I started my blogging career with ThemoneyIlusion in early 2009 and ended that blog last year. In January 2014, I started a blog here at Econlog and am enjoying this opportunity to great extent. This will be my last post.
I would like to thank Eveyone for soaking on Econlog. I want to do my best to all co-bloggers. Thank you to the editors of Econlog Landsburg and Amy Willis’ Econlog Editors.
Today’s post offers little parting thoughts on what we consider to be the biggest challenges facing America.
Eveything is almost downstream of integrity
Most of us shape our worldview by the time we are older. For me, it was the 1973-74 Watergate hearing. I still recall the scandal-inspired bipartisan investigation. Thoughtful and idealistic senators like Howard Baker (R-Tennessee) investigated the witnesses and asked questions such as, “What did the president know and when did he find out about it?”
Obviously, that America has been gone for a long time. We currently live in a highly polarized country that even answered the results of the election. Politicians are cheerleaders, not politicians. Economic statistics are being debated rather than the heat of economic involvement. Butter is whether it is intended to be reflected in the political agenda. The middle is highly biased, and the “news” is propaganda alone. People talk about the “red state” and the “blue state.”
Interada, which focuses on specific political issues, I would like to take a broader view. As I grew older, I began to view integrity as not an effective public policy sign qua. The role of the American constitution is considered to confirm why integrity is important. Most of us view the Constitution as a document that protects individual rights and limits the power of the Government’s Valisas branch. In fact, almost all constitutional provisions can be easily circumvented by governments that lack integrity. The law means that alost noving involves an informal norm of conduct. Here are just a few of the many ways things can go wrong.
If the court size is expanded and packed with many new judges loyal to the enforcer, the independence of the Supreme Court could be eroded. The power of Congress to declare war or impose tariffs could be Evaded by the executives who declared a “national emergency.” The president’s term limit could have been elected by an IFA or a senior officer, effectively taking over power to the president. (A similarly obedient government was happening in the South Hahn government.) Free speech could be eroded if the government threatened regulatory measures against businesses and universities displaying enforcement. Subsidies are negative taxes. The withdrawal of government subsidies is equivalent to tax imposition. If subsidies are given to support the industry, the government can pressure individual companies to bid. The constitutional ban on export tax could be eroded if management requires the government to “donate” in exchange for export privileges. Voting districts may be “gerrymanded” to block voters’ will. If the court begins to determine that the development of private apartments constitutes “public purposes,” the “acquisition clause” of the Constitution could be destroyed. Selective prosecution can be used to chase political enemies. A bribery ban is easily avoided when people seeking political benefits purchase goods and services from companies owned by politicians.
In most developed countries, governments accumulate a huge amount of prosecutors and regulatory power. It was great to assume that the Constitution could protect us from the abuse of that power, but unfortunately there are too many ways around restrictions (so that banks can find ways to avoid restrictions on excessive risk-taking).
In my view, people focus too much on individual issues and too little in the essential role of integrity in the political process. You should ask politicians to tell the truth. We should demand that politicians refrain from corrupt practices. We should require politicians to stick strictly to not only the letter of law, but also the contents of the letter. If we need to pay many higher salaries to attract the best people, we should. History shows that lack of integrity in the public realm leads to changing bad outcomes in the long run. Ultimately, sincerity is the only way to ensure that the country does not fall into a state of failure.
SOM argues that these views are unrealistic and that they expect politicians to demonstrate any integrity. I disagree. Perfection is never possible in human matters, but it is clear that the subpolytien factions have more integrity than others. It is also clear that the sub-political system is more corrupt than others. If at least suggests that there is no chance of electing idealistic people, you essentially say there is no way for America to avoid going to the Banana Republic. I’m not that pessimic.
If you enjoy reading my posts, these are continuous and continuous on my blog on Substack.
