At the Democratic Convention politicians:
1. Demonized corporations.
2. Demeaned "the rich".
3. Assumed that "caring" was synonymous with more government.
4. Implied that if a politician didn't propose raising spending,
e.g., on education, then the politician must not care about children
or about families.
4. Asserted that all of this was what it really means to be American.
Don Boudreaux summarizes it nicely:
Government's modus operandi today is to bestow goodies on politically
powerful interest groups, and to pay for these goodies by taxing
politically unpopular groups (e.g., oil companies) and politically
impotent groups (most notably, future taxpayers). The bottom line is
that, through government, Jones imposes costs on Smith without
Smith's consent.
Peter Boettke points out the problem as "one of dependence on the state to deliver us from uncertainty and insecurity in the market economy and in life in general." He believes this desire for" paternalism and public choice are bedfellows that continually advance the power of the state and atrophe the individual
spirit." James Buchanan says we are, "afraid to be free."
Yet given the massive unfunded liabilities of Social Security,
Medicare, and all the rest facing us in the future, avoiding talk of
future crippling debt on our children should appear blatantly
irresponsible. Why, then, does this kind of talk work so well with
voters, particularly with Democratic voters?
