What if you’re left-leaning politically, but don’t like Joe Biden as a candidate? – A final appeal

Never in the history of the United States have we had a sitting President refuse to give a clear answer to the question of whether he would commit to a peaceful transfer of powers were he to lose the election. Donald Trump has repeatedly, and unambiguously made reference to the fact that any outcome in the election which does not declare him the victor should be considered illegitimate, simply because he cannot accept the possibility of him losing the final vote count. This is not normal, acceptable behavior for someone occupying the highest office in the land.

Come next week, it will either be President Biden or President Trump who will be declared the President of the United Stated for the next 4 years. We can cry about our lackluster options all we want, but there is no legitimate third option to choose from in our current election system, and this fact won’t change within the next few days. Anyone who identifies politically with the left (to whatever degree), who thinks that another 4 years of Trump is preferable or equal to a Biden presidency, because of some ideological purity test about needing your political agenda realized all at once or not all, is someone who gives zero shits about actually affecting positive progressive change in this country, or the people they purport to be advocating for in the first place.

With Biden, progressives and left-wingers will still need to work hard to enact reforms and bring about the sociopolitical change we want to see, but at least we have a chance to put political pressure on him and fight for a seat at the table. With Trump, not only is there no seat for us, there isn’t even a damn table! There’s only a podium serving as a bully pulpit from which rights keep getting threatened that have already been fought for and won.

If you lean even slightly to the left, and haven’t voted yet, I implore you to do so this coming Tuesday. Before any reform to the system can be implemented, some sense of normalcy and sanity has to be restored first, and readily handing the presidency over to a man who openly boasts that only election results favorable to him are acceptable, who repeatedly demonizes half the population who happens to politically disagree with him, who had shown careless disregard for public health, and can’t help himself but incite hate and spread misinformation on the topic (and just about every other topic he speaks on), is the worse evil of the choices given that should not be enabled, even passively.

Is the Free-market Self-regulating?

If you live in the American South, like I do, you will notice that there are few claims around here held as dearly (and uncritically) as the proclaimed ideal of the self-regulatory nature of the free-market. And, as we enter an election year, the truth of this particular economic gospel is starting to be preached from all corners below the Mason-Dixon Line. These days I consider myself to be largely apolitical. I have certain opinions, as they regard to specific issues, which can individually carry political implications (or not). But I do not try to make my opinions fit into a greater political narrative, and often, I find myself with one camp on one matter, and with the other camp on another. Thus, my reasons for calling into question the veracity of laissez-faire style free-market economics is not based on a political ideology, but the fact that its supporters consider their personal preferences to be beyond reproach and absolute.

Roughly speaking, the free-market is a market system where prices are determined by supply and demand. A free-market economy is an economy where all aspects of business are unregulated by any factors other than the market participants (ideally this means no government oversight, either placing restrictions on, or giving favor to, businesses). When it comes to the Western world, the free-market serves a vital function in the operation of our economies, because it is the primary plane of operation we have erected by which to carry out commerce. The problem I have with the arguments made by advocates of a complete laissez-faire free-market economy, is that they totally neglect the fact that the free-market does not exist independent of us; it is not a natural phenomenon, it came about through the direct, personal involvement of individuals. It operates through the direct, personal involvement of individuals. So, in what way does it make sense to say that the system is (or, ideally, needs to be) self-regulating?

This is the primary problem with free-market fundamentalism in a nutshell; the idea that the free-market is some sort of self-correcting, self-sustaining, omniscient force, always able to yield the most egalitarian and utilitarian result. Many laissez-faire advocates will no doubt object to this generalization, but in reality it is a very apt synopsis of how their ideas come across to outside observers. If you are convinced that no sort of outside regulation (especially a governmental one), should be permitted to oversee and remedy the workings/progress/abuses of businesses, then you are by default claiming that the businesses, themselves, will always be capable of supervising themselves, as no doubt abuses and corruptions will occasionally occur (and then some). Here, I have to applaud laissez-faire advocates for the amount of trust they place in faceless conglomerates, while at the same time dismissing the intentions of faceless federal agencies. But one cannot help but point out the lapse in logic.

To claim that federal regulation can only mess-up the market, and then point to examples of government corruption as evidence for one’s claim, but then further on hold that any corruption seen on the side of private corporations is simply part of the self-regulating process, is a fallacious argument of special pleading. In the current economic model we reside in, to entirely detach the government from the workings of businesses does not just remove a thorn out of the paw of CEO’s, or limit their money-making capacity, it also removes the provision of the health standard for our foods (which did not exist in the late 19^th/early 20^th century, nor was it much of a concern for the food conglomerates of the time), and prevent the import of potentially harmful material to enter the country (imagine if during the Chinese Lead Toys Scare, we decided that only the Chinese Company’s own regulators, who allowed the tainted product to enter the market to begin with, can do the proper investigations). Of course, the government bureaucrats are shady, and constantly on the lookout for profit and self-promotion, but to pretend that business bureaucrats are any more trustworthy–especially when dealing with things that would decide their overall revenue–is plain delusional. Remember how hard the auto industry fought in the 1960s against fixing a few measly safety hazards in their cars, even though the expense was negligible in light of their yearly intake on the market. Luckily, they lost that battle, but it wasn’t because the omniscient guidance of the free-market led them to make the right decision.

