In Bernie Sanders’ world, everything should be free—regardless of costs.
In Hillary Clinton’s world, the private sector doesn’t create jobs—the government does.
As I watched CNN’s Democratic presidential debate, I quickly recognized an inherent weakness grounded in modern progressivism: a blatant rejection of reality.
Two major themes were conveyed.
First: disregard the first principle in economics. In economics, scarcity can be adequately defined as “the conflict between unlimited wants and limited resources.” Under this conceptual framework, societies must make economic decisions to allocate resources efficiently. For Austrian economic scholars, free-markets allocate goods and resources most efficiently. As long as individuals are ensured equal treatment under the law, then the result of their actions in the marketplace does not warrant governmental action. For the modern progressive, however, equality under the law is not enough; instead of accepting this basic legal premise, they have attempted to achieve equality of outcomes. Adopting policies in congruence with this ideal is not only impossible, but also simultaneously dangerous in distorting market and social processes. Attempts to curb income inequality, for example, can only be achieved through a redistribution of wealth, which can certainly have unwarranted effects in distorting basic market incentives.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Bernie Sanders’s proposed economic plan would increase federal spending by more than $18 trillion over the next ten years. This spending package will cover an anticipated single-payer health care system, an expansion of Social Security, and a massive taxpayer-funded infrastructure program. Despite the social, economic, and political ramifications of their policies, progressives continue to focus on their vision of equality while ignoring the associated costs of such policies.
The second major theme: the shaming of successful people. For Sanders, “It is immoral and wrong that the 57 percent of income growth is going to the top one percent.” For Clinton, “It's our job to rein in the excesses of capitalism." Under this mode of thinking, earning an “excessive” amount of wealth is immoral and works against modern liberal ideas of the “common” good. I contend that using the government as a medium to confiscate wealth from one group, rather, is immoral and fundamentally wrong. There is nothing noble and just about robbing Peter to pay Paul. As a student who has specific goals of becoming wealthy and successful, I found this type of indictment on wealthy people distasteful. Under a hypothetical Clinton or Sanders administration, why would I want to pay high taxes and be shamed as “immoral” for working hard and improving my financial situation?
These progressive candidates are notorious for claiming the “rights” to free healthcare, college tuition and paid leave, but I have one question: Why shame those who are inevitably funding your idealism? Economist Thomas Sowell underscored this by stating, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.” I may freely pursue things in the marketplace, but I do not possess the moral or legal authority to force someone to aid my endeavors.
“Don’t let anybody tell you that it’s corporations and businesses that create jobs,” noted Clinton. “The rich keep getting richer, and the poor are getting poorer,” affirmed Sanders. Despite these attacks on capitalism, real (inflation adjusted) household income for the lowest income quintile has actually increased the last 47 years, suggesting that the poor are actually not poorer (US Census Bureau). Capitalism is not a zero-sum game, and more government is not the answer. If continued, progressives will eventually run out of other people’s money.
As long as I vote, I will never support a candidate who proposes confiscating more wealth from my earnings. It’s one thing to personally chase idealism, another to use hardworking taxpayer dollars as a means to fund lofty, unrealistic visions for society.
Froedge is a sophomore poltiical science and economics double major from New Castle, Indiana.