Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin

US politics long ago became the tussle of two fundamental themes: government’s intervention in the economy and government’s intervention into its citizens’ moral liberties. The dichotomy is surprising, because one party believes in individual liberties and the other in economic liberties. Democrats support individual liberties such as a women’s right to choose or terminate a pregnancy and the right of anyone to choose sexual partners including same sex marriage, but they want the government to play a bigger role in the economy and the distribution of wealth between rich and poor. Republicans are disgusted by individual liberties. They want the government to intervene in deciding what is moral and acceptable and what is not. But they don’t like the government intervening in the economy. They want to leave that job to the markets in order to increase productivity and economic growth. However, it was Abraham Lincoln, a republican, who fought for freeing the slaves. It is difficult to reconcile these political ideologies, except if you consider slaves as a production factor, and, from the free market point of view, we justify this kind of individual freedom. It would be preferable to have a party that likes free markets and individual liberties and another party that likes government direction and regulation. But since economic and moral values are so intertwined, annoyed and confused voters lean towards fear as the selection criteria. It shouldn’t surprise us that contradictory coalitions lead us to a 50/50 vote, except in circumstances of severe fear. That isn’t necessarily bad because it contributes to the diversification of power.

After such a long and controversial war like the one in Iraq, and the market difficulties of the past 12 months, President Bush’s approval rating is lower than that of a tyrant with no control over votes. Obama, the democratic candidate, is a first class orator. McCain, the republican, Vietnam hero, promises to reform government’s abuses and straighten congress’ and administration’s manipulation by lobbyists. He promises to better educate children, and rehire adults that have lost their jobs, because the Hindi, Chinese and Brazilians are more productive and complain less than the North American labor unions. At present, McCain more than Obama opposes the bail out of the financial actors that have abused cheap and abundant credit and grown recklessly.

The democrats protect the privileges of the teacher and worker unions, and don’t want education reform or international competition. A democratic victory would present a more human and universal façade in the hands of the inspiring and charming Obama, but could be condemned to restrict trade with Latin America. The promised spike in taxes to cover the fiscal deficit would lead to a loss of competitiveness, production and jobs, and probably more restriction on Latin American immigration. A republican victory, in the hands of McCain the reformer, would maintain North America’s military supremacy, with everything the rest of the world hates about that supremacy; he would have some hope of reducing the size of the government, but less hope in reducing the fiscal deficit unless there is a major reduction in public spending. Reductions in public spending are harder to carry out than successful, lasting diets, particularly when the country is facing a real recession!

None of the candidates want to increase long term personal savings. None is offering what they should offer, which is a long term tax exemption for saving and investing. So, North Americans will continue to consume more than they get paid, until they start dying off of old age in the next 10 years. Long term needs have become the enemy of short term wants and vice-versa.

I want to see a candidate that promotes savings, morality as a personal choice, pay for merit and free trade. I am going to have to vote for the Colombian and Chilean candidates, if they let me. It is unfortunate that people in democracies have to vote for people. Better to vote for a selected list of ideas, and the candidates put the ideas to work or they are fired. It must be that experience also teaches us that ideas have less credibility than candidates.

Corruption and Politics: Rule of Law vs. Law of the Jungle

Corruption and politics are perceived to have a lot in common. Both words denote that a direct or indirect favor can be bartered in exchange for a (not always) hidden monetary payment. He who grants it is willing to ignore ethics, good judgment and the common good in order to clear the way for his “client.” The communion between in-kind or in-cash corruption and politics is not automatic. Fraud, corruption and favoritism develop like any other animal, little by little, and it feeds and becomes stronger with practice and time.

It takes some time or very little-depending on how we look at it, for a person or country to corrupt itself completely- Maybe 10-20 years? Corruption and political cynicism lead to a destructive anarchy that generally ends badly. Destructive anarchies are like hurricanes. They level everything in their paths and leave a distressing devastation behind them. At the end, those left alive who know how to rebuild can restore progress or move elsewhere, away from hurricane paths.

If we observe countries, companies, families and people, we can see if corruption and politics are on the rise or, on the contrary, if they are in the process of re-building and evolving. In the Americas, despite the obstacles they face, there are a good number of countries in permanent re-construction: Canada, U.S.A, Mexico, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Panama, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Uruguay and Chile (to name a few). In those countries, the governments, communities and people are making daily efforts to do the right thing, promote merit, build institutions, create balance of power, strengthen individual liberties, punish crime, promote authority, responsibility, and disarm authoritarianism and runaway corruption.

In corrupt and authoritarian regimes, few live off their salaries. In Cuba, for example, the universal salary is $19 a month. No one can survive on that. Those that want to prosper in such an environment have to sell themselves in the black market. Prostitution is universal; people live off tips or the payment for services they do not want to provide. Individuals unfold in multiple lives. Mind, body, emotions and soul are forced to live parallel lives. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua are all on that painful path of human fragmentation that has been observed in Cuba for 50 years. There is only one life and it is worth living as one in which body, soul, mind and emotions support each other in the achievement of greater development. That way we leave a legacy and platform on which our children can build further growth. Fragmented lives leave behind weak and porous platforms that fall before any individual and collective confrontation. That is a sad destiny we must resist with all the strength and conviction that our past and present intellectual and moral heroes have left us. Where they appear and manifest themselves, integrity and the will to do good are the only path to individual and collective redemption and vindication.

If the world is divided today, it is not between socialism and free markets or authoritarianism and democracy. The world is divided among countries were corruption rules, which are destined for failure, and countries were there is a determined fight for law, order, honesty and ethics, which are destined for development. It is no longer a choice between capitalism and communism, but between the rule of law and the law of the jungle.