Recent proposals from some Minnesota Republicans leave me with the same feeling of disappointment I felt when I met with a friend who had gone to Canada to avoid the Vietnam War.
“Suppose I had just gone in the Army and made it back from Vietnam OK,” he mused. “How would my life be different?” My heart sank. I always thought he had done something noble by going to Canada for a Deep Moral Cause, and now he was revealing that fear of getting his butt blown off in Vietnam had been a factor.
His actions were understandable, but not principled. That is the same way I felt about Sen. Dick Day’s (R-Owatonna) recent call for expanded gambling at Canterbury Downs.
Day’s proposal is entirely understandable in a political “3P” setting (PACs, patronage and pork barrels). But it is not something that a principled modern conservative would propose. Rather, it smacks of something from 17th century France.
The economic system known as mercantilism reached its high point under Louis XIV and his great Prime Minister, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Mercantilism called for great central control of economic activity, including where certain goods could be produced and by whom. We wear blue jeans made of “denim” because only in the town of Nimes were weavers allowed to make a coarse blue fabric; hence “de Nimes” or “denim.” Under mercantilism only certain families or companies could trade in salt. Spain’s trade with her colonies could move only through certain favored ports such as Cadiz. Massachusetts barrel staves to be traded for Dominican molasses had to be shipped through London.
This was economic nonsense. It made France, Spain and England poorer than they might otherwise have been. However, it seems that Sen. Day likes this mercantilist model.
If one believes that Minnesota needs more gambling facilities, which I do not, but that gambling should not be completely deregulated, then a principled modern conservative would advocate opening the business up for bids.
Why should the rent-seeking owners of Canterbury Downs get any more mercantilistic largess from the Legislature? If we are going to allow more gambling, then let any institution or group anywhere in the state put in a proposal and bid competitively. But no, not only does our own senatorial mercantilist know just where we should expand gambling, he knows exactly what percentage each possible group should get. The benefits of competition and of markets apparently have not yet penetrated the thinking of his wing of the Republican Party.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, on the other hand, seems to take his political cues from Rev. Jesse Jackson. In announcing his ideas on developing a new high-tech, biotech corridor last week, our Republican governor called for instructing the State Board of Investment to put Minnesota pension funds into local biotech businesses.
The idea that a governor or Legislature can give instructions to a non-partisan agency with a fiduciary responsibility exactly mimics perennial presidential candidate Jackson’s repeated calls for Social Security trust funds to be diverted from U.S. Treasury bonds into entrepreneurial ventures in inner cities. Encouraging new technology firms may be a valid use of public funds, as may be encouraging inner city small-business development. But be honest: tap the state or federal Treasuries.
I disagreed with my friend’s decision to go to Canada rather than serve the United States, but I could respect it as long as it seemed based on moral principle rather than on avoiding personal risk. I disagree with many of the economic ideas of Gov. Pawlenty and Minority Leader Day, but I could respect their proposals if they followed some coherent set of economic or social principles. It is increasingly apparent that they don’t.
Thoughtful Republicans need to be wary of the kinds of proposals that party members Day and Pawlenty laid out last week. Democratic muddle-headedness handed the Republican party a superior reputation among the general public on economic issues. Unprincipled silliness, such as further extending an already abusive monopoly at Canterbury Downs or political meddling in a public pension plan’s portfolio decisions, could easily move the economic prudence baton back to the Democrats.
Republicans will persist in this folly at their own risk.
© 2003 Edward Lotterman
Chanarambie Consulting, Inc.