Americans Can Do Anything: Jindal's Lack of Faith in Democracy (Part 1)

This reaction to Governor Jindal's speech focuses on subjects I've taught: democratic government and public finance. His response to President Obama's State of the Union Address presented a paradox he did not recognize. His mantra is "American can do anything." Our democratic government is "the freest political system in the history of the world." He celebrates its success in response to terrible crises: slavery, world wars, depression, and terrorism." We triumph because when Americans: "pull together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome."

The context of the paradox was his claim (despite macroeconomic theory and experience that proves the opposite) that nations suffering from severe recessions should respond solely with tax cuts and not stimulate demand through public expenditures. My focus is on the rationale he offers, which is that our democracy is illegitimate. When Jindal says "Americans can do anything," he actually means "except through democratic processes."

But Democratic leaders in Congress rejected this approach [of making solely tax cuts]. Instead of trusting us to make wise decisions with our own money, they passed the largest government spending bill in history.

We oppose the National Democrats' view that says -- the way to strengthen our country is to increase dependence on government.

When Americans spend money individually we make "wise decisions" but if "government" spends money we are worse off because we become "dependen[t]" on it. The "government" spends money because it doesn't "trust us." Jindal cites the U.S. victories in the two world wars as proof that we can do anything. We won because we used public expenditures to raise, feed, train, equip, and transport armed forces to Europe and Asia. If we had cut taxes and "trust[ed]" citizens to "make wise decisions" with "our own money" we would have lost the wars.

Jindal says that ending slavery was one of our greatest triumphs. Lincoln would not have saved the Union and ended slavery if he had responded to secession with tax cuts. Lincoln, the greatest Republican, dramatically expanded the federal government in order to win the Civil War, preserve the Union, and end slavery. The Confederacy, of course, wouldn't have let Jindal's parents into Louisiana.

Public finance explains why governments are needed to provide a "public good" like national defense. Private markets cannot make a profit on "public goods." "Public goods" have two defining characteristics -- there is no practical manner for a private firm to exclude non-payers from the benefits and "consumption" of the good or service is "non rival." Public finance also explains why additional "collective action" problems, such as "free riders" ensure that "trusting" citizens to "make wise decisions with our own money" will never produce an effective national defense.

Jindal proclaims that another triumph is that the U.S. "won the struggle for civil rights." He overstates, but government actions have brought progress. The initiative typically came from the targets of bias, but the targets' strategy nearly always centered on the enlistment of the federal government as an ally. Absent the federal government's support, the struggle for civil rights would have been lost. Public finance and political theory explain why this is true. Bigots that secure the support of local and state governments render their targets politically powerless. Such discrimination can prevail indefinitely. Private market actions cannot defeat it, and will often reinforce it. Private intimidation, often aided by local law enforcement, can make the bigotry lethal and far more effective. Federal government intervention was essential, and effective, in reducing such discrimination. Discrimination against disfavored groups causes great harm not only to the direct victims, but also "negative externalities" that harm the overall economy, society, and polity.

Jindal emphasized the importance of education:

To strengthen our economy, we also need to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education.

Public education is the single most important reason for our nation's success. Jindal appears to understand that. Republicans led the charge for free public education. The slave states generally opposed public education. Slave states often made it illegal to educate slaves. Slave states repeatedly blocked passage of the Land Grant Colleges act. Lincoln was finally able to pass it because of secession. Education provides "positive externalities." Your child's superior education helps society. It makes her a more likely to be an informed voter and a better contributor to the economy. Better-educated kids are less likely to have children out of wedlock or enter shotgun marriages, more likely to marry, more likely to defer having children to a time when they can afford to care for them with their own resources, less likely to become criminals, and less likely to divorce (Cahn & Carbone 2009, Red Families v. Blue Families, forthcoming). The only way "to make sure every child in America gets the best possible education" is to provide free public education.

Jindal also addressed "the crisis in health care."

Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage -- period.

We stand for universal access to affordable health care coverage. We oppose universal government-run health care. Health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients -- not by government bureaucrats. We believe Americans can do anything -- and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.

No one has a window to another's soul. We can only rely on how they act. Congressional Republicans do not act to ensure that "no American should have to worry about losing their health coverage -- period" or to provide "universal access to affordable health care coverage." Millions of Americans lose their coverage every year (an estimated four million since the official start of the recession).