Fundamentally, what needs to be understood is that the free-market does not have a mind, and it is not alive; it is a man-made system, limited by our capabilities, and directed by our faults. And within the scope of the laissez-faire mindset, its capacity to correct the shady activities of corporate interests relies entirely on the self-interested corporations themselves.

Now, let me clear up a mistake often made by the political Left when discussing this issue; namely, the false assertion that corporations are evil in some way. This is not true, corporations are not evil, nor are the people who make up their boards. Corporations are for-profit institution, by which I mean that they are outlets which provide a service for the sake of gaining a profit. This is not evil, but it is not—in any way—an ingredient of something that is concerned with promoting the well-being of the individual’s liberties.

Despite what laissez-faire advocates want to claim, there is no history of a business independently implementing much needed regulatory policies on itself, without external pressure. No tycoon took a stroll through his factory, only to be struck by the urge to extend a reasonable minimum wage to his workers. At no point did a business take a stand to condemn the use of child labor as a legitimate means to carry on its enterprise before child labor laws were passed. All of this was brought about through outside pressure; either workers petitioning to local and federal agents, or the federal government itself clamping down on social inequalities in the work place (as slow to the draw as it might have been). Because that’s what the whole point of a government is, to prove a service and look out for the interests of its citizens, not the corporations. Too often it fails miserably in this department, but to suggest that the solution to the problem is to completely remove all third-party oversight from the equation is plainly unfounded.

A conglomerate exists to make a profit, if it can cut corners to increase profit, it will. If it can ignore precautions to maximize revenue–even if it’s only in the short-term with detrimental effects likely to happen as a direct result–it will. Again, this is not a condemnation; I also believe that for opponents of laissez-faire economics to say that such a thing is evil, while regulatory measures are innately good, would be equally simplistic and stupid. My argument is about efficiency, and the fact that the laissez-faire stance that the free-market will always find a way to work out its problems by itself has no barring in reality, and seems to rely mainly on the frustration people have towards the incompetency of their government. All of this is understandable, but what justification lies there in the presupposition that free-market participants will be more efficient in fostering a healthy economy for the rest of us? Pointing to the inaptitude of one side, does not garner points for yours.

The Clinton Conundrum

If it is the case that Hillary Clinton secures the coming Democratic nomination, and subsequently wins the Presidential election thereafter, it will mark a unique turn in the history of this nation. No, I’m not talking about the fact that for the first time a women will be serving as President of the United States, nor the fascinating tidbit that said President rose from the ranks of former First Ladies (an equally unprecedented feat). What I’m referring to is that, if Hillary Clinton wins the Presidency in 2016, it will mark the Obama administration as the sole outlier in a 30 year executive roundelay between the Bush/Clinton dynasties. I can’t be the only one that finds it remarkable that the last three decades of politics in a democratic Republic have been presided over by two competing last names (e.g. Bush and Clinton).

The American Left has a dodgy relationship with the Clintons. Although Bill Clinton is lucky to have preceded the colossal brain aneurism of an administration that was the Bush presidency (thereby ensuring his impression in history books as the more competent executive my default), his actual track record of liberal accomplishments is lackluster, if not downright antithetical. Whatever image this man wants to present to the public now, let us not forget that this was the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act that set back civil rights for gays at the time, butchered social services that his base constituents heralded, repeatedly backed corporate interests over–and to the great devastation of–the environmental issues he campaigned on (one can go on, but the point ought to be clear already). Bill Clinton may have been out of office for well over a decade, but as long as his legacy continues to be championed by liberals in this country as a score for leftwing policies, these caveats deserve at least a casual mention, never mind an actual defense (or even an apology).

Hillary Clinton has been a political figure in her own right long enough that there’s no need to refer to her husband’s record to assess her stances on any issue. Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, its candidate’s own liberal cred is every much as questionable as her husband’s.

In the past decade and a half, she has been foolishly hawkish when she backed the Iraq war for as long as public opinion could stomach it; she currently speaks out against corporate greed, yet seems to forget that she sat in government, not proposing or supporting a single piece of legislation that might have curbed the coming market crash in 2008, or reformed the financial sector in this country in any way whatsoever; she has never given more than passive support for the rights of gays, low-income families, the labor class, or anybody else for that matter, until she was absolutely sure that such stances polled favorably with the electoral public.

In short, the conundrum that faces the Left in this country when it comes to electing Hillary Clinton is similar to the one that faced them in the 90s with the first Clinton. Namely, the Clintons have no ideology, political or otherwise, to propose, stand, or even fall on: the sole purpose on which any Clinton campaign is fueled by is strictly the unyielding need to get elected. All other concerns are secondary, if nonexistent to this guiding purpose. And that is the alpha and the omega underlying this whole façade of a political family.