American Horror Story: How We Create Our Own Worst Nightmare
A simple internet search confirms the overwhelming buzz in the air: Americans across the board are more concerned with the economy than any other political issue.
This concern is overwhelming across both aisles, seems to be growing, and has remained a large issue for years. Recent polling data shows that when combined, concern about inflation & prices, and jobs & the economy create a supergroup that more than doubles any other individual worry. While party lines are more rigid than we would like to believe, it seems as though a candidate who embraced this fear and found a solution could have absurdly high mass appeal.
While both presidential candidates have seen the recent trends and more strongly espoused their economic plans, it seems almost impossible to focus on the economy too much. While the lack of overwhelming emphasis on economic issues might seem like a simple misunderstanding between politicians and citizens, the root of high inflation and economic uncertainty is much more linked to voter’s own desires than they would ever want to believe.
Citizens, whose