Republican Governors like Jindal and Palin have opposed efforts to prevent these losses of health care coverage. They have opposed Obama's plans to provide medical care coverage to the millions of Americans that have no coverage.

The U.S. does not provide "universal access to affordable health care coverage." We went the wrong direction on access under Bush. Republican policies ensure that there will be no universal access. The system they protect makes insurance companies wealthy. Jindal's rhetoric: "health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients -- not by government bureaucrats" is doubly duplicitous. The assertion that "bureaucrats" make the health care decisions in other advanced nations is false, but his understanding of America is equally poor. Insurance company bureaucrats frequently make our health care decisions.

Poor and working class Americans that have no health care coverage do not cherish their "freedom" to decide. They are forced to ask themselves: is my child so sick that I should take her to the emergency room and pray that the bills won't force me to declare bankruptcy? Jindal's jingoism ignores the reality working class Americans live.

We believe Americans can do anything -- and if we put aside partisan politics and work together, we can make our system of private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens.

It is strange that Jindal, in a speech emphasizing federal budgetary limitations, assumes that poorer Americans "can do anything" by ignoring their budgetary limits. Poorer Americans inherently cannot afford expensive health care or education. That is an economic fact that has nothing to do with partisanship. We can succeed, if we "work together" through government. Only government funding can make "private medicine affordable and accessible for every one of our citizens." Health care provides substantial positive externalities, so the private sector will not provide it adequately.

Jindal proclaims that we have "the most powerful military." We do -- because of federal government spending, funded by taxes. Jindal, implicitly, concedes that government action is essential and has been effective in this field. Here's his key phrase again, he asserts that government services represent a failure to "trust[] us to make wise decisions with our own money." What he misses entirely are the concepts of democracy and voter competence. We are bright enough to understand the concept of "public goods", "externalities" and "collective action problems." As a result, we realize (1) that we need an effective national defense, (2) that the private sector is incapable of providing it, (3) that we can direct our democratically elected government representatives to provide for that defense, and (4) that we must fund that defense through taxes. We are making "wise decisions" -- we use government to provide useful goods and services that the private sector cannot adequately provide. We follow Jindal's advice, because when we use democratic government to: "pull together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome."

It is Jindal that does not "trust" Americans and our democratic system of government. Americans can do anything if we work together. One of the essential ways in which we work together is through the government programs that produced each of the triumphs Jindal urges us to celebrate.

Comments

[darker]

Americans Can't Do Anything Rightwing. Because when they do,
Americans screw up--badly.

[deadscout]

Imagine if our military was owned by alliburton or AIG or Carlyle Group. Essentially, our healthcare is owned by groups simlilar to these.

[aussiegal77]

Great article! The economics analysis brought me back to my macroeconomic classes in university =)

Your points on health care is also excellent!

[Heartlight3]

I'm glad someone finally pointed out the inaccuracies in Gov. Jindal's speech. I was very unpleasantly surprised by the Governors inarticulate and juvenile delivery as I had never heard him speak before. But no one was talking about the delusional nature of the content. I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

[outnow]

Jindal should have gone to law school so that he would have learned to make an analytical argument. His evidence is ancedotal. His arguments contain many logical falacies. I watched him and listened to his rebuttal speech with another lawyer. Jindal was unimpressive. His logic was flawed. I see why he joined the GOP rather than the party of his parents.

I have in-laws in Louisiana who are in the New Iberia area. They are very nice people but very religious and conservative.

[Bladernr1001]

For examle?...­..........­.

Let's see you make a logical arguement to his contrary then. I see very little of that on this site.

You tell me where his logic was flawed and then tell me where your logic is superior. I will then rebut or agree. Your post told me nothing.

[Rogan]

Good golly, if you can't clearly read the above article as a "logical argument to his contrary" - I presume you mean Jindal's - you must just be deeply confused..­.

