TsuKata's Org*

Going into the 2012 election year, politics is about to be discussed into the ground. I wanted to take a few moments to talk about why I’m a Democrat. It shocks some of my Republican and Libertarian friends that a person with decent income and savings would ever choose to join the party of “tax and spend” and seeming income redistribution. In fairness, I can understand where they’re coming from. You see, I used to be a Republican. Then, I had reasoned out that people having money was more important than fixing social issues. Much like some Libertarians out there, I thought the government had no place in charity, and that people would be generous if we gave them opportunity. I’ve now decided that’s not the case at all, and what’s more, I realized there’s plenty of historic and current evidence to show that the Democratic position is the most viable. Additionally, those social issues that I thought could be put on the back burner are now, in my opinion, directly impacting our economic development.

As many of you know and as many have noted, the Republican party leadership turned to being socially conservative even if it makes government bigger and costs more money. In fact, there is no actual “smaller government” movement in the two major parties at all. (Tea Partiers and Libertarians are minority parties in my view.) In ye olden days, my economic republicanism came from two sources: not liking big government and not liking big taxes.

On the tax front, once I had enough money to live comfortably, have savings, have good health care, and donate to good causes without being in debt, I really stopped giving so much of a damn about taxes. It is true that, when you get to a certain point, an extra 1 or 2 percent in the tax bracket really doesn’t make that much of a difference to your day-to-day life. I’m nowhere near the income of a Mitt Romney or Warren Buffett. If I am unlikely to “feel” a tax increase, they’re not likely to either. The fact is that $100 means less to me now than it did at my income level 10-12 years ago. As Mitt Romney unfortunately demonstrated during one of the countless Republican primary debates, $1000 means very little to him. Yet, $100 is the difference between bill collection and survival for an increasing number of American families. Thus, I just don’t see a moral problem with taking $100 from someone that won’t miss it and giving it to someone who can absolutely use it.

Some people argue that taking money from the rich at gunpoint to give to the poor is unethical and immoral. They argue that people have good hearts and will give that money freely. I don’t buy it. The reason I don’t buy it is that it isn’t happening right now. What’s more, that kind of rampant altruism has never happened in the course of American history, even dating back to the 18th and 19th century when there was almost no government regulation. This shouldn’t be a surprise. If you personally evaluate your situation, there is no economic reason to hand money to someone else. It is poor decision making at an individual level to give away any of your income. The benefit is not likely to be seen by you personally in your lifetime. (The one exception may be if ]the recipient is a family member or close friend, in which case, it can be argued that it isn’t truly altruistic anyways. But, needless to say, not everyone is lucky enough to have a well-off aunt or uncle hanging around.) Altruism is a decision made for the benefit of the many, not for the benefit of the few (or the one).

At a corporate level, altruism makes even less sense. Corporations exist to make profit, and they’re naturally short-sighted (specifically by the investment time of a stockholder and/or the tenure of a CEO). It doesn’t make a corporation or the people that run it bad or immoral; it’s just a matter of recognizing the goal and aligning accordingly. Thus, a corporation will never act in long-term interest on its own unless it is acting illogically, even though such acts could benefit the corporation in the long term.

To me, this is the place of government. Government exists as a representative for the people, not the person. That is an important distinction. Government exists to protect the interests of a group, and government is ensured of its existence for hundreds of years. Government exists to think in the long term and to make decisions that, while painful in the short term, ensure future success. This goes for many issues where economic externalities or short-term thinking will lead companies and individuals down an ultimately unsuccessful path.

I do not believe that government has no role in business. I believe government regulation will actually help businesses perform better by incentivizing changes that would otherwise not be profitable in the lifetime of a CEO or investor but which will benefit the company and the nation in the long term. I believe government has not just the right but the obligation to help effect social change for under-represented groups, whether those groups are defined by race, gender, sex, class, size, or any number of other categories. Though it hasn’t been part of this discussion until now, I believe strongly that religious dogma should not dictate government policy, that religion and government are two distinct, separate, and valuable resources. I believe abortion should be available and also avoidable, through affordable and obtainable birth control for both sexes. And, I believe that no human being should ever be put in a position of choosing to not pursue necessary health care, or choosing to not treat another human being, because they can’t afford it.

All together, that makes me a Democrat.