Maybe it’s because I rarely read anything at Townhall.com but it’s been quite a while since I’ve read anything quite as foolish as this item from Dennis Prager. Here’s his central thesis:
They [ed. "the Left'] don’t care because the left is not interested in prosperity; the left is interested in inequality and in the environment. Furthermore, the worse the economic situation, the more voters are likely to vote Democrat. The worse the economic situation, the greater the number of people receiving government assistance; the greater the number of people receiving government assistance, the greater the number of people who will vote Democrat.
Therefore, both philosophically and politically, the left has no reason to be troubled by bad economic news. And it isn’t. It is troubled by inequality and carbon emissions.
I should preface my remarks with the reminder that my eyes tend to glaze over as soon as I read either “the Left” or “the Right”.
I wouldn’t presume to tell anybody what “the Left” wants any more than I would tell them what “the Right” wants. I don’t think either term is particularly meaningful and probably never has been in the United States and any such pronouncement is a tremendous exercise in over-generalization.
However, I do think there are different views of what constitutes prosperity and intelligent people can differ in their views on this subject. Minimizing downside risk and maximizing upside gain are two different strategies. Neither is correct. Neither is wrong. Which you prefer depends on your appetite for risk and what you might expect to gain.
I think that for the last forty years as a matter of national economic policy we’ve been rhetorically supporting minimizing downside risk while pragmatically favoring maximizing upside gain. I’m more interested in optimizing risk or gain. That requires thought and judgment and won’t energize either voters or campaign donors which explains its lack of popularity.