Readers of this blog can be forgiven for rolling their eyes as I write yet another post bemoaning the fixation of just about everyone with the who, rather than the what, of politics. In Washington, DC today everybody is killing themselves to avoid blame for the current economic crisis and when real issues do get some airtime, such as the contending economic theories regarding the appropriate role of the government in regulating the economy, debate quickly turns to the advocates and away from the arguments.Should the government attempt to stimulate the economy by spending money? Or, should the government reduce spending and taxes in order to free up capital in the private sector for productive investment leading to economic growth? Stripped of the characters and recriminations, it seems we have an argument about economics that can and should be conducted with an eye toward data and evidence. By the same token, it is also important that we acknowledge that this debate, like virtually every political debate is NOT an argument between right and wrong. Neither economic approach can lay claim to or be authoritatively brand either way. Economics is known as the "dismal science" for a reason.
What is necessary, in my opinion, is more acknowledgment that whatever approach is taken is really experimental. Dogmatic condemnations of anything resembling socialism, like dogmatic condemnations of private sector greed, deserve to be seen for what they really are: products of intellectual rigidity and fear.
I want to be perfectly clear here, I'm not arguing that extremists should be silenced, but rather that Americans, in their capacity as political consumers, should invest prudently. Our economic meltdown is the product of dogmatic certainty in our economic decisions. Let's not compound the problem by matching our economic dogmatism with political dogmatism.