Politics of Emotion

Moments of realization come at strange times. To make things stranger, I personally just had a moment of realization about such moments. It occurred to me that everyone has them, but their environment largely dictates what they do with these new profound thoughts. One such instance occurred some four years ago when I decided to switch my major from Engineering to Finance. My epiphany was that while my Dad was successful with his engineering degree, basing my decision solely on his success would be a naive move. Luckily I was in an environment that nurtured life-changing decisions such as this, and with the help of family and friends (and my Dad's Financial Advisor), I decided that a change in study would be prudent.

Which brings me to the point of this example. Today's political environment is one of emotion. Our two candidates running for president got to where they are because they appeal to the people - not for their policy so much, but because people feel good when they listen to them. It's a trap that we've fallen into and will be the real barrier to the latest political buzzword, "Change".

Have you ever sat in a classroom in school and not followed what the professor was talking about? Were you discouraged, to the point of not enjoying yourself? I certainly have - senior year Physics in high school confounded me, and I despised the class to the point of not even wanting to try to learn. 

That's what has happened to our country. When we actually get someone who knows the problems and wants to inform the public, we would rather tune them out and listen to the people that make us feel smart and good about ourselves. So when Peter Schiff gets on CNN to explain what is happening, many people don't immediately understand and would rather ignore the problem.

So, when a knowledgeable presidential candidate finally rose to the attention of the American public and attempted to explain what was wrong and how he would fix it, most people didn't understand and tuned him out. In reaction, the mainstream media stopped covering him, and we instead get the two candidates that make the populous feel warm and fuzzy: McCain and Obama.

If you watch last summer's Republican primary debate, Ron Paul makes educated, logical arguments on all of the topics (especially the economy), but is laughed at by his fellow Republicans on stage and tuned out by the American public. In contrast, the others on stage stay within Washington's generally accepted 'conservative' positions that the American citizens feel good listening to. 

What is this Federal Reserve that Ron Paul keeps talking about? If people don't know, they would rather just not listen than seek some self-education. But what Ron Paul talks about is real, and this country's people need to know that the government funds itself literally by printing more money. Literally. 

Allan Greenspan even admitted recently that his Federal Reserve policies did indeed contribute to the current recession. He says that the free market failed to assess the inherent risk in the mortgage investments that collapsed in value and lead to the financial mess that we're in. However, he says that more regulation is the answer. Careful though... greater regulation, or greater accountability? I believe in the latter.

Ron Paul sees through all of this and calls for an end to targeted interest rates, which I also agree with. Why not target money supply instead, and let the market determine interest rates? We could peg money supply to GDP and the dollar would then have a constant, reliable value. 

But, as long as people are not willing to learn about issues that they're not currently knowledgeable about, we will have the same ole same ole in Washington, with the dollars in your savings being worth less and less and you having to work longer and longer to be able to retire.

I hope (in the deepest meaning of the word) that our citizenry takes the time to understand what is going on and puts competent people in Washington to reform how we deal with the issues of our time.