, that we entered WWII to forcefully cease the growing German power and claim victory. America was distracted, and we came in too late.

We have been at war with radical Islamic fundamentalists ever since 9/11, but they have been at war with us for decades. They have hated the United States, Western values, and capitalism, and they have been threatening us and attacking us long before they drove our planes into the twin towers. We just didn’t realize this until it was too late, and we are now fighting a war that should have been fought a long time ago.

Today, we face two growing threats that must be stopped. In his carefully worded speeches, BarackObama is sure to acknowledge that North Korea and Iran should not possess nuclear weapons. But acknowledgement is not enough. It is absolutely necessary for us to act now to prevent a future disaster.

In entering his presidency, Obama’s vision was to open up diplomatic talks, attempt peaceful relations with our enemies, and reason with hateful, power-hungry dictators. His outlook was framed by his campaign and by the media as “change”­– new and refreshing and civilized.

It is now past his hundred days mark and these countries that we have reached out to have only become more rebellious. Flexing its muscles, North Korea launched a successful nuclear test and new traces of Uranium have been found in Iran.

But how did this happen? How could Obama’s diplomacy fail? Maybe because we have tried all of this before and it has never worked. This isn’t “change”, it is the same weak diplomacy Democrats constantly try to sell to the American people, wrapping it in flowery, idealistic rhetoric just to have it fail miserably and threaten our national security.

Remember the Clinton years? We granted North Korea diplomacy and economic aide to cease their nuclear program; talks and negotiation with North Korea are nothing new. But in return, Kim Jong Il took the cash, fuel, and food, and then continued his program anyways.  He has made it very clear that he has absolutely no intention of hindering his nuclear activities so long as he has the means to do so. Now is the time to change course and break this pattern of failed peacekeeping. North Korea must be denuclearized, and the United States must take the lead. When diplomacy has been unsuccessful for decades, it is time to use force.

On his apology tour in Cairo, Obama defended Iran’s right to maintaining their nuclear program:

“No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation — including Iran — should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.”

First of all, anybody confused as to why Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy, but we don’t? Obama has said he won’t build anymore nuclear plants in the US.

Also, Iran tells us that their secretive nuclear ambitions are “peaceful”, but then expresses violence and hostility towards Israel, threatening to annihilate them and denying the Holocaust. If Obama is going to tell us that the reason why Iran is pursuing nuclear power is strictly for energy purposes and public welfare, he must take us for fools. Nobody is convinced that Iran’s motives are peaceful. We are dealing with a violent country that is one of the biggest state sponsors of terrorism. I don’t think it would be wise to give Iran the benefit of the doubt, here. The costs of being wrong are too high.

Imagine if the same group that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks got a hold of nuclear weapons through Iran or North Korea. What could anybody do at that point?

With that said, brute force is necessary for Iran and North Korea. We played by our new president’s rulebook. We tried negotiating and reasoning with them (again), and that failed (again). The fact of the matter is that both of these countries are determined to expand their international influence and power, and obtaining nuclear weapons is essential to that goal. In cases like these, reasoning with the enemy does not work. We can no longer tolerate tiptoeing around Iran and North Korea. Either we physically stop them, or we let disaster happen– and then scratch our heads wondering why diplomacy didn’t work.

Founder & Former President of her High School conservative club, Cynthia Meyer is a proud Republican from Texas. Currently the director of publications for the GW College Republicans, Meyer represents the conservative wing of the Republican party as a commentator on The Politicizer.

A liberal response to Michele Walk’s recent post entitled “Economic Darwinism and the Recession”
Noah Baron, Staff Writer

Around 100 years ago, the notion of social Darwinism was wildly popular amongst the well-to-do. Since then, it has been largely derided as unacceptable, cruel, and just plain incorrect. Apparently it’s reared its ugly head again, this time in Michele’s post and a Republican Party seemingly dedicated to driving itself into the ground.

Michele says that it bothers her that “the recession, and its effects, are regarded as ‘unfortunate’”. Already irked at her statement, I was even more flabbergasted by her reasoning. She claims that regarding the recession as “unfortunate” implies that “we are entitled to having fortunate things happen to us” — when, in reality, that is not the case at all. In my experience, at least, the recession is regarded as unfortunate not because of a sense of ‘entitlement’ but rather because I — and others — recognize that it is sad when people lose their job, lose their home, and have to struggle to get by. For the people who are actually experiencing the “joblosses and other effects on the economy,” as Michele puts it, these things aren’t merely “not the most pleasant occurrences” — they are devastating.

