A Tale Of Two Nations

It's becoming apparent to some of us in the United States that we are pretty much living in two separate countries: the conservative portion of the country and the liberal-progressive portion of the country. Neither side gets along with the other on political issues, and both desire for their side to dominate the political landscape. One group wants the US to be more like Sweden (the blue), and the other group wants the US to be more like Switzerland (the red). Though these two groups may be united geographically, they are digging in ideologically and yet moving farther apart. Independent voters are left somewhere in the middle of no man's land. Not only does this situation make for poor political dialogue, but it is also bad for business. The more animosity there is within a society, the harder it will be for business to flow smoothly. Individuals may grow to resent each other on the basis of supposed political beliefs. In light of the landmark Citizens United v FEC decision where the US Supreme Court held that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts cannot be limited, American citizens may soon feel the need to choose between red and blue corporations. The current US debt ceiling crisis is highlighting the ideological battle between the red and the blue for all the world to see. Whether we like it or not, the United States is divided ideologically between liberals and conservatives. The voice of nebulous independents is often drowned out by the political rhetoric of the most extreme ends of the right and the left. To a certain extent, this political entrenchment is unhealthy for a society. Although a robust and diverse debate should be fostered in a democracy, politically-charged ideological competition can begin to get counter-productive, e.g. when budget deals cannot be reached and when debt ceilings cannot be raised. The US has dealt with political division for decades, but this time, the debate appears to be deeper. When money is involved, things always seem to get that much more interesting, and in today's political debate, money is the issue. Today, the separation between conservatives and liberals is not simply an ideological divide, it is also a philosophical and economic one. In terms of economic philosophy, both sides appear to have incompatible first principles and incompatible goals. The economic ideas of some of the most devout conservatives, in particular the so-called Tea Party conservatives, are related to free market principles akin to the Austrian School in economics, which favors low taxes, minimal government intervention, and greater civil freedom. Like the Austrian School, leaders of the American conservative movement such as Mark Levin and Sean Hannity stand opposed to and speak out against Keynesian economics. On the other hand, the ideas of liberal-progressives tend to support the economic ideas of the Stockholm School, which favors high taxes and government regulation of things like health care, education, and pensions. The Stockholm School serves as a "third way" in between capitalism and socialism. It is debatable whether liberal-progressives more so support Stockholm School economics or Keynesian economics, but given the current political climate, it appears that liberal-progressives are marching towards a country similar to the Nordic welfare state. For the purposes of this article, I am not going to say that the US should choose one economic school over the other, and I am not going to say that one economic school is better than the other. I simply want to bring light to the fact that these two economic schools on a macroeconomic national scale are for the most part incompatible with each other. The Austrian School and the Stockholm School have very different cultural and economic goals. In the context of a political debate, the two schools could be likened to two cars facing each other and trying to travel in opposite directions. Given the circumstances, they end up smashing into each other incessantly. And in the end, both cars are destroyed and no one gets anywhere. Hence, our current political and ideological quagmire. There is a possible solution to this issue. The Founding Fathers contemplated states not agreeing on policy, and so they allowed for states' rights. Since the Civil War, the issue of states' rights has become somewhat taboo, but at its core the idea allows for American citizens to vote with their feet. Voters who are displeased with the policies in California can move to Utah and vice-versa. Rather than having a bloated federal government that cannot agree and/or cannot get anything done, states can take the reins on their own policies. Rather than having a cumbersome national debate on whether marijuana should be legalized, states could individually choose whether to legalize marijuana or not. The idea of states' rights can extend to some of the United States' most contentious issues including health care, gay marriage, abortion, taxes, business regulations, and drug legalization. As the Founding Fathers intended, perhaps we should allow the hard-working, tax-paying US citizen to vote with his or her feet. With this concept in mind, there is no need for time-consuming, counter-productive ideological battles on a national scale. If one portion of the country wants us to be like Sweden, then that is fine; they can live like Sweden. And if another portion wants us to be like Switzerland, then that is also fine; they can live like Switzerland. The issue becomes problematic when both portions want the entire country to be one way or another or when both portions insist that the rest give in to their economic goals. In effect, to perpetuate this ideological Kulturkampf on the international stage works to no one's benefit. It's bad for business, counterproductive, and embarrassing. A house divided cannot stand. In a country with over 300,000,000 citizens, people are going to have differing political beliefs, but this fact should not deter the flow of commerce and the ability of people to put food on the table. As long as citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property are protected, I believe that there is no need for prolonged ideological conflict where people are not able to get along and cooperate. If people want the country to be like Switzerland or Sweden, then let it be worked out among the states and let citizens vote with their feet. We can have both Switzerland and Sweden. In order to have smooth political cooperation and growing commerce, we have to start thinking both/and rather than either/or. When all is said and done, whether we would rather be living in Sweden or Switzerland, the United States of America is better than that to be tripping over itself owing to ideological conflicts.