[mccainsupport]

Is someone going to go on the record just one time and blame a liberal for somethng one time that is actually part of that party? Or is everyone in the liberal party correct about everything kind of like "Jesus". Somebody has to believe that what is going on in the goverment is not correct all the time maybe not even most of the time. Please my fellow "Americans" stand one more time against the King & Queen and break our chains that will one break us if we dont! I have prewarned you so dont blame anyone but yourselves. Or are you a "nation of cowards", well put by someone you all know!

[StephCaster]

Yes, this six weeks of Obama tyranny has been unbearable, hasn't it? LOL.

[Bladernr1001]

Just wait...FDR­'s prescription prolonged 1930's depression­......Obam­a's plan will too.

[larry278]

What did we have with W? Attempted ruthless tyrany by 1/2, or much less, wits or toothless rearany by W & Co's incompetent, clumsy, career criminals. BTW, a professional criminal doesn't get caught; career criminals, such as W & Co, get caught constantly. W & Co was sloopy, left clues & controlled the justice system for 8 years.
Obama is the new sheriff in town; his new AG has a bunch of Patrick FitzGerald clones to investigate, indict, convict W & Co's felons for treason, grand theft, malfeasance & any other crime listed in USC, CFR, etc.
The perp walks will become a daily event, maybe an endless parade. I wonder if Richard Bruce Cheney will use a wheel chair for each of his perp walks & if W will constantly have his ignorant smirk & eyes of a deer running across an Interstate as he does his perp walks.

[ControlledBurn]

I never pay attention to prewarnings.

[jinsei]

That was a perfectly written article! I often wonder why people deem someone like Jindal intelligent when he speaks so illogically and is utterly without any analytical skills. How did he manage to write a passing thesis papers that he presumably had to write as a college student and a Rhodes scholar? If he tried to use laughably poor logic skills evidenced in his speech in his papers, how could any professor give him a passing grade? Maybe the level of education has declined even in the realms of higher education.

[jinsei]

Sorry about my own grammatical mistakes!

[Bladernr1001]

You are not going to solve any healthcare problems (real or percieved) by creating a system that appears to be "free" to everyone. This is what government systems create.

If you re-read your basic economic theory making something free (or even percieved to be free) has the tendancy to create infinite demand. It is this principle that will eventually doom every effort at creating a sustainable single payer, governmetn run health system. Many here claim that teh Western European health systems are working great. I beg to differ. If you peek beneath the veneer you will see systems that are slowly but surely going broke. Even efforts to ration will not ultimatley stem the tide. There no system that can be sustained when you create a environment of infinite demand and limited resources. So dream all you want about the utopia of government health care for all....but be careful what you wish for.......

[StephCaster]

Actually, that is exactly how you solve it. It's not theory, it's 40th years of established fact across dozens of societies. Throw off the blinders of your faith-based economic religion and study actual economic history.

[Bladernr1001]

You just refuse to accept that the European systems are dying a slow death.

Just like the liberal pols in this country refuesed to accept that forcing banks to provide mortgage loans for all (regardless of credit) was a factor in our own recent meltdown.

Insanity..­.doing the same thing and expecting a different result....

[Bladernr1001]

Defense is one of the few consitutionally mandated functions of the federal government. So temporary increases in taxes to fight wars is mostly within the letter and spirit of the constitution. I do not think you would get much opposition on that if your existence is threatened.

As for civil rights, the government has the responsibility to maintain an environment that gives everyone a relatively equal opportunity to succeed or otherwise live their life in manner in which they choose. Government certainly did not start the civil rights movement..­..it ran out in front of the crowd and claimed (or took credit for) to be leading the crowd. Then government overstepped and preceeded to attempt to guarantee equility of outcome rather than equility of opportunity. This ended up causing more harm than good to those the policies were aimed.

I think public education was generally much better before the formation of the Dept of Education at the federal level. This attempt to homogenize education in this country has been an obvious and abject failure and again a failed attempt to force an equility of outcome. This "one sizing" effort is the chief culprit in the dumbing down of our school system.

[flamom4obama]

So prior to 1867, when the Dept of Education, was first created, public education was better?

And the G.I. Bill, from 1944, that helped send nearly 8 million to college, thus helping to create the largest middle class in history? Bad government intervention and involvement program?

The Dept of Education has been around almost as long as our Constitution.