My problem with Michele’s notion that we should simply let businesses fail and the economy continue its downward spiral — it’ll come back eventually, right? — is that she doesn’t consider the fact that actual human beings will have to suffer through this. Perhaps this is not something she considered because the effects of the recession haven’t touched her or her family, but her proposal of “economic Darwinism” (the difference between which and social Darwinism I still fail to grasp) is morally unacceptable.

During the first months of the Great Depression, as banks were failing left and right, unemployment was skyrocketing, and the stock market continued its downward spiral, even the strict free-market Republican, President Hoover, recognized that simply sitting around and waiting out the economic crisis was simply not an option. Unfortunately, some of the programs that he implemented were simply too little, too late.

Michele provides the following analogy:

Let’s say Little Johnny consistently fails his math quizzes, no matter how much he studies; he simply is not good at math. We could get him an expensive, highly-educated math tutor; however, even with extraordinary help, it is more than likely that he will barely pull C’s and never become a Nobel Prize-winning mathematician. Sure, his low math SAT scores might drag down his district’s averages, but the fact of the matter is, math just isn’t his thing, and attempting to force him to be a gifted math student is counterproductive. This – expensive help for otherwise failing entities – is exactly what our government is doing right now. People, much like businesses, should do what they are good at; if they aren’t good at what they do, they shouldn’t be doing it.

The problem with this analogy is that “Little Johnny” is an individual and his failing out of math would have no effect on the livelihoods of other human beings. By contrast, the corporations being bailed out today employ tens- or hundreds- of thousands — if not millions — of Americans. By simply letting those corporations fail, those millions of Americans will wake up one day soon and have no job and, likely, no pension either. Interestingly — but not surprisingly — the way filing for bankruptcy protection works is this: the first people to have their money paid back are other corporations, then wealthy investors, then a bunch of other people, then there are the lower-level employees, and then (last) consumers. Translation? Let those companies go bankrupt, and ordinary Americans will get screwed while the wealthiest walk away with even more money than they had before.

I think it’s sad that so many people — such as Michele — seem to prioritize economic efficiency over human decency. They apparently do not realize that if they had their wish — if the government simply sad idly by while corporations failed left and right and the millions and millions of unemployed Americans had to wait around for months, if not years, for new employment to magically be created while their savings dry up — that an incredible amount of suffering would ensue. The wealthy would continue to do just fine, as they always do during times of crisis, while the rest of us have to scrounge up what little money we have to, say, pay our way through college or feed ourselves.

As Michele says, “we pride ourselves on living in a meritocracy” yet as states struggle to balance their budgets (ironically, compelled by state Constitutional amendments therein foisted by Republicans), poor students are amongst the first to suffer: according to the New York Times, New Hampshire is cutting its loan-forgiveness programs for college students. But, by all means, let’s continue to let the economy spiral so that the rich can continue to live their comfortable lifestyle while the rest of us can’t even afford to get a college degree. So much for pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps and “meritocracy”. Those who call for “economic sense” — those who think it is acceptable to let the most in-need amongst us sink into the rising economic muck so that they can keep their “hard”-”earned” money — seem to have lost their moral compass.

Most distressing about Michele’s post is that she even recognizes the troubles her economic theory will pose — she realizes that “jobs would be lost…many more than right now” — but she just does not care. She proudly titles this cold-hearted economic theory “economic Darwinism”. She says that suffering is great for creativity — so it can’t be all that bad, right?

Of those who are about to lose their jobs, she says, “let them eat cake”.

Michele Walk, Staff Writer

It is no news that our nation, and the rest of the world, is currently experiencing one of the most severe economic downturns in recent times. In 2009 alone, almost 3 million jobs have been lost in the United States already. It is truly an unfortunate occurrence.

That, however, bothers me – the fact that the recession, and its effects, are regarded as “unfortunate;” it implies that we are entitled to having fortunate things happen to us, all the time, which is hardly the case. Yes, I agree, the job losses and other effects on the economy are perhaps not the most pleasant occurrences; on the other hand, we as a nation – whether we are blue-collar workers, Wall Street bankers, middle-class families or politicians – must keep our heads about us.

It also bothers me how everyone is content running around acting as if the sky is falling, acting as if we will never, ever, ever be able to get out of this recession and recover – that is, unless the government pours money into businesses. I would like to offer an alternate perspective: we should let failing companies fail, and we should let the economy recover on its own; the economy will turn around. It will be brutal for a few years – especially in the beginning, with job losses and the like – but new businesses will open, and the economy will go on.

The fact that we find it proper to support failing businesses goes against the natural flow of economies, and in general, the flow of life. Some businesses, like some people/insert basically any noun here, fail, and some succeed. Let’s say Little Johnny consistently fails his math quizzes, no matter how much he studies; he simply is not good at math. We could get him an expensive, highly-educated math tutor; however, even with extraordinary help, it is more than likely that he will barely pull C’s and never become a Nobel Prize-winning mathematician. Sure, his low math SAT scores might drag down his district’s averages, but the fact of the matter is, math just isn’t his thing, and attempting to force him to be a gifted math student is counterproductive. This – expensive help for otherwise failing entities – is exactly what our government is doing right now. People, much like businesses, should do what they are good at; if they aren’t good at what they do, they shouldn’t be doing it.

Similarly, if a business produces goods that consumers do not want to buy, that business should not be in business (auto industry/banks). If their product is not rooted in basic economic principles, namely the exchange of property rights for a good or service, that company should no longer sell that product (‘Wall Street’ and credit default swaps). We also like to pride ourselves on living in a meritocracy; a place where people are rewarded for hard work and intelligence. Then how would it follow that we should give loans out to people who can’t afford them? This finger, it is important to note, points at both the lenders and the borrowers – the lenders shouldn’t have been using dubious practices, and people shouldn’t have been attempting to buy things that they didn’t have the money for.

Please note I do not intend to point out all of the troubles in the economy right now; rather, a few of the most prominent for illustrative purposes. My point is that it is the natural flow to have some businesses succeed and some fail. That is simply how it works. The way our government, and our nation’s populist sentiments are pointing, however, suggest that we are full and willing to abandon sound economic principles that have been shown time and time again for careless quick-fixes. On another note, it also points to the underlying leanings of the people: we pride ourselves on living in a meritocracy, but how is it that businesses with no merit are continuing to function, with our tax money, no less? Instead of a meritocracy, it seems that the bailouts, absurd financial products, illegitimate loans, etc, suggest instead to a spoilocracy: a nation that is ruled by what we think we deserve, and not what we have actually worked for. Many of the firms propped up by TARP and the Stimulus deserve to fail. “But they’re too big to fail!” says the little piggy as the Big Bad Economic Facts wolf swings by his house. Economic sense? No. Evidence that our nation has become obsessed with what it thinks it deserves? Absolutely.

Back on the theme, the mere fact that we are buoying up businesses – buoying up businesses that could not have survived otherwise – should have caused a light to go off in someone’s head. Perhaps that business, and all of its unprofitability, should have been wiped off the face of our economy. But nooo, Mr. Populist Politician says. These failing businesses are just poor, poor victims of a general economic downturn and are too important to our economy to fail, for all of the poor widdle people (note: voters in swing states) will lose their jobs. I’m paraphrasing, but that has been basically what we’ve been hearing from the government. What if our economy was, say, restructuring? (It is.) What if, say, important industries of yore are going to the wayside for the important industries of tomorrow? (They are.) Can you imagine if the Wilson Administration had decided to prop up the carriage industry in the wake of the success of Ford’s Model T?

I don’t mean to paint this “economic Darwinism,” however, as entirely rosy. True, today’s automobile companies and banks had practices that, quite clearly, were not economically viable, and for that, they should not continue to be in business. And yes, jobs would be lost if we allowed them to fail – many more than right now. But in propping up failing industries, we are hurting our economy more in the long run, and on a slightly different note, strangling the economic creativity of the American people. It is always sad when people lose jobs, but the economy will recover, and new businesses will sprout up in their wake. Motivated, innovative people will find ways to make money in the new economic landscape, and in turn hire people to aid in their new businesses. Case in point: Monopoly, the world’s best-selling board game, was created by a bored, jobless man at his dining room table during the Great Depression. If the government continues to be set on injecting money into the economy, as it would seem, then they should put that money towards loans for new businesses. The current policies of throwing money into the economy are only leading to inflation (six months to a year, mark my word, it will be a huge problem), and are not revitalizing the economy in any way.

Unfortunately, I have no idea of what those new businesses and industries will be, and wouldn’t want to build a sort of Economic Future of Tomorrow as stands in Epcot. However, it is important for us to keep in mind that we will recover. We may not be able to predict exactly how or when it will happen, but it will. I know this because history has shown it time and time again, and because people are infinitely inventive. I’m excited for what our economic future holds, and I don’t care if I’m the only one with the guts to say it.