I have to admit, when Donald Trump announced he was running for president, I was a bit intrigued by his candidacy. In an otherwise large and homogenous field, Trump offered the opportunity for our party to evolve. His willingness to break form with establishment figures could’ve led to a Republican platform that was more in touch with our time and better equipped to attract young voters. But as we all know, this turned out to be a fantasy. Instead, his double entendres, and ambiguous romanticizations of the past have resulted in the regression of GOP policy and the substitution of divisive rhetoric for fiscal conservatism and constitutional rights.
Many prominent Republicans recognizing this issue, have shifted their support to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. But while Clinton may be a more cohesive, capable choice to lead this country, her economic policies in particular display an equally alarming trend within the Democratic Party: the use of class warfare. As Trump rails on personal freedoms, threatens to implement “stop and frisk” policing nationwide and ban immigration based on religion, liberal extremists are attacking economic freedom and vilifying the “rich.”
Neither of these cases is without historical precedence. Political platforms have often reflected trends of anti-immigrant resentment. Around the turn of the 20th century, trade and labor unions were gaining prominence while sources of immigration were shifting from Nordic and Germanic countries to Ireland and Italy. Groups that represented old-immigrant, blue-collar workers in dockyards and factories devised protectionist policies that kept a quota on new immigrants and artificially inflated wages for the native population.
While this was mainly an economic problem our country was facing, these solutions were not implemented because they won economic arguments. Instead, the groups who stood to benefit from these policies utilized scare tactics and misinformation to gain the upper hand.
The visibility of criminal organizations like the Irish Mob and the Italian Mafia gave economic protectionists a more tangible means of creating anti-immigrant resentment by generalizing a peaceful and hardworking majority with the actions of a few. High profile cases against immigrants also fueled this fire. In 1932, the son of famous aviator and former UW-Madison student Charles Lindbergh was kidnapped from his bedroom and found murdered months later. A German immigrant was found with the ransom money, and convicted and executed for the “crime of the century.” This incident, like many others in its time, was a flash point of anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Today we are witnessing history come dangerously close to repeating itself. A globalist economy presents many new opportunities, but is not without its challenges. We’re also bearing the downsides of automation, which has taken away far more jobs than Latin American immigrants. And spurned on by fear over fact, many politicians are asking Americans to turn in their freedom for security against a threat that doesn’t exist.
On the other side of the political spectrum, we are seeing another familiar trend. As people are hurt by an economic recession and other factors of continued economic distress, they are assigning blame to those who haven’t been affected, or haven’t been affected as severely as they have. This anti-capitalist backlash is also being manipulated for political purposes. Fifty-eight percent of individuals aged 18-24 hold a favorable view of socialism, the only age group where socialism is more favorable than not. This trend is often exacerbated by lies and other divisive tactics. Recently, an instructor of an ethnic studies class at UW-Madison alleged that “racism is at the heart of capitalism” and used the Uncle Tom epithet to explain how President Barack Obama perpetuates white supremacy.
While less reminiscent of historical prejudices than Trump’s campaign, this new method of attacking market economics while sowing seeds of racial hate at the same time is equally dangerous to America’s future. I’m not offering this criticism as an indomitable defense of capitalism or laissez-faire policies. In many cases, law and regulation is necessary to subdue human greed and immoral behavior. But there has yet to be a system created that is more fair, equitable, or sustainable than the free market. It is also the only economic system that complies with the Constitution or the concept of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
In the past, the U.S. has survived internal attacks on its personal and economic freedoms, but at few junctures in our history have both of these freedoms come under attack at the same time from both of our political parties. Fortunately, there is another person running for President of the United States, and while I am realistic about the chances of a third-party candidate winning the election, I can’t deny the fact that Gary Johnson is the only candidate still in this race who believes in the core tenancies of American freedom.
I can’t endorse all of Johnson’s ideas; I don’t believe hard drugs should be legal, and rather than just repeal Social Security and Medicare, I would replace it with a negative income tax. But if you want to keep living in a country where we reward those who work harder and smarter, and you are free to make decisions about your own body, family and religion, then Johnson may just be our last chance.
Jordan is a sophomore majoring in economics. What do you think of people voting for third party candidates? Do third party candidates have a place in the American political system? Send all comments, questions and concerns to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