[Bladernr1001]

The modern Dept of Ed was created in 1979. I don't know what you are referring to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

I would have supported the GI bill as it was payment for services rendered even though it was never written into the constitution. It would have been a no brainer anyway to get an amendment.

[flamom4obama]

Maybe not really as long as the Constitution, but they have been around a really, really long time.

[deadscout]

If your republican ideas are so great then what is that flushing sound I hear coming from America?

[metivo]

Wonderful, intelligent article. I only hope that Jindal - and others who consider themselves Republican conservatives - read it.

[Pupadup4oBama]

Agreed!
I honestly don't think Bobby knows WHAT he is

[mikey2]

Another thing that no one seems to be addressing: how the heck can you be shocked by huge deficits when your party's stance is to slash taxes?
I am no economist, but, if there's no money going into the treasury, how will we ever balance the books? How are we going to pay for our common defense and welfare? How are we going to pay oil companies huge subsidies? How will we afford all of the extra CongressionalStaff the minority party claims it needs without revenue coming in to the treasury?
The entire Conservative mentality is constantly at odds with itself. It's bogus; it's a sham. It's justification for carving our nation up into little corporate fiefdoms.

[Heartlight3]

I've wondered that too. How do they expect to run the government if they don't want anyone to pay taxes? (Or even if the wealthy don't pay them and only the poor people pay them?) Who do they think is paying their salaries and providing their health care and retirement plans? I am a bookkeeper and I have noticed that reducing the revenue stream generally does not increase the profit. They say reduce spending, but I don't notice them volunteering to give up their salaries, health care and retirement, the way they seem to expect the rest of us to do.

[ThoughtfulDavid]

Brilliant article, one worth forwarding. It is things I have been trying to say for a long time, but couldn't say very well; this does say it, clearly and concisely.

[Clavis]

Terrific article. Very informative. It exposes the truth, that Republican ideology and rhetoric is a tissue of lies and misdirection. Thanks!

[BobbyG]

As I observed elsewhere yesterday:

The Preamble (w/ aplogies to the clueless Limbaugh)

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

simply and clearly provides the “why” for the Constitution’s “what,” “how,” “when,” and “where.”

OK, what manner of rational laws, policies, and regulations, then, “promote the general Welfare,” say, with respect to the economy?

I take it as a given that the difficult work of a free, self-regulating society is never done — Eternal Vigilance being the ongoing price of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have much work to do.

One question we would do well to clarify in political consensus: What, indeed, is the proper ethical function of a “market”? Simply that of an end to itself, a bare-knuckles arena inexorably favoring the rapaciously fleet of mind in winner-take-all, zero sum game acquisitive fashion? Or, is it properly simply a means to the end of economic and social justice (however imperfectly and transiently defined) for all, to the extent practicable? bgladd.blogspot.comm)

[NicoloM]

I agree. On July 3, 1776 the colonies existed to feed a voracious oligarchy in England. The revolution was to create a government for the people and their common welfare. Who opposes that?
The oligarchy/­plutocracy that has been trying to regain control since-- especially bold since they hired an actor in 1980 to tell us that our government of the people is the "problem".
As Prof. Black is pointing out, the plutocracy uses magical reasoning to say what we want to hear to cuckold us. Jindal is just the most recent propagandist that is auditioning. Its more fun when Sarah tries to fool us.

[MSB]

I totally agree. I think 'the left' should be actively debunking the fiction that Reagan's economic policies were remotely good for the nation. Facts suggest otherwise.

It is an extension of his policies which have led us to the brink of insolvency as a nation. I am tired of a defense which the press promotes that economic conservatism has lost its way since Reagan when the truth is that it is BECAUSE of Reagan's economy that the conservative movement has bankrupted the nation.

[BobbyG]

I would recommend to everyone the recent Bill Moyers interview with Simon Johnson.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02132009/watch.html

BILL MOYERS: What are you signaling with that headline, "Geithner vs. the American Oligarchs"?

SIMON JOHNSON: I think I'm signaling something a little bit shocking to Americans, and to myself, actually. Which is the situation we find ourselves in at this moment, this week, is very strongly reminiscent of the situations we've seen many times in other places...

[Jyoti Choudhury]

Well said

[Mohana Kodali]

I too agree

[clarryr]

Best article I've read in quite awhile. Well done.