Markets Make a Lot of Politicians Expendable

Hillary Clinton at the most recent Democratic debate squeezed out a quick apology after she was apparently held up a bit too long in the restroom during a commercial break.

But return Clinton did, and in her closing remarks she let her paternalism fly:

I became a grandmother 15 months ago. And so I spent a lot of time thinking about my granddaughter’s future. But as president, I will spend even more time thinking about the futures of all the kids and the grandchildren in this country. Because I want to make sure every single child has a chance to live up to his or her God-given potential. If you will join me in this campaign we will make that a mission.

First, anybody looking to advance a case against the public school system should start by acknowledging the millions of educated Americans who fall for this sappy nonsense every four years. There’s no way any BS Meter, without years of indoctrination, would fail to detect this gargantuan load dropped in a remarkably short period of time.

Second, and more importantly, this passage illustrates precisely why Hillary Clinton is not worthy of my vote. In fact, if somebody happened to ask me why I’m not “Ready for Hillary,” I’d probably show them this passage.

That’s because  Clinton, with a most sanctimonious tone, displayed her capacious yet unsurprising ignorance of the role markets play in improving the future. Consider, for example, the following:

  • Was the airplane born from the Wright Brothers, who experimented incessantly with the problem of flight (with their own time, resources, and often their own lives at stake), or was it produced and perfected by a Presidential administration that spent a lot of time thinking about the youth who might never see an aerial view of New York City?
  • Did Henry Ford revolutionize (with his own time, resources, and profits at stake) the way in which automobiles were manufactured, extending automobiles from the luxury of the rich to the enjoyment of the masses, or should we thank the countless hours spent by American presidents thinking about the children?
  • Can two-thirds of American households now enjoy a cool home during the hottest months because profit-seeking firms have driven down the cost of air conditioners through competition, or did American presidents enact initiatives to spread the joy of AC?
  • Should thoughtful American presidents be congratulated for giving access to 296 million Americans to television, the medium in which Clinton professes her mission? Or, again, is it to be attributed to the impressive evolution of markets?

The list could go on and on. Every day profit hungry firms and individuals are competing with each other to bring us consumers “the next big thing.” It is markets–through the quest for profit–which ultimately improve the future and give everyone the chance to live up to their potential. It is markets which ultimately make politicians who, like Clinton, are supposedly eager to improve the lives of countless individuals, expendable.

So, Hillary, and those of your breed, I urge you to think more about your granddaughter. Do her a service. Retire from politics. Simply allow markets to do the job which you explicitly announce as your mission. You may be surprised to discover how much more they do for humanity, and for your granddaughter, than your mangling interventions, both foreign and domestic, ever have, or ever will do.




Quote Of The Day

From a wise and clever professor of economics at George Mason University, Professor Donald Boudreaux wrote these words on his blog, Cafe Hayek:

“A sound test of a person’s intelligence is to gauge how seriously he or she takes any politician who stands a better-than-even chance of winning high political office.  Anyone who takes such a politician seriously is quite likely to be unintelligent.  His or her I.Q. might be high, but he or she is almost certainly not ‘intelligent’ in any practical meaning of that word.  Politicians’ public statements are not always faithful to the underlying reality.”–Don Boudreaux

[Cafe Hayek]

On a personal note, this advice would have been tremendously helpful to me in the course of the 2012 election, when I was a Mitt Romney fanatic. And I use that word with its most strict definition in mind:

fa·nat·ic (fəˈnadik/) noun 1. a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.