Reptiles for Reagan

Republican presidential candidates are required to demonstrate the following (as evidenced by last night's debate):

• Show they are the true heir to Ronald Reagan
• Not step on the toes of the current president
• Advocate for policies vastly at odds with the both of them.

The irony doesn't escape me that this is a very "liberal" interpretation of Reagan/Bush

Its all about maintaining the image of Reagan. In the end, image was his primary appeal. Reagan is the political equivalent of an SUV: Expensive, unnecessary, but he makes you feel powerful all at the same time.

Advertisers say that people make most of their purchases low on the brain stem--the "reptile", they call it. Few make purchases out of a reasoned, rational approach. The sex and drama of the Marlboro Man is a perfect example. Tens of millions of suburban Americans buying off-road vehicles is another. A mini-van serves their purposes better, but they like the feel of driving in a big car. Are they any safer or more powerful? Doubt it. Their big cars certainly make the roads less safe for me. Despite such an unreasonable, ultra-expensive purchase, Americans spend on romance and not on reason.

Reagan is essentially the same. His environmental policies were catastrophic. His Imperialist/CIA wars were devastating. Our extravagant debt started with him (there was debt before, but nowhere close to his levels). He probably had Alzheimer's while he was in office, falling asleep in meetings with foreign leaders. His economic policy involved feeding the military with borrowed money. The current gap between the rich and poor really finds its roots in Reagan. Yet, he had a slick character, gave a solid salute to marines, told good one-liners, and that's all it took to win the hearts of America.

Fiscal conservatives have been voting for the Reagan-Bush regime in 6 presidential elections since 1980 even though they are the farthest from promoting small government and fiscal restraint. Some bought into their anti-abortion rhetoric. Since 1980, 19 of the last 27 years had Reagan-Bush in the White House, with much of that time also with a Republican controlled congress. Can you tell me what has changed in the climate of abortion in America in almost 30 years of so-called pro-life administrations? Reagan's image did not match his actions in several very key areas, but it didn't seem to matter to voters. The rhetoric spoke and the reptile won.

The idea that military spending is the best economic stimulus is deeply ingrained in the consciousness of America. Many firmly believe that World War II was the only thing that got us out of the Great Depression. We've been maintaining wartime military spending levels since. We have fabricated and exaggerated the "Cold War" and "War With Islamic Terrorism" as a means of justifying this out-of-control spending. Mega-corporations run away with profits.

The problem is that when you increase military spending, you end up with a scenario like this: You spend money to make more bombs. As a result, people go to work making bombs, and there is a stimulus to the economy. More people working. The product--the bomb--is something you hope never to use, and in the best-case-scenario it just sits in a warehouse somewhere. You pay a guy to guard the warehouse. Another job.

Instead of spending money on the military, let's say you spend it on education. You pay the same amount of money, but instead of buying materials and paying for salaries of workers to make those bombs, you instead pay teachers, coaches and after-school personnel. You would most likely be able to employ more people, because you don't have to spend so much on the raw materials. Spending is on salaries and infrastructure, not disposable materials. You still have the same economic stimulus of employing more people as they circulate their money in the economy. But the product--a more educated population--pays dividends for generations. It is a well-understood economic principle that an increase in technology (i.e. education) has a positive effect on an economy. Instead of creating a bomb that sits in a warehouse, you have helped to improve the skills and knowledge of a population. That skills and knowledge in turns keeps feeding the economy with innovation and increased productivity.

More attentive teachers, after-school personnel and coaches would be able to mentor more children, reducing crime. Instead of a person in jail taking resources to feed and house, that person can be out in the workforce being productive. For every person kept out of prison, there is a net impact of 2--Instead of paying $X to house them in a prison, that person it out making $X, which is really a savings of $2X to the taxpayer. Crime costs. Fear restricts economies. Crime can bring a temporary influx of police and prison personnel to stimulate the economy, but they don't offset the overall impact of crime in loss of property, higher insurance premiums, medical care, non-productive citizens, you name it.

Education and an approach to fighting crime that is transformative is the best way to stimulate the economy. By "transformative" I am not talking about policing our streets as much as I'm talking about removing the causes for crime in the first place: Poor mentorship, lack of economic and educational opportunity, etc. The fact that its also the humanitarian approach is not just cursory, either. I'd probably advocate for this even if it weren't economically the best thing to do, because what are we doing here on earth if we aren't being good to each other? The fact that it is a very excellent economic strategy is only icing on the cake. The problem is that there would be fewer profits for industrial mega-corporations (at least in the short run), so you won't see these kinds of policies promoted as loudly. The ironic thing is that those corporations would probably benefit in the long run, but are too afraid to try it.

They say Ron Paul and Dennis Kuchinich represent the views of most conservatives and liberals, respectively. Neither of them were viable candidates. They didn't win the war with the voters at the low end of the brain stem. Their approach was too focused on the top. Their policies made sense to people, but no one was going to vote for them. Such is politics in America.