The Vanishing Non-Partisan

posted at 5:57 pm on June 12, 2009 by Doctor Zero

It’s tough to be non-partisan these days. Lots of organizations claim to be non-partisan, of course, but it’s usually just a pose, designed to cloak them in the camouflage of reason and even-handedness. A non-partisan “think tank” will be taken much more seriously than a team of political operatives, especially when their work is quoted by journalists, who are more anxious than anyone to avoid being identified as partisan. Commentators and bloggers sometimes like to pin the Medal of Free Thought, with Impartial Analysis cluster, on their chests to declare themselves above petty considerations of party, or suffocating loyalty to individual politicians. The highest praise most average folks can bestow upon themselves, during a conversation about politics or culture, is to declare themselves “moderate.”

The rise of the super-state has made it increasingly difficult to remain non-partisan. A natural consequence of the growing power of central government is the unhappy movement of formerly private concerns into the realm of politics. It wasn’t long ago that believing in the right of private companies and their employees to agree upon the terms of compensation, or the privacy of arrangements between mortgage holders and lenders, were “non-partisan” opinions. Now they’re objectives on the ever-expanding political battlefield. Did the employees of AIG anticipate that their presidential votes in 2008 would determine whether or not they received their bonuses?

As more of the economy comes under direct government control, it becomes more essential for individuals and corporations to invest time and energy in politics. Companies like Microsoft got hard lessons in the Nineties about the importance of maintaining a well-funded lobbying operation in Washington, D.C. In the Obama era of rapacious government, every industry could be a few months away from being nationalized. Your presidential vote in past elections was based on tax rates, national security, and Supreme Court nominations. Your presidential vote in 2012 will determine the spring 2013 product line for General Motors, assuming they’re still making cars by then. If socialized medicine gets pushed through, your very life will depend on your vote – as the Democrats will be happy to remind you.

Citizen participation in politics is good, but not when it’s practiced for self-defense. As the stakes rise, the game becomes more bitter, and personal. People who think they’re organizing to campaign for their “right” to free health care are not going to be polite or thoughtful participants in the national conversation, and they’re not likely to feel themselves bound by all the fine print in our electoral laws. Someone who thinks only Barack Obama can “create or save” his job will not look at Obama’s opponents as gentleman adversaries in a high-minded debate. Instead, they’ll see nothing but enemies to be destroyed at all costs. The same sense of desperation is felt on the conservative side, as the last shreds of free-market capitalism go racing off into the woods, and hungry Democrats pursue with shotguns and hounds.

Every economic system ultimately boils down to a method of allocating resources. As soon as people organize beyond the level of a frontier family, hunting its own food and crafting all of its own goods, they begin devising methods of directing labor and materials to various projects. The free market is the most ethical, efficient, and productive system for allocating resources, as free people are compensated for the value of their time and goods, and a powerful engine of production and distribution is woven from the intersection of their abilities and desires. Capitalism is a simple theory that guides a massively complex system, assigning value to billions of goods and services through the chaotic brilliance of countless transactions. Obama-style statism is an ugly street brawl between two political parties to hold the knife that cuts the economic pie. It forces companies to divert valuable resources into politics, to protect themselves from predatory quasi-governmental organisms like the United Auto Workers union… and to get a share of the bailout billions. When the government is shoveling around towering piles of money, senators and congressmen become lucrative investments.

A politicized economy is an unhappy place to live, because few people are ever truly satisfied with their political leadership. How could they be? If the central government is limited, and performs only a dozen functions, your odds of finding candidates who agree with most of your views are pretty good. If the central government performs thousands of functions, your odds of finding candidates who agree with any of your positions aren’t too hot. We can already see the Left growing disenchanted with Obama’s inability to pay more than lip service to their many conflicting, and sometimes insane, positions. It’s natural to spend a lot of time feeling disappointed by your President when he’s also your banker, doctor, and car salesman. Too much of our complex economy is being stuffed into a bipolar political contest, replacing hundreds of daily free-market decisions with a single choice every few years, between a handful of candidates from a couple of parties. Binary decision-making is inadequate for guiding a digital marketplace.

In the shadow of the total state, it’s difficult to believe anyone who claims to be non-partisan. Those with the misfortune of living in a lawless environment of brutal anarchy often say that you have to belong to some sort of a gang, to have a chance of survival. It’s funny how the same rules apply to the maximum government Barack Obama is trying to engineer.

Blowback