April 30, 2006
Penn
Patriot
 Brown
Shoes Diary
30th District Debate Blues
Perhaps the most disappointing aspect of the
recent "debates" featuring the candidates for Pennsylvania's 30th senatorial
district is that they weren't really debates. One definition of debate is "to
engage in argument." When the rules of the event forbid one candidate from
addressing another, that is, from engaging in argument, then they
fundamentally outlaw debate. Had the rules been followed by all parties then
all that would have occurred were simultaneous, but separate, Q&A sessions
with the three candidates.
Happily, Battlin' Bob (Batty Bob?) didn't follow the rules at any of the
debates, especially the one on April 28, deliberately addressing John
Eichelberger on numerous occasions. (For some reason, the Senator seemed not
to realize that Arnold McClure was also a participant in the debates.)
Disrespect for rules and people is characteristic of our Senator as he has
demonstrated on many occasions locally and in Harrisburg. At least this time
it had the positive effect of turning an otherwise humdrum event into some
interesting give-and-takes.
And it produced some interesting comments too, including the Senator's
assertion that the economy has never been better in his district and there
have never been more jobs in his district. I don't have the facts at hand, but
I have a hard time believing that jobs are more plentiful now than ever
before. The Senator may want to ask the folks who used to work at W.S. Lee and
Butterick and SKF and Norfolk Southern and … well, you know the list of
closings and downsizings in the area is a very long one. Plentiful jobs and
booming economy? I must have missed the news about the Central Pennsylvania
Economic Miracle.
But the Senator assured us that our area is a "hot spot for job creation." At
that comment, a guy sitting beside me leaned towards me and said, "When it
comes to job creation, this is the coldest spot in a very cold state. Think
Antarctica."
The sorriest statement I heard at the final debate was out of the mouth of
Arnold McClure. It sounded innocuous and nobody seemed bothered, which is all
the more troubling to me. Answering a question about what the state should do
for agriculture, he opined that if the state "made investment" in agriculture,
it would pay itself back many times over.
Now, this is a sorry remark on several levels. First, it demonstrates economic
ignorance. If investment in agriculture yields returns many times over,
investors in the private sector would be lining up to dump capital on the
farmers' front lawn. But it also manifests political ignorance as agriculture
has historically been the most heavily subsidized industry there is, with the
exception of idleness. And then there is the moral bankruptcy of the above
remark--it's okay for the state to forcibly take the money one person earns
and give it to another. That is the meaning of every involvement of the state
in economic matters. As Frederic Bastiat wrote, "The state is the great
fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."
McClure also commented that he likes government to be as close to the people
as possible. A noble sentiment and one I share, but how do you square that
with the belief that it's okay to use the state government in Harrisburg and
the national government in D.C. to subsidize farmers? Doesn't sound like a
recipe for a small and close-to-home government to me.
And that brings me to another sorry observation: What does it say that the
Chamber of Commerce has a Legislative Action Committee that thought it
appropriate to ask the candidates about how they'll use a government office to
bring economic benefits to our area? If the Chamber of Commerce doesn't
understand the meaning of "free enterprise" (lest we forget, free enterprise
is short for enterprise free from government involvement), who does? We are
way down the road to serfdom that Friedrich Hayek warned about in his 1944
classic, The Road to Serfdom--a book
which has a chapter titled, "Why the Worst Get to the Top." Looking at
Pennsylvania's political leaders, you'd have a hard time arguing with Hayek's
thesis.
Who won the debates and who wins the elections in May and November is a small
matter in comparison to the character of the citizens of our district and
Pennsylvania. I have seen very little evidence that our area is saturated with
freedom-loving men and women. The senate election comes down to those who love
Bob Jubelirer for what he's done for them at others' expense and those who
hate Bob Jubelirer for the manner and self-serving dealings he's exhibited.
Sadly, the election doesn't seem to be about a program of liberty.
The opinions and ideas expressed in this essay are those of John D
McGinnis and should not be considered representative of WRTA.com, any
institution with which McGinnis is associated, or anyone else. He can be
contacted at zoiprof@atlanticbb.net.
Contact John D McGinnis
Back to
Main Page of Brown Shoes Diary
|