Do public policy advocates really want to achieve the goals for which they advocate? There is good reason to believe that they do not.
[Source: What if the Left Doesn’t Really Want to Achieve its Policy Goals? By John C. Goodman]
[From the Goodman article] … Suppose you could wave a magic wand and eliminate global warming forever. You might think that all the environmental organizations and all the environmental scientists and would get out the champagne and cerebrate. More likely their offices would look like a wake.
Causes are vehicles to money and power. They generate millions of dollars in donations. They create high paying jobs. They motivate millions in research grants and millions in campaign contributions. If the cause goes away, money and power go away with it.
Without global warming, the donations would dry up. The jobs would go away. The research grants would vanish. The end of global warming would be an economic disaster for tens of thousands of people. Especially for someone like Al Gore – who has made a fortune on the issue.
Since I first started listening to political rhetoric, politicians have told us us “there is a problem” and “we intend to solve it.” You have heard about numerous problems. Tell me about a “problem” that has been “solved.” The agency that was inaugurated to solve it has been disbanded. The tax appropriation that funded it has been repealed and we can now go our merry way.
Worse still, if the “advocates” achieve their “goal,” they then want to be exempted from the “solution.” Ted Cruz said he will push to expose fellow members of Congress for “exempting” themselves from Obamacare this week. Labor unions were in the forefront in pushing for California’s $15-per-hour minimum wage legislation. Now, however, they are petitioning to be exempted. After telling us for years how good high minimum wages are for everyone else, they now do not want their members encumbered by the new wage law.
Education is at the forefront of progressive blather. They want to change the educational paradigm. However, they are content to allow the teachers unions to continue to run the schools as they wish and leave things pretty much as they are.
[From the Goodman article] Then there is the issue of gun control, which Hillary Clinton has been increasingly using to attack Bernie Sanders. If you think that anything about guns proposed by those on the left is a serious proposal (gun show loopholes? The right to sue gun manufacturers?) consider the following.
Although no one knows for sure, there are apparently 310 million guns in private hands in the United States – about one for every person in the country. Further, by one estimate, private gun ownership increased by about 100 million since Barack Obama became president.
Here is the irony. It appears that every time the president talks about the need for gun control, people go out and buy more guns. Of course, the kind of measures he and Hillary are talking about are trivial. But in the attempt to fire up the Democratic base and convince them they intend to do something serious about guns, the president’s rhetoric apparently succeeds in convincing the opposition instead.
The best thing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could do to stop the proliferation of guns is to shut up and quit talking about firearms.
What would a serious gun control measure look like? In 1996, the government of Australia imposed a virtual ban on automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 weapons out of public circulation. The effort seems to have had no effect on suicides or homicides, but at least one would have to agree that the effort was serious.
The problem is that their “solutions” have managed to put us $19 trillion in debt!