1112 Supercommittee Defeated by Philosophy
The United States Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the so-called Supercommittee, was the perfect metaphor of America as a whole. It represented two colliding worlds which have very little in common.
The Supercommittee should have failed, but not for any of the much over-used excuses which have saturated the public airways and print media. Ineptness, for example, was not a weakness among any of the members – just the opposite. After years of being out-foxed and neutralized time and time again, half of the panel finally exhibited a little fortitude and political savvy. The other side held its own. Stalemate.
Obstructionism was not the problem either. The fact is that both groups on the committee were striving to move forward, it just happened to be in radically different directions. The task of saving the country’s economic future was evenly divided between six members who trust a wisely supervised free market system and six members who trusted their own expertise and that of other central planners. Stalemate.
The failure of the Supercommittee was also not caused by partisanship, as partisanship is most often understood. It was caused by the political philosophies and worldviews which invigorate the Democratic and Republican parties in the first place. If partisanship means loyalty to the core values of one’s party, the members’ tenacity should be applauded, not maligned. If political integrity means anything, the problem was not the members’ faithfulness to the values which they were elected to represent. Stalemate.
The completely inappropriate secret negotiations by twelve political insiders from both parties managed only to reflect the greater conflict outside their hallowed government walls. The factions within the Supercommittee align well with the greater struggle embodied by Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the TEA party movements. Therein lays the substance of the Supercommittee metaphor.
OWS seems to have attracted those who are genuinely convinced that “fairness” involves a right to the rewards of another person’s success and that the most effective tool to achieve that goal is an expansive and powerful central government. It is not wrong to mourn one’s losses or struggle through adverse circumstances or even to accept assistance. However, it is very wrong, bordering on idolatrous, to envy and covet another’s resources – especially to the point of using force, whether through taxation, political maneuvering or otherwise, to pilfer them.
TEA philosophy is on the other side of the spectrum. For it adherents, the citizenry is the soil which creates the fruit of prosperity and liberty, not governmental central planning. Make no mistake; TEA partiers understand that government is essential, but only for specific roles. It insures a secure environment, manages infrastructure, preserves order in society and should incentivize charity and private good works.
If Washington no longer functions, it is because we set up the circumstances by sending who we have or by not sending who we should have. The American people are the only solution to the impasse. They have a choice to make, better sooner than later. Which vision for the future will we choose?