Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.comment From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Clocking the marathon Date: Fri, 30 Oct 92 15:33:28 EST Message-ID: \SE F;COMMENTARY \SS (WS) \HD Clocking the marathon \SH What's the catch? \BY Joseph Sobran Bill Clinton, your next president and mine, reminds me of the old joke about the lawyer who is working late in his office one night when - poof! flash! - the devil appears before him. "What do you want?" the lawyer asks suspiciously. "Relax," says the devil. "I've got a deal for you." "What is it?" snaps the lawyer. "I will make you a Supreme Court justice - if you'll just sign over to me your soul, your children's souls, and your children's children's souls." The lawyer's eyes narrow: "OK, what's your catch?" Whenever Mr. Clinton offers us assurance, I want to ask the same question. The man has a loophole where his mouth should be. A trivial example is his famous denial that he inhaled when he put a joint between his lips (on foreign soil, as he pointed out). A more sinister example is his pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class to pay for the programs he proposes. Does that mean he may raise our taxes to pay for something else? Mr. Clinton, trying to play the Democrat-with-a-difference, pays lip service to the free market. But as usual, there's a catch: "I believe in free enterprise and the power of market forces. I know that economic growth will be the best jobs program we'll ever have. But economic growth does not come without a national economic strategy to invest in people and meet the competition." That last sentence is sheer bovine ordure. It's a modified version of the fallacy that has authorized misgovernment and tyranny throughout the 20th century: the notion that an "economy" is driven by government, and requires the expert direction of government in order to prosper. If that were so, communism would bring growth, while black markets would wither on the vine. In fact, communism always impoverishes, and black markets thrive despite the most intense government attempts to crush them. The government doesn't subsidize coca and marijuana growers; it arrests them. But illegal drugs abound. Black markets in the Soviet Union saved countless Russians from starving these past 70 years. Robert J. Shapiro, one of Mr. Clinton's economic advisers, writes in the Wall Street Journal: "In a global economy, government must play an active and constructive role that goes beyond concerns about the cost of capital and the tax burden on wealthy people." The abstract pomposity of this prose ought by itself to make us suspicious. Its meaning is hopelessly vague, but the gist is that government should have more power to interfere with our transactions and grab our money. Trying, like Mr. Clinton, to sound non-Bolshevik, Mr. Shapiro also acknowledges "limits" on government (which turn out to be as nebulous as its powers). These gents are full of clever programs and policies. Neither of them, as far as I know, has proved he can manage a mutual fund or a boutique successfully, but they are eager to manage a national economy. There's nothing like starting at the top. How well do governments manage things? Mail delivery, the one government enterprise we all depend on, is slower than ever. Have you ever heard anyone suggest that they made radios better in the old days? Well, mail service has actually degenerated while most other goods and services have improved steadily since the era of the Philco, the Edsel, and the office mimeograph. Mr. Clinton's pledge to make the rich pay "their fair share" is already driving capital into hiding. Even on the socialist premises underlying his idea of a "fair share," there is no such thing as paying a fair share for a fraudulent product. He's a fast-talking salesman who wants us to think he is practicing justice by forcing us to contribute at differential rates to the purchase of snake oil. The national debt isn't the result of exclusively Republican rule, as Mr. Clinton insinuates; it's the result of Republican presidents signing Democratic budgets. Now the Republican middleman will be cut out, and the Democrats will enjoy a monopoly of power. As president, Mr. Clinton will lack one thing that has helped him become president: a plausible scapegoat. He will have to take responsibility himself. There's always a catch. Joseph Sobran, critic-at-large for National Review, is a nationally syndicated columnist. This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM