Big government works for the people, when “we” are in charge
Big government advocates assert that democratic choice is somehow to be preferred to choices made through market processes. The idea is usually that people in markets act selfishly and have little information and are swayed too easily by advertising dollars, but when those same people get behind the curtain of the voting booth, they are somehow smarter. A lesson comes from Oregon. After his election to the governor’s mansion, Oregon’s Gov. Ted Kulongoski was sure to make some statement about the “people having spoken.” Those same voters, when they voted down a cigarette tax increase to fund children’s health insurance that Kulongoski backed, have suddenly become dullards whose votes can be easily bought by the tobacco lobby. If a tax increase does get passed in Oregon, it will only be the voters coming to their senses. Then, the “right decision” will have been made–because it agrees with the big government advocates. Here is my question: If the votes of the people are to be distrusted, and seen as being manipulatable by special interests when pet projects are voted down, how is it that those same voters suddenly become all wise, all knowing and altrusitic when they vote on how tax dollars are to be spent?
-MC
November 8th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Ok. So he says the wishes of the people were spoken by his being elected into office. So the people wanted him there. And then all of a sudden these wonderful voters are no longer wonderful because they were bought by the tobacco lobby. So instead of voting to a tax increase to fund childrens health, they vote against. Although no one wants to be taxed, this would have been a huge benefit for the children with low to no insurance. I don’t think that they become “all wise” because they can’t be stupid and then wise when voting on important issues like health care or anything to that effect. Once you screw up, it take a lot of time to fix what you’ve done. So, yeah they may eventually come to their senses, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they are “wise” and better people. People vote no on tax increases because they usually can’t afford them, but you need to also look at who or what will suffer the consequences of those actions.
November 10th, 2007 at 11:54 pm
Amanda,
Here was the point I was trying to make: Some people seem to think that a democratically made choice is somehow superior to one made through a free market. They want to overrule the market choice with a democratic, political solution. However, the same people, when the political choice is one that they did not favor, suddenly suggest that the people are being bought by the advertising dollars of their opponents. Yet when that governor was elected, he was elected partially based on his own campaign spending. My question remains: How is it that people who are so easily bought on one issue, and cannot be trusted to make wise decisions when spending their own money, suddenly have the wisdom of Job thrust upon them when making a political decision?
-MC
November 13th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
I reply to the question at hand(How is it that people who are so easily bought on one issue, and cannot be trusted to make wise decisions when spending their own money, suddenly have the wisdom of Job thrust upon them when making a political decision?) with another question. When will the people really speak as one and elect to office individuals we can trust when forced to make decisions like whether or not vote down a tax increase to fund children’s health? On the other hand, do these so called “trust worthy” politicians exist? Doesn’t everyone, my self included, seem to always find something wrong with the officials we elect to office? I guess it’s true what they say: You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Like you said, the governor himself spent money on his campaign running for office because anyone knows that in order to have a fair shot at winning, you must dump money into your cause. He doesn’t think he won because he bought the votes; he thinks he won because the people of Oregon believe in him more compared to other candidates. Now on the flip side, because he was for Measure 50, Governor Ted Kulongoski thinks the voters fell for the $12 million tobacco ads, and voted against the tax increase that would go to healthcare insurance for children in Oregon. He insulted the people and now knows he must come up with another way to insure them. People only become wise when they vote in favor of what’s on the table, and throw out whatever is being advertised to them. We can’t get rid of advertising, and we can’t always blame it on advertising every time we aren’t happy with the outcomes of the votes. People do speak for themselves, that’s why we have a right to vote. And politicians don’t like the idea of opponents have larger and sometimes infinite amounts of dollars that are there to attack whatever they are trying to accomplish.
November 15th, 2007 at 10:21 am
Well, Now that you put it that way, people are bought all of the time I suppose. Money talks and he talked highly of one issue, pumping up the people, and ignoring the main concerns that are all very real. So the people are somewhat at fault and remain at fault for seeing through the lies of his campaign. It is also his fault because he knew what he was doing and was very selfish. Now the people need to speak, rally,and petition what needs to be done. They can do it, and they can make it happen. Makes me think of the recent elections in New Orleans. I noticed that Jindal has spent mega money on his campaign. I now ask myself this question, Did he win the people over because of how much he spent on running a campaign, or did he address all of the concerns of Louisiana, and wants reform. Something tells me that he may have bought a lot of votes.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:55 pm
The problem with the voting is that few people vote for the right reasons. There are usually very poor turnouts because people do not think that their voice will be heard. Even worse are the people who DO show up to vote without researching the issues, only voting because someone else said they should or should not support a cause. The Oregon Gov. mistakenly thought that everyone who voted him in thought just like he did. Unfortunately, if you looked at the percentage of voter turnout between the two elections their is a diparity in their numbers. Maybe we should resort back to an electoral college system since individual votes can be so easily manipulated by interest groups (i.e. bussing their constituents in to vote). The system of electoral colleges have been used throughout history to elect various offices worldwide. These people are well informed individuals acting on behalf of the largley uninformed masses.