Right Is Wrong

iUniverse, Inc.

Contents

Preface...........................................viiIntroduction......................................xiChapter 1 The Big Debate..........................1Chapter 2 The Tide of History.....................7Chapter 3 The Personal Side.......................19Chapter 4 Mind Your Business......................25Chapter 5 The Dark Side...........................29Chapter 6 The Future..............................43Appendix..........................................47References........................................55

Chapter One

"Don't discuss politics or religion." How often have we heard that line? Yet we ignore it all the time, usually without starting a war. However, most of our discussions are about issues—tax policy or foreign affairs, for instance. Rarely does anyone debate the merits of conservatism or liberalism themselves. Is there really an advantage to either view?

Historians have found that society tends to swing from one position to the other every thirty years or so. Based on this observation, it might seem that there is no clear advantage to either one. A closer look at major social, economic, and political events in each era shows a trend, however. While the exact dates are subject to debate, the overall pattern is clear. Social changes that have lasted all occurred during the liberal periods. On the other hand, those made in conservative times were all discarded.

    Periods in American History
    Conservative vs. Liberal

    1903–1918 (Liberal)
    Conservation
    NAACP
    Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts,
      Campfire Girls
    National Collegiate
      Athletic Association
    Federal Reserve System
    Rotary Club
    Pure Food and Drug Act

    1918–1933 (Conservative)
    Prohibition
    Antitrust
    Margin buying

    1933–1948 (Liberal)
    Social Security
    National Labor Relations Act
    Elimination of gold standard
    Minimum wage
    Alcoholics Anonymous

    1948–1963 (Conservative)
    McCarthyism

    1963–1978 (Liberal)
    Environmentalism
    Civil rights
    Women's rights
    Medicare
    Voting rights

    1978–1993 (Conservative)
    Supply-side economics
    Junk bonds

    1993–2008 (Liberal)
    Gay rights/partnerships
    Death penalty reform
    Medicare drug reform
    Medical marijuana
    Brady gun law
    Education/school funding reform

Skeptics will undoubtedly point to the exception to shoot down this argument, which is that school desegregation occurred during the 1950s. However, all Supreme Court justices but one were holdovers from the long Democratic reign, so the court ended up being out of step with the rest of society. And opposing arguments ignore the fundamental conclusion that liberal changes become ingrained in society.

Nor does a president's party indicate whether the prevailing tide is liberal or conservative. Nixon was elected because the Democrats miscalculated on Vietnam, yet he signed off on Title IX (equality for women in sports) and environmental legislation. Bush 43 won primarily because of problems with the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, Florida. During his term, we got Medicare D (prescription drug benefit) and education reform. Accidents of history sometimes make strange bedfellows.

Some would claim that we were in a conservative era since Reagan and it only ended with Obama's election. Events listed in the table suggest otherwise, however. Moreover, if Obama ushered in a liberal era, the Blue Dogs (conservative Democrats) would have been out of favor, and we would have gotten nationalized health care. In reality, the nation was making a turn toward another conservative period.

Chapter Two

A look at history shows the relative performance of liberalism and conservatism. The difference pervades all of society, not just politics.

Politics

When President Clinton was asked to name his greatest mistake, he said it was not sending soldiers to Rwanda to stop the genocide. George W. Bush's response to the same question listed nothing during his presidency. He would only admit that trading Sammy Sosa when he was president of the Texas Rangers was a mistake. Even Robert McNamara finally admitted that Vietnam was ill-advised. Yet, to the end, Nixon maintained, "I am not a crook." A liberal perspective, it seems, allows us to face our faults. Conservatives, whose Eleventh Commandment will not allow them to criticize a fellow Republican, will not even point the finger at themselves. They would have you believe that they are always right.

One test of the strength of one's beliefs is a willingness to sacrifice. In the political realm, this involves giving up votes to do what one believes is the right thing to do and is in the best interest of the country. Democrats have lost votes on numerous occasions in implementing their agenda. They lost the endorsement of organized labor for a number of subsequent elections after Bobby Kennedy went after Jimmy Hoffa. As Lyndon Johnson predicted, they lost the South over civil rights. More recently, they gave up their longtime control of the House by passing gun control legislation (in 1994).

Republicans, on the other hand, trade beliefs for votes. Since Reagan, they have given up their long-held belief that balanced budgets matter. When asked about this, Republican strategists point out that fiscal responsibility is far down on the priority list of most voters. They believe their position will not cost them votes. In an ironic twist, Democrats most recently have championed balanced budgets.

Another example of Republican priorities is the dividend tax. They wanted to end the double taxation of dividends since it was imposed on both corporations and individuals. Many economists believe that eliminating the tax on companies would be more beneficial to the economy because most dividends paid to individuals go to accounts that are already tax sheltered. But companies do not vote, of course, so the tax was instead lowered on individuals.

Economics

Ten of the last eleven major recessions have occurred during Republican administrations. Some in the GOP (Grand Old Party, another name for the Republican Party) will argue that the downturns were actually caused by Democrats and they were left to clean up the mess. A closer look shows a number of problems with this view. First of all, in seven of the cases, the recessions started so deep into Republican control of the White House (Hoover, Eisenhower [the last two], Nixon, Ford, Bush 41, and the second one under Bush 43) that they could not plausibly be blamed on Democrats. Both gross domestic product (GDP) and industrial production grew at faster rates under Truman than under Eisenhower, so it is unrealistic to blame Truman for the early 1950s recession. Because job growth under Carter was greater than under Reagan, it is unreasonable to say Carter caused the early 1980s recession. (Many economists blame the Fed, or Federal Reserve System). Finally, the first downturn of Bush 43's presidency was caused not by a president but by a Republican Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan.

At this point, a closer look at Greenspan's record is in order because he probably caused more damage to America than any other person in history. Two former Republican presidents, Ford and Bush 41, criticized him for responding too slowly to conditions during their terms. Greenspan also championed the big bang theory of instantly converting from communism to capitalism that devastated Russia's economy in the 1990s. He caused the first recession under Bush 43 by raising interest rates even though no inflation was in sight. Enron went down because of derivatives that had his support. And the second Bush 43 recession began because he drove interest rates so low that it became too easy to borrow money. All the while, he insisted that the free market would prevent the ensuing meltdown. He indeed has a sad record.

Nixon's Fed appointees, who raised interest rates in a failed effort to stem inflation, caused both recessions in the 1970s. Nixon's own wage and price controls exacerbated both of them. But two factors that were beyond the Fed's control caused inflation:

• Energy prices surged because of the Arab oil embargo and the Iranian revolution.

• The influx of the large baby boom generation into the housing market caused home prices and rents to soar. People bought houses regardless of the interest rate because they could always refinance once rates went down.

Inflation finally subsided in the early 1980s when Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members began to cheat on their quotas and the boomers' home-buying spree ended. The Fed needs to better discern when an interest rate policy cannot affect inflationary causes. Otherwise, they will end up causing recessions, which goes against their goal of creating a strong economy. The Fed put the "stag" in "stagflation" (stagnation inflation).

Those in the GOP who do not blame these recessions on Democrats will instead claim that the economy has been better under Democrats because they start wars and run budget deficits to boost the economy. Prior to Clinton, there appeared to be a cause-and-effect relationship here. Certainly, the economy boomed during the wars of the 1940s and 1960s. However, Clinton ushered in the greatest expansion in American history during a period of peace, and he balanced the budget for the first time in three decades.

Why then is the economy better under the Democrats? Primarily, they are willing to regulate the markets. That conclusion became obvious at the end of Bush 43's term when massive deficits and two wars failed to prevent the worst recession since the Great Depression. Margin buying precipitated the latter. In the late 1980s, the collapse of the junk-bond market hurt the economy. And, of course, the late 2000s downturn was caused when the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lifted the net capital rule that limited banks to loaning a specified multiple of their assets. By setting standards, Democrats assure that the worst excesses of the market are not realized.

Along with gross domestic product (GDP), the stock market performs better under Democratic presidents. From 1929 through 1995, the S&P 500 index averaged 14 percent a year under Democrats but only 6 percent annually during GOP administrations. Some claim that the stock market is best in periods of divided government, that is, when Democrats control the White House and Republicans dominate Congress. This view has a couple of problems:

• The opposite is not also true. The market does not do as well when Republicans have the presidency while Democrats run Congress.

• Data suggesting that conclusion is misleading· because Congress determines fiscal, not economic, policy. The chairmen of the Fed and the SEC, along with the secretary of the treasury, are very powerful people who greatly influence our lives. Their roles became much clearer during the 2000s debacle and the subsequent bailout plan.

Some analysts will use the years before 1929 to show that Democrats hold only a slim advantage in stock market growth. True, the bulls stampeded under Coolidge. However, unregulated margin buying created that bubble. It finally burst, just as the housing market did in the 2000s. So, only years encompassing current margin regulations are used to make a valid comparison.

Another reason that earlier years do not allow a good comparison is that the two parties have changed places over the past hundred years. At one time, the party of Lincoln stood for helping the oppressed. It began to stray from that view for the same reason that Teddy Roosevelt, a conservationist, left the Republican Party. It became too cozy with big business. Big business has never treated workers well, and they fight environmental laws every step of the way. Northeasterners figured that out a few decades ago and made the switch from red to blue. More recently, the Midwestern states have become Democratic. Now, some Western states are making the same transition. If Abe and Teddy were alive today, they would be Democrats.

