Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

In 1972, the nicest man to ever run for president lost 49 states to 1 to the least nice guy to ever run. In retrospect, America probably would have been better off if McGovern had won. Not because McGovern would have been a success—I think he would have failed—but America’s neoliberal revolution could have started a few years sooner. (Actually, anyone elected in 1972 would have failed.)

Matt Yglesias has a post comparing McGovern to Sanders, and I think in some ways it’s a good comparison. In a later post, Yglesias discusses why the young are less allergic to the term ‘socialism’ than those of us old enough to recall how socialism failed in the 20th century. It wasn’t cool to talk about socialism when Britain was an economic basket case in 1979, or when Russia’s economy was imploding in 1989. Now that’s all forgotten and it’s cool to be socialist again.

(Except in Jeremy Corbyn’s favorite Latin American country.)

But I see one important difference between Sanders and McGovern. Sanders has spent his whole life in the public sector, whereas McGovern went out and started a business later in life. When McGovern learned what a nightmare it is to deal with government regulations, his views on economics shifted to the right. This is from an editorial he wrote in 1992:

In retrospect, I wish I had known more about the hazards and difficulties of such a business, especially during a recession of the kind that hit New England just as I was acquiring the inn’s 43-year leasehold. I also wish that during the years I was in public office, I had had this firsthand experience about the difficulties business people face every day. That knowledge would have made me a better U.S. senator and a more understanding presidential contender. Today we are much closer to a general acknowledgment that government must encourage business to expand and grow. Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Bob Kerrey and others have, I believe, changed the debate of our party. We intuitively know that to create job opportunities we need entrepreneurs who will risk their capital against an expected payoff. Too often, however, public policy does not consider whether we are choking off those opportunities. My own business perspective has been limited to that small hotel and restaurant in Stratford, Conn., with an especially difficult lease and a severe recession. But my business associates and I also lived with federal, state and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees, protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools, protecting our customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never have doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that most often eludes legislators is: “Can we make consumers pay the higher prices for the increased operating costs that accompany public regulation and government reporting requirements with reams of red tape.” It is a simple concern that is nonetheless often ignored by legislators. For example, the papers today are filled with stories about businesses dropping health coverage for employees. We provided a substantial package for our staff at the Stratford Inn. However, were we operating today, those costs would exceed $150,000 a year for health care on top of salaries and other benefits. There would have been no reasonable way for us to absorb or pass on these costs. Some of the escalation in the cost of health care is attributed to patients suing doctors. While one cannot assess the merit of all these claims, I’ve also witnessed firsthand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life. Today, despite bankruptcy, we are still dealing with litigation from individuals who fell in or near our restaurant. Despite these injuries, not every misstep is the fault of someone else. Not every such incident should be viewed as a lawsuit instead of an unfortunate accident. And while the business owner may prevail in the end, the endless exposure to frivolous claims and high legal fees is frightening. . . . It is clear that some businesses have products that can be priced at almost any level. The price of raw materials (e.g., steel and glass) and life-saving drugs and medical care are not easily substituted by consumers. . . . In services, however, consumers do have a choice when faced with higher prices. You may have to stay in a hotel while on vacation, but you can stay fewer days. You can eat in restaurants fewer times per month, or forgo a number of services from car washes to shoeshines. Every such decision eventually results in job losses for someone. And often these are the people without the skills to help themselves — the people I’ve spent a lifetime trying to help. [Insert $15 minimum wage discussion here] In short, “one-size-fits-all” rules for business ignore the reality of the marketplace. And setting thresholds for regulatory guidelines at artificial levels — e.g., 50 employees or more, $500,000 in sales — takes no account of other realities, such as profit margins, labor intensive vs. capital intensive businesses, and local market economics. The problem we face as legislators is: Where do we set the bar so that it is not too high to clear? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we need to start raising these questions more often.

Maybe Sanders should take some time out to run a bed and breakfast in Vermont.

HT: Edward, Travis

PS. At Econlog I have a follow-up post to my “important issues” post, which suggests that Switzerland may do best.

PPS. Don’t ya love it when leftists tell you that “actually Corbyn is not that extreme.”

1. Wants the UK to exit NATO.

2. Wants to impose rent controls.

3. Wants to renationalize transportation, energy, etc.

4. Doesn’t think the UK healthcare is socialist enough. Ditto for education.

5. Wants to give a “right to buy” to tenants.

6. Thinks the Ukraine crisis was caused by the West.

7. Loves Chavez.

8. Wants to reverse Labour’s welfare cuts.

9. Wants to try Tony Blair as a war criminal.

10. Wants a “Peoples QE”, aka hyperinflation.

Those comments from the left don’t tell me much about Corbyn, but they are quite revealing as to the state of the left, circa 2015. As long as you are at least slightly to the right of Pol Pot, you are in the mainstream.

Facebook Twitter LinkedIn

Tags:

This entry was posted on September 20th, 2015 and is filed under Neoliberalism, Social trends. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response or Trackback from your own site.



