When Reagan came to power the argument behind his “supply side” (tinkle down) economy was that it would benefit the middle-class the most. Whether this was cynical from the start (ie: those proposing it knew it was a load of crap), I don’t know. However it was at least a fair argument.
However, as the policies (particularly tax) consistently have favored those with power/money, so has power/money shifted their way, definitively answering the question of whether these policies benefit the middle class the most – they do not.
However in light of these obvious failures, the original argument has been forgotten. It is no longer what benefits the middle class the most, but instead now what is “most moral”, where “most moral” is now said to be “who deserves it the most”. Of course curiously the “most deserving” are those who have the most (in fact, by definition those who have the most, deserve it the most, otherwise they wouldn’t have it!)(conversely if you don’t have it, you must not be deserving – Catch 22!).
If one really wants to get into morality (and I think a certain man/deity who died on a cross would agree), the obvious answer to the argument of what is “most moral” is what benefits the most people. That is, what policies will ensure the most people will be fed, have a roof over their head, have reasonable health care, and be able to retire/die with dignity. Maybe those policies are to be found in Reaganomics or Libertarianism or Objectivism, but from what I can see not only in practice, but even in theory, that is not the aim of these policies (ideologies?).
So, if we want to have the argument again about what is best for the middle class, I’d be happy. It would be a huge step forward. In the meantime we seem to be having separate arguments but viewing them as the same. The liberals are looking for policies that benefit the most numbers, the conservatives, the most deserving. Those are two very different ends and are not ultimately interchangeable.
Leave a Reply