Of Political Combat and Governing the Nation

There is an idea, common in public discourse, that is at best naïve and at all events silly. It is the mistaken idea that the chief problem of American government today is the unwillingness of Republicans and Democrats to set aside their differences and get on with the business of government. It apparently is based upon the assumption that there is very little in the way of principle, belief, or right and wrong in the proposals and policies of the two. In this notion, the two sides are just jockeying to see who will “win.” Perhaps that comes from the view that all too many politicians throughout time have not had much in the way of principles and beliefs, mingled with the approach to politics that sees it as some sort of sports event rather than a combat over how the nation is to be governed. These are certainly the attitudes of the shallow reporting that guides most of the newspapers and major media organizations today.

This view is demonstrably wrong. While strong differences of opinion have always been part of American government since its earliest days, the issues at stake have seldom been trivial. “Winning” in American politics has been and continues to be about how the nation is to be governed, not about who “ended” with the higher score. It takes a very superficial understanding to think that American politics is all some game. At its core, political combat in America has always been about freedom, those who wish to promote and protect freedom and those who seek to limit and control freedom, those who genuinely trust people and those who do not. There is no compromise in this combat that does not either promote or reduce freedom.

The most enduring political battle of the nineteenth century was over trade, whether to have free trade or to place restrictions on the ability of people to buy and sell with whomever from wherever they wished. Every compromise either expanded economic freedoms or reduced them. Average people were made wealthier or poorer by the results of the political fights over trade.

The hottest political battles of the nineteenth century were over slavery, whether to extend it or limit it, whether to preserve or to abolish it. All of the temporary compromises that were reached either expanded freedom or reduced it. In the end over half a million people in the United States died over this issue when the battle left the ground of politics and took to the field.

This exception to political battle in the United States, when we let guns rather than politicians do the talking, was when the political question cut to the core of what we were as a nation, a nation of “We the People.” As Abraham Lincoln correctly saw, America could not forever remain part free and part slave; it would eventually become all one or the other. The nation was becoming steadily freer, slavery being killed by economic reality. When the southern slaveholders could no longer use politics to keep slavery alive within the United States, they sought a solution in disunion and eventually war. They succeeded in ending slavery more quickly than anyone imagined.

Political conflict did not let up in the twentieth century any more than it has in the twenty-first. The important thing is not that we have political battle but that, with the exception of the Civil War, we have been willing to let our battles be fought out in legislatures and elections. The sad truth is, that to the extent we infantilize political conflict into a sporting contest it will cease to be a means by which we fight out the battles of how we govern. Rule of law will break down, and conflict will find its way out of the halls of government and into the arena of the streets.

Of Inflation and Words of Offence

The professional political commentators were all atwitter today about a word. It was one word from a comment that new presidential candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, said yesterday in discussion with some likely Republican voters in Iowa. The subject was Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve Board. These are the monetary policies that affect the price of everything in the United States and the value of the dollar abroad.

This is what Governor Perry said. Read it carefully, and see if you have any difficulty figuring out what Perry’s message was:

If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don’t know what y’all will do to them in Iowa, but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas . . . I mean printing more money to play politics at this particular time in American history is almost treasonous in my opinion. Because all it’s going to be doing—we’ve already tried this—all it’s going to be doing is devaluing the dollar in your pocket. And we cannot afford that. We have to learn the lessons of the past three years.

Have you figured out what he was talking about, what his message was? This is not a trick question. His message seemed clear and obvious to me. That message was not what the professional commentators were largely talking about. I guess they missed it. As they interviewed each other, pretending that they were somehow reporting news, they zeroed in on Governor Perry’s use of the word “treasonous”. Was Governor Perry accusing the Federal Reserve Board Chairman of “treason” they all asked?

Having been interviewed by the TV talking heads on numerous occasions, I could not help imagining myself responding to their question. Of course they did not ask me, or anyone like me. They were busy interviewing each other.

But if I had been asked what seems to be the important question of the day—or, like Sesame Street puppets, the word of the day—I suspect I might have answered something like this:

“Are you asking me about a word or about the principle that Governor Perry was emphasizing? My religion teaches me not to make a man a transgressor for a word (see Isaiah 29:20, 21), but it is the principle, his message that we should consider if we want to evaluate his candidacy for President. What principles would likely guide him while in office? That is what we need to know if we want to have an intelligent conversation about who should be president.”

I would then add that it seemed to me that Governor Perry’s message was very clear:

Inflation is a bad policy, an especially bad policy at this time of a weak economy. We have tried it before, and it hurts the nation and the people. It would be particularly wrong for the independent Federal Reserve to choose inflation for political purposes.

That would be my recitation of Governor Perry’s message. I think I got it right. And I think that Governor Perry got it right.

Inflation is terrible. It breaks the promise embedded in money and makes it a lie. Remember that money is just a certificate of a promise between two people: I will give you my labor or goods or service in exchange for a promise that I can obtain something of equal value later. That becomes a lie if inflation means that when I redeem that promise I get something that government has reduced in value by depreciating the money that carries that promise. I provide $20 of labor and only get $18 of value in return. That is what inflation means. It corrupts that value of our goods and services. Even worse it corrupts the value of the promises we make and receive.

