What is fiscal conservatism?

We've been hearing a lot of the deficit lately. It is what the tea partiers are apparently fussing about (though I don't believe that it was ever about that for a second, to be clear). Yes, there has been a great call for "fiscal conservatism." A call for "free" market principles. A call for a capitalist rebirth. But I question the wisdom of this call.

It may seem ridiculous to question the notion of fiscal conservatism at a time like this. It may be deemed inappropriate to question the push for austerity measures, here and in Europe, to tear down huge deficits. In fact, it probably seems outlandish to many to suggest that we should not focusing on the monstrous debt. But I am, and just because there is a popular wave that will most likely ride the Republicans to numerous and significant victories today and tonight, doesn't mean it's right and it's good. Just because it is now conventional wisdom, doesn't mean it's genuine wisdom. It doesn't mean history supports it; it doesn't mean the facts support it.

By the Ronald Reagan left office, this nation had hundreds of billions of dollars of a deficit. Chump change compared to the debt mounted by his vice president's son's presidency, but let's think about it. Reagan was apparently the champion of neoconservatism, the champion of the "free" market and "free" trade; Reagan was the champion of fiscal conservatism in the eyes of many today. if this is so, why and how did he wrack up such a huge deficit? And to be clear, it was huge at the time. No matter what conservative bloggers say, Reagan did NOT tackle the deficit during his term, not only the way he should've, but in the way that was expected by other fiscal conservatives. No sir, he left that monster for Clinton to deal with.

So, let's get this straight. The messiah of fiscal conservatism left a huge deficit for a liberal democrat to deal with. And on top of that, that liberal democrat turned that deficit into a surplus. Does this not raise any eyebrows, if not questions? Questions like: why are we voting in the republicans this midterm?

Now, we have to objective here. Reagan was not some sort of small government tea partier. His rhetoric was, but that's where it ended. Reagan expanded the government in huge ways, more so than anyone else had prior. The difference is that Reagan was so blatantly pro-corporatism and so anti-working class. Reagan was also hugely protectionist when it came to trade; just ask the Japanese automakers. But the thing is, the tea partiers today look up to him as the republican Christ (because we all know Jesus was a socialist), so how can we expect them to do anything differently? Their rhetoric is the same. And not only is it the same as Reagan's, but also the same as Bush when he first got elected. This may not be anything new.

However, if it is something new, if the tea party backed candidates are going to sincerely push further than Reagan and live up to the fiscal conservative rhetoric, we need to be worried.

If you want to peak into a country in which there are completely pure "free" market, "free" trade, and fiscal conservative (neo-liberal) principles, you don't need to look any further than Haiti. Or Jamaica. Or Bolivia. Or a whole slew of other third world countries in which the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are involved in. The "free" market principles conservatives pride themselves so much on are predominant in these countries, and they are possibly the biggest factor of what keeps them in the third world; tax cuts for the wealthy, completely open "free" trade, very little (if at all) government services and welfare programs, massive privatizations, suppression of unions, zero labor laws, etc. Yes, Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere, is a conservative's dream. This why I put the word "free" in "free" market and "free" trade in quotations: in countries that follow such principles, there is no freedom.

And that is no mistake. The founders of such economic principles, such as David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus, amongst others, were very adamant to point out that there is no freedom for the majority of people in this type of system, only the freedom to either work, starve, rot in jail, or die. Freedom is only reserved for the rich. And indeed, that is one thing that they were right about. How can we reconcile this system with democracy? How can we reconcile this system with the ideas found in our Constitution?

We can't.

Thankfully, we've never really had a pure capitalist system, at least not in our modern era, the era in which we progressed to become a huge global economic and military superpower. We've been nothing less than a state-capitalist society. The amount of state intervention in the economy is huge, and largely unknown to the general public; everything from the subsidizing of agriculture to ensure that our potatoes are sold at the cheap in foreign markets to the entirety of our high-tech industry is on the account of the state. Indeed, for those who are pushing for zero government economic intervention, those who consider any government intervention to be evil socialism, just take at your computer, your internet, your cell phone. Take a look at all the different materials that make up our cars and planes. These are the products of government investment. These are all made by our government, paid for by our tax dollars. All of the the high tech industry is from the state sector. How is that socialism working out for you?

Yes, it is impossible to reconcile this current state capitalist system with democracy as well, but not to the extent that it would be irreconcilable if we had a pure capitalist system. We need to be realistic, we need to be genuine in our understanding. When many third world countries get in a disastrous economic crisis, the IMF comes in and implements the neo-liberal policies which our tea partiers are pushing today, in the midst of our economic crisis. These countries are failed states because of this. The people of the countries live in abject poverty, oppressive poverty; conditions we couldn't even imagine. Fiscal conservatism, as we know it today, keeps third world countries in the third world. It creates an environment in which corporations are allowed to exploit and essentially buy up the country.

When you hear conservatives discussing privatization of social security in our country, this is exactly the type of thing we are talking about. Corporations are for-profit institutions. How would life be if the institutions that directly ran our nation were for-profit? We need something, some institution to protect us, the people, from corporations. That is government. I am an anarchist through and through, I don't believe in the legitimacy of government along with any social hierarchy, but we have to be realistic here. We all know government cannot ever be truly for and by the people. But we know that, at least, they have to be somewhat accountable to the people in a democracy. We know that government can not to be blatantly for profit in a democracy. So the choice has to be made; corporation or government? For-profit or elected public officials?

Yes, we all want neither. But unfortunately, they both have power. It is matter of which do we not want the most to have a position of authority in our lives. Think about places like Haiti, where corporations run the country. Then think about 1990's. Make the distinction. Realize what terms like fiscal conservatism and socialism stand for in this society. This is the decision we have to make today, and unfortunately we are moving in the wrong direction.