Alternatives to the state
Texas Monthly, a supremely annoying publication, is sad about the "lurch to the right" in this week's Texas primaries. The problem, you see, is that capitalism can't function properly unless counterbalanced by other institutions--especially, in the author's view, the Democratic Party and unions.
This is a distorted shadow of something I've always believed, which is that government can't function properly unless counterbalanced by private institutions, some of the most important being families, churches, private enterprise, and voluntary civic organizations of all stripes. I'll lump unions in there if they're truly voluntary and not just tools to extract dues from unwilling members to be money-laundered for the Democratic Party. As a stretch, I'll include political parties, as long as we're not pretending there's only one.
Whatever one thinks about the voters' recent destruction of Texas RINO careers, it's not about capitalism triumphing over private institutions. Republican primary voters wanted school choice, border security, and an end to the war on Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose initiatives, especially his court-thwarted attempt to investigate election fraud, were quite popular in the Lone Star State. They'd also had it right up to here with current Texas House Speaker Dade Phelan, who tends to appoint Democrats to head House committees and smothers conservative legislation in its crib when he can. Texas Republican primary voters had an immeasurably low interest in ensuring that either the Democratic Party or unions retained any power to hamstring the Texas legislature, but they're pretty open to measures to strengthen the role of families, churches, and private enterprise as a counterweight to government overreach.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Yes, as you say. The idea exists on both sides because it is correct, but the emphasis on the right is containing the power of the state (rather than the power of monopoly).
The state is potentially a useful institution for containing monopoly, although it definitely hasn't been successfully employed especially where Democratic leadership prevails. (See footnote.) And the Democratic Party outright betrayed the private-sector unions on this point; their pretense of being 'pro-union' only applies to the public-sector ones for whom this issue of containing monopoly corporate power is not an issue.
The problem, you see, is that capitalism can't function properly unless counterbalanced by other institutions--especially, in the author's view, the Democratic Party and unions.
Unions in the private sector have been declining for decades. There is an increasing backlash against unions in government, for a number of reasons, such as government employees getting better pay,pension and benefits packages than private sector employees.
Which indicates that Texas Monthly merits the "annoying" label.
Even Democrat saint FDR was, publicly, against public-sector employees' unions. I think he phrased the objection in terms of both sides in the wage negotiation on the same side of the table, against the rest of the voters and taxpayers on the other side.
US unions once had their own balance, between the Eugene Debs' philosophy -- where unions were in alliance to take over the government (leading to socialism/communism, which Debs thought would be a good outcome) as opposed to Sam Gomper's notions -- where unions were competing with one another in much the same way employers competed. An unfair employer, argued Gompers, should be abandoned and the laborers go elsewhere: ditto an unfair union, and ditto again an unfair government.
Somehow, in the recent past, Gompers seems to have been pushed off the historical platform.
private institutions, some of the most important being families, churches, private enterprise, and voluntary civic organizations of all stripes.
Which is pretty much my view of where welfare should begin. Government should be last in the order of welfare, with the Federal government the last-est last. I tend to disagree with Madison's position of government funding of welfare, but it definitely should be that last resort, not the default.
Regarding the end of several RINO careers, several others are going to runoffs and may well survive. In the end, too, all of those primary election winners still have to win in November before we get a proper and properly run State legislature. Phelan is one of those going to a runoff, and should he win in November, he'll continue to abuse his power, and likely with vengeance in his eye.
Eric Hines
Debs made better "soundbites," or back in his day, textbites. Gompers was a skilled tradesman himself, while Debs was more of an academic. Plus Wilson made him a sort of martyr for, um, something or other during WWI.
I incline toward Gompers' view of things, if one is going to have private sector unions.
LittleRed1
Re. Texas Monthly. They are a bit like the Atlantic, in that on occasion you will find a pearl of an article among the pig litter. The difficulty is sifting through the pig litter. (I used to buy a copy for the Bum Steer Awards." They they ceased being fun and funny, so I stopped buying.)
LittleRed1
Well, I had a longish response to this, but when I'd finished writing it, I realized it wasn't really on point. More of a riff or meditation with this post as a point of departure. Now I don't really know what to do with it.
But I did want to say that I thought this an excellent post. I derived genuine positive value from it (which can't be said for much of what one finds on the internet). And I thank Texan99 for it.
Now I don't really know what to do with it.
Publish it here as a separate post.
Eric Hines
That would be great, but also don't hesitate to drop it here in the comments if you like. When did a comment thread ever stay on topic, anyway?
PS, thx very much, Thos.
Post a Comment