Perhaps the best thing the Democrats did to help the economy in the long term was the elimination of the gold standard in the 1930s. After this change, both the length and frequency of recessions decreased. That is why the Great Depression has not repeated itself. A flexible currency can more quickly respond to prevailing conditions.

Sociology

Social trends also reflect the times. Loud colors and new styles tend to dominate the liberal eras. However, the changes run deeper than this. Most civic organizations were started during the first liberal period of the twentieth century, as people recognized the need to help others. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which still governs college sports, was established to reduce the serious injuries then prevalent in college football. Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) was created during the second liberal time frame in recognition of that fact that those people could be helped.

During the last liberal period, business casual began to dominate the workplace. This trend even spilled over into places of worship, as people realized they did not have to dress up to show respect to God. And the majority of the public finally became supportive of gay rights.

Conservative trends reflect the times but then fizzle out. Unregulated margin buying, McCarthyism, and junk bonds ended up in the dustbin of history. Progress always wins out in the end.

Science

Some anecdotal evidence also suggests that the innovative spirit of liberalism fosters scientific progress. This trend seems particularly prominent in the field of medicine.

By the time my mother died of multiple myeloma, a rare cancer, in 1995, I had done much research on the subject. The drugs used to treat her were developed in the 1960s. A few years after her death, I read of a couple of breakthroughs. One involved thalidomide, a drug that had fallen into disrepute in the 1960s because it caused birth defects after being given to pregnant women to treat morning sickness. However, it showed promise in curing multiple myeloma and was given to former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro for that purpose. Stem cell transplants also showed benefits in treating this disease.

When my cousin developed multiple sclerosis in the 1980s, there was little the doctors could do for her. She ended up in a wheelchair. Then, in the 1990s, researchers discovered that beta interferon countered the effects of the gamma interferon that appeared in the spinal fluid during flare-ups. After she started taking beta interferon, her condition improved, and she is no longer in a wheelchair. Looking at the big picture shows a similar trend. Antibiotic sulfa drugs were developed in the 1930s, measles and Sabin oral vaccines came along in the 1960s, and the human genome was mapped in the 1990s.

This phenomenon does not seem to be exhibited in the other fields of science. Perhaps that is because scientists usually do not interact with the public. As a result, they are isolated from prevailing social trends. Medical professionals, on the other hand, do make contact with the general population and are probably more likely to reflect what is going on around them. Another possible explanation is that scientists, like university professors, are a decidedly liberal lot, and there is also data to support this conclusion.

Culture

Liberal periods tend to foster the arts as well. Most comic book heroes were created during the liberal times outlined in chapter 1, as the following list illustrates:

Dick Tracy (1931) Superman (1938) Batman (1939) Wonder Woman (1941) Spider-Man (1962) The Hulk (1962) The X-Men (1963)

Most of our modern Christmas songs also originated in a flurry that began in the 1930s:

"Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town" (1932) "I Wonder as I Wander" (1933) "Winter Wonderland" (1934) "Carol of the Bells" (1936) "The Little Drummer Boy" (1941) "Happy Holiday" (1942) "White Christmas" (1942) "I'll Be Home for Christmas" (1943) "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" (1944) "Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!" (1945) "All I Want for Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth" (1946) "Here Comes Santa Claus" (1946) "The Christmas Song" (1946) "Sleigh Ride" (1948/1950) "A Marshmallow World" (1949) "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer" (1949) "Frosty the Snowman" (1950) "Silver Bells" (1951) "It's Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas" (1951)

The years above do not exactly agree with those in chapter 1. That shows the difficulty in assigning precise dates to liberal and conservative cycles or to any historical periods, for that matter. For example, historians generally use the year 1750 as the dividing line between the Baroque and Classical periods of classical music. Of course, some composers in the middle of the eighteenth century exhibited elements of both styles. Nevertheless, few would disagree that the Golden Age of rock music occurred during the 1960s and early 1970s. And alternative rock rose to prominence in the 1990s. Most importantly, though, it is the overall trend that is instructive, not the specific dates.

Fashion

Clothing styles tend to be more colorful and innovative during liberal periods. Conservative times, on the other hand, involve a return to the past. Only natural fabrics—wool, cotton, and silk—are used, and there are far fewer no-iron garments available. It seems that conservatives would either have us devote more time to ironing or live with more wrinkles in our clothes.

Women's hemlines also tend to rise during liberal times (also during the conservative 1920s). Of course, as previously discussed, the stock market tends to do better during liberal eras. These trends support the observation that the market parallels the rise and fall of skirt lengths.

(Continues...)

Excerpted from Right Is Wrongby Stephen Schade Copyright © 2012 by Stephen Schade. Excerpted by permission of iUniverse, Inc.. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.