|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
 |
|||
|
|
|
|
For the Little Guy These and other positions have led various critics to brand me as an enemy of "the little guy." Heaven knows, I enjoy no shortage of adversaries. Many professional politicians have made their careers embracing "the little guy." Some wear their "compassion" on their sleeves, elbowing each other aside as they race towards the microphones and television cameras to prove to any and all that they "feel" the pain of "the little guy," that they "care" more than their rivals do about that neglected victim's plight. Others wear the "populist" label, decrying all the low-end jobs being "exported" to other countries. These righteous individuals just know that a major part of the unemployment problem results from our sieve-like borders. If only we could keep out all those damned foreigners, the Second Dawning of America would draw nigh. A significant number of the defenders of "the little guy" wax indignant at the evils of Corporate America. They are convinced that the only thing of interest to the CEO's of Big Business is increasing their companies' bottom lines: "people before profits" is the mantra chanted by these protesting, tenderhearted activists. An exemplar of what awaits "the little guy" should his self-proclaimed supporters prevail occurred at a recent World Trade Organization (WTO) meeting in Cancun, Mexico. With confident assurance, these proponents of policies advancing the cause of "the little guy" told the world that they sought to uphold the vision of those admirable leaders, Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong. This remarkable triumvirate "'represent the social justice movement, and they did a lot of good things for people.'" Exemplars of "freedom," these three icons "battled the exploitation of the common man." People — not power or money — motivated these guardians to retain power for "the masses, not...a certain handful of people." (Quotes from [2].) Capitalism is the enemy of the "developing world," and the source of "misery, poverty" and "destruction." Better for the inhabitants of Africa to avoid luxuries such as "running water and electricity" than to suffer under the yoke of "colonization and colonialism." Not only is trade negative for people, it also represents an assault on "plants and animals" and on the earth, itself. [2] Indeed, the very prospect of allowing "unsafe," even "deadly," genetically-modified and -enhanced food to enter into the markets of Third World countries is sufficient to send many into apoplexy. [1] These enlightened individuals are joined in decrying commerce by conservatives who see trade as weakening "U.S. sovereignty and economic independence." Better, they think, to place stiff tariffs on any goods imported into this country. [2] When the most recent WTO talks ended, those who laud the dead torchbearers of communism called it a "victory for the working poor, family farmers, farm workers, the indigenous, the poor, and for immigrants all over the world." They brushed off complaints by some such as author Paul Driessen that those deceased heroes murdered tens of millions of their own citizens and kept those who survived destitute and miserable. [2] The representatives of "rich" nations, however, were unhappy. One U. S. House Representative, Charles Stenholm, said this setback delayed the day when farmers would "give up subsidies" and rely more upon the "market than...government." Others said they wanted to lower tariffs and other barriers to trade. [3] Others disagreed with such goals, maintaining that keeping American subsidies is better than giving "charity" to the rest of the world. The prospect of permitting poorer nations to postpone tariff reductions did not set well with some, either. [3] Sadly, it is precisely "the little guy" who is getting screwed in this struggle. Yes, it is wonderful for a politician to back a loosening of the ropes strangling world trade. Such a stance is less than believable, however, when the American political machine continues agricultural policies begun in the Depression that increase food prices for U.S. consumers while simultaneously undercutting the ability of farmers in poor countries to compete against American products dumped into their markets. How can we take seriously an administration that preaches "free trade" while imposing tariffs on foreign steel that "save" less than two-thousand jobs (at nearly $800,000 per) in that industry while losing a far greater number of employees (about forty-five thousand) dependent on steel for their own livelihoods? [4] Where is the sense in a mindset that cloaks itself in empathy for single-mothers while jacking up their living expenses and imposing walls of licensing and permits and regulations they must scale before they can create and run their own businesses? When will people recognize that asking the State to usurp the world of medical care will not guarantee lower prices, improved treatment, accelerated innovation, or greater accessibility to the disadvantaged? Who in his right head could believe that inflating away the modest savings of the "working poor" (as though the "rich" do not work...) and depressing their retirement income possibilities is a better course to follow than encouraging individual responsibility and decision-making? What will it take to shake clear the intellectual cobwebs that obscure the vision of those who claim that tyrants are good for the average citizen; that poverty, disease, primitive living conditions, and lack of even the most modest luxuries form an existence worthy to be pursued; that dying in the desert while seeking a crappy job in America serves the illegal indigent right? Why do so many of "the little guys" swallow the poison that freedom is their enemy and slavery their savior; that they are being "exploited" when offered a job; that the same desire they have — to make more money — is golden as "wages" but evil when it occurs in the form of "profits"; that a collectivism that extolls the "masses" means that he — as an individual — will prosper; that all the political posturing designed to succor him will, instead, benefit those who know that poor people are their meal tickets to a comfortable life? While I do often praise the extremely productive, the exceptionally creative, the extraordinarily hardworking, I do so knowing that — short of total tyranny — that rare group will usually manage to prosper, even if at reduced levels. Their very personal qualities help ensure that they can and will maneuver through or jump around or over most of the roadblocks placed in their path. It's the average person, however, the mediocre, the less bright, the less skilled or educated who will stumble or surrender or wander bewildered when confronted with a twisting maze of laws or a thick tangle of red tape they neither comprehend nor can navigate. You don't help the crippled by tossing rocks at their feet. You don't aid the weak by stacking weights upon their bowed backs. You don't console the frightened by perpetually scaring them to death with dire predictions of disaster and calamity they are told they cannot possibly handle. Only those with the courage and the integrity to battle for liberty — for the removal of the chains binding our arms — only these uncommon souls deserve the title of "Champion of the Common Man." Maybe someday "the little guy" will figure that out, too. References [1] Morano, Marc. "Mexican Village Plays Host to Fight Over Genetically Modified Food." CNSNews.com. 9-15-03. here [2] Morano, Marc. "WTO Protesters Praise Marx, Lenin, Mao as 'Freedom Fighters.'" CNSNews.com. 9-15-03. here [3] Scott, Alwyn. "WTO talks shatter amid clash of rich, poor nations." The Seattle Times 9-15-03. here [4] Williams, Walter. "Economic Stupidity." WorldNetDaily 4-30-03. here
Discuss this Article (1 message) |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
