Conventional Wisdom II

Today we are going to continue to explore some political ideas that have taken on the aura of conventional wisdom. Many of these so called truths seem either incomplete or less than valid.

THE RECENT PRIMARY ELECTIONS REPRESENT A MAJOR TEA PARTY TRIUMPH

The media has covered the recent primary election Tea Party victories as if they represent a seismic shift in the election politics in this country. Make no mistake, the victories are important and significant and deserve to be treated as a meaningful phenomenon. They may yet turn out to be decisive and indicate dramatic changes for years to come. At the moment, however, they tell us little about what will happen in November. A number of Tea Party candidates have been able to defeat Republican regulars in some primary campaigns in which turnout has been extremely low. This feat is really not as difficult as it may sound. The Tea Party base is unquestionably highly motivated and is turning out in large numbers. They have been able to unseat some veteran party candidates. We just don't know what this will mean in November. They have probably already received as much support as is available to them. November is an entirely different ball game and if they do not win in Delaware, Nevada, and elesewhere the Tea Party may turn out to be a lot less than advertised. We just don't know at this time, but general election demographics and turnout are very different from primary elections. It is yet to be seen if these primary victories represent a sea change in Republican and national electoral politics. Stay tuned.

THE BEST WAY TO WIN AN ELECTION IS TO SAY NOTHING

Well we don't yet know if this will turn out to be true or not. We won't know until Novemeber. What's interesting however, is how many candidates are trying this approach. It says something about how far out of the mainstream a number of these candidates are that their handlers have to tell them not to talk to the press, to stick to a very narrow script, not to debate, and not to go anywhere that might force them to answer meaningful questions. Consider candidates in Nevada, Kentucky, Delaware, Virginia and others. Voters need to ask themselves if this is a tactic that is appropriate in a democracy.

ALL POLITICAL STATEMENTS ARE DESERVING OF EQUAL WEIGHT

In an effort to be even handed the "mainstream media" will take the most outlandish statements and compare them to statements of the opposing candidate which reinforces the notion that 'they all do it'. One strategy that seems to be working well is when criticized or attacked, immediately criticize the attack. One example is when the NAACP recently suggested that there were racist elements in the Tea Party, and went on to provide evidence of the truth of their statement. Immediately they were called racist for calling the Tea Party racist which they had not done. The main stream media however, approaches such stories by putting both positions on an equal footing so that the public once again perceives all politicians as the same. It is possible to distinguish extreme positions from those that are reasonable, or outright lies from slight exaggerations. The media is too lazy or fearful however, to make that effort and as a result the public suffers.

WALL STREET DISAGREES WITH OBAMA TAX POLICIES SO HIS POLICIES MUST BE WRONG

Somehow, Wall Street folks have been endowed with a wisdom that hardly seems warranted. Consider that it was their failures that brought us to the brink of economic collapse. Consider that they will always choose low taxes or no taxes, because it will always be in their interest to do so. Consider how many jobs they have shipped overseas because it was in their interest to do so. Consider how willing they have been to pay themselves enormous sums of money even as the economy was crumbling. Where is their credibility to indicate that they put the interest of their country over personal or corporate interests. I don't even believe they would try to make that case.

While it is certainly true that probably no one including the administration, economists, or the Federal Reserve know all the answers to reviving the economy, it has to be said that the President and his team have no other goal than improving the economy in this country. It is in their interest to have a strong economy even from a political perspective. They have no profit motive, and are therefore interested in making things better for all the people, and not just corporate interests. That does not guarantee that all their decisions will be correct, but it does suggest that when business puts its ideas forward they should be greeted with a great deal of skepticism.

UNCERTAINTY IN FINANCIAL REGULATIONS AND TAXES PREVENT THE ECONOMY FROM MOVING AHEAD

This statement, repeated ad nauseam on CNBC, essentially serves as a code for saying that once the Republicans win the November elections the economy will move ahead. I suspect that is probably exactly what will happen. We are also told that more than a trillion dollars is sitting on the sidelines that could be invested by business. Certainly there is anxiety about the future that causes businesses to hesitate when it comes to hiring and spending. Yet I thought one of the characteristics of business and making money involved a willingness to take risks. Business wants no government spending to stimulate the economy. They are in a position to prime the pump themselves with huge profits they have made in the past year or so. Yet, they sit on those profits. They could create a growth surge in this economy and improve the employment picture by spending and hiring. What are they waiting for? Can it be they may be waiting for that hoped for Republican landslide in November?