|
Most Americans who are unschooled in political and
economic thought should have no trouble in the coming election. They may vote
for candidates who, in their judgment, not only are likely to be honest and
trustworthy but also promise great economic improvements and personal
benefits. But some Americans who make an effort to reflect on the records and
promises made by the candidates may face difficult questions of conscience. As
voters they may be forced to choose among several candidates for high
political office all of whom are likely to make matters worse. Does their
conscience force them to search for and choose the lesser evil or even
abstain from participating in the contest?
Guided by old notions of labor
disadvantage and exploitation, the political candidates may favor popular labor legislation
and regulation that are designed to benefit some workers but inflict great
harm on others. They may advocate prompt government intervention in matters
of lay-offs and health-care benefits, affirmative action and NAFTA, which
actually may disrupt and depress economic activity. Guided by some concern
for old voters, they may promise more Medicare - drug benefits at reduced
prices or even complete coverage of total health expenses - at the expense of
the well-to-do, old and young alike. All such promises not only tend to
aggravate social conflict but also threaten to impede economic activity. Does
the conscience of knowledgeable voters who pay heed to such political
promises force them to choose the lesser evil or even withdraw from the
political fray?
Surely, they will not vote for candidates walking in
the footsteps of Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt who severed many trade
relations with old trade partners and doubled and even trebled income and
business taxes thereby molding the Great
Depression. But will they consent to cast their votes for candidates who are
treading on the heels of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and
Carter? They conducted popular policies that led to chronic
"stagflation," that is, a medley of rampant inflation and painful
stagnation. By 1980, double-digit inflation was reducing the economic
substance of most Americans and economic stagnation was depressing their
levels of living. Surely, knowledgeable voters would not choose such
candidates - unless they feel compelled to opt for the lesser evil and thus
prevent the greater evil. But is it ethical in accordance with the principles
of right and good conduct to cast a vote for any evil?
Most moral philosophers would answer this question
in the affirmative - as long as the lesser evil serves to prevent the greater
evil. To save a life, I may lie and deceive a raving assassin who is
searching for his victim. But does this moral principle apply to the world of
politics? This writer is inclined to deny its applicability because a vote
for one evil does not lead to inactivity but rather to ever more evil; social
and economic policies spring from social and economic thought that may give
rise to many levels of evil.
If I approve of any labor
legislation that interferes with actual market conditions, I may invite ever
more regulation. If I favor some health-care
benefits for some people at the expense of other people, I may not be able to
object to "further improvements." If I approve of any
"affirmative action," that is, government programs to overcome the
effects of past societal discrimination by allocating jobs and resources to
members of special groups, such as minorities and women, I may, in the end,
clear the way for the substitution of the political command order for the
market order in all relations with minorities and women. If I approve of some
government protection of American labor from the
competition of foreign labor in NAFTA countries, I
may not be able to object to ever "better protection." If I look
with favor upon some free medical services to the
elderly, I may not be able to deny them ever more benefits. After I say
"yes" to benefits and entitlements, how can I later say
"no"?
In politics, any vote for lesser evil may pave the
way for greater evil. Awareness of this tendency may cause many Americans not
to participate in the election process; they do not want to feel responsible
for the manifestation of much evil in politics. Other Americans may cast
their votes for a minority party that is not expected to participate in any
policy-making. Briefly sharing the political platform with the major parties
during election time, minority parties may be able to raise objections to the
aspirations of the policy-shaping parties. But political objections rarely
lead us in new directions. They cannot take the place of truthful information
and earnest education of the inexorable principles that affect our lives.
The lesser-evil road leads straight to the command
system. It has many stops at which the drivers take a breather and refuel for
the next lap. At times, some may wonder and argue about the costs and
affordability of the trip. But as long as there are some affluent drivers
left, the passengers are likely to push ahead. They may press on although the
road is hard and difficult and every mile is paid for with social conflict
and economic decline.
Dr Hans F. Sennholz
www.sennholz.com
Dr. Sennholz is President
of The Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York and a
consultant, author and lecturer of Austrian Economics.
|