Inflation is particularly hard on retired people. These are people who set their money aside for 20, 30, 40, 50 years or more so that they could live off of it in their old age. Inflation cheats them, giving them only a fraction—sometimes only a small fraction—of the value that they set aside and hoped and relied upon for the rest of their lives. They lived a lower standard of living so that they could save for the future, only to find inflation make that future poorer for them. That is a life-time theft, when it is all too late to be reclaimed.

So if you want, go ahead and choose whatever word you want to describe inflation and its effects, especially if that inflation were inflicted on the nation for short-term political gain. Choose your word if that political inflation were to be inflicted by those public servants—the Federal Reserve Board—who took on the legal duty and responsibility to maintain stable prices, to fight inflation.

Whichever word you may choose, the policy of national inflation is wrong. Even if governments throughout history and into the modern era frequently resort to inflation when their national debt becomes too heavy to carry, it is still wrong. It is destructive and undermines the economy and robs the people who rely upon honest money.

Governor Perry was right to say, in very clear language, that it would be a major mistake for the Federal Reserve to choose that road, that the Federal Reserve must guard its independence from political pressure and hold to its legal mandate to fight inflation, not promote it.

If you must choose a word to describe it, go ahead. To quote Gilbert and Sullivan,

I conceive you may use
Any language you choose
To indulge in without impropriety.
(Iolanthe)

Of Government Debt and Historic Ratings

Apologists for the Obama administration desperately wish to make light of the unprecedented downgrading of the credit rating of U.S. Government debt from the virtually riskless category of AAA to the slightly riskier rank of AA. The apologists, when they cannot divert attention from the issue altogether, rely upon one or both of two arguments: 1) it was all a big mistake, an irrational and inappropriate decision; or 2) the downgrading does not really matter, it does not mean much.

Apology 1) merits this observation. Maybe it was a mistake. The other two major rating agencies so far have not taken a similar step, even while making noise about the possibility. That kind of public and open debate and disagreement is important for this land of free speech, most particularly with regard to opinions on government policies and their consequences.

The question of the ability of the U.S. to continue to service its debt is certainly open for debate. What is not debatable is that we are now in a condition where it is debatable. We have not been in a situation—since the emergence of the United States onto the world stage of major nations—where our ability to service our debt was at all in question. That we are is new, historic, and not disputed. Under the Obama Administration a lot of unthinkable things have suddenly become all too thinkable, from socializing medicine, or backing away from our support for Israel, to the government taking over the banking system. Add to that list of unthinkables the riskiness of U.S. Government debt.

Apology 2) is without merit. The noise from the Obama Administration suggests that it really does matter, a lot. It is important to note that the S&P decision came after the Congress and the Administration very predictably reached agreement on raising the debt ceiling. The issue is not about the debt ceiling. The issue would still exist if there were no debt ceiling. The issue is the natural debt ceiling, the one that comes when the debtor is no longer able to make good on his promises of repayment. The downgrade is advice to all investors anywhere in the world that the safety of U.S. Government debt can no longer be taken for granted. It has moved from being riskless to an investment that carries some risk—you may debate how much, but you can no longer deny that there is some.

Maybe there is great wisdom in that. Maybe all government debt, from any source, should be recognized as carrying risk. There is always political risk. History is replete with evidence that governments lie to their own people and to their investors, so perhaps a Triple-A “riskless” rating should never be given to any government promises. But apart from willingness to pay, to honor debt agreements, the recognition today is that the U.S. government debt is on a trajectory to where the government cannot—to where it will be unable to—honor its debt commitments.

That is not unprecedented. There are several historical examples where governments amassed debts that were too heavy to repay. It has usually led to the downfall of the governments. The Roman emperors tried to manage their uncontrolled spending on cheap popularity by debasing the coinage (a form of inflation) that wrecked the economy and eventually the empire itself. The debts of the English King Charles I led to rebellion that cost him his head in 1649. A similar chain of events brought on the French Revolution. More recently, the Soviet debt crisis of the 1980s set in motion the final events that broke up the USSR. Other sovereign debt crises are unfolding today before our eyes. All that S&P said was that the U.S. Government cannot act like it is immune from joining the sad list without making major changes in spending and borrowing programs.

Which is to say that the S&P decision matters greatly. There will be much debate about how much it matters, but only charlatans or simpletons will maintain that it does not matter at all. Once you have lost your virginity, there is no reclaiming it. It is a watershed to move from perceived risklessness of debt to the recognition of some risk. Risk costs money, as investors have to hedge against the possibility of some degree of non-payment, whether through changes in terms or through repayment in debased (inflated) currency.

Already investors are starting to move some of their money out of government debt—now exposed to greater market risk—into bank deposits where even with interest rates artificially depressed by the Federal Reserve the principal is not exposed to changes in market values. More significantly, an important anchor of certainty in our economy—the assumption of absolute security of U.S. Government debt—has been pulled up, rougher going for any ships that have to navigate an economy already turbulent with uncertainties.

In the early days of the Obama presidency the media and the President himself were eager to point out how this or that development was history-making, that this or that initiative was historic. Downgrading the credit rating of the debt of the U.S. Government is certainly historic. Let us hope that President Obama does not make any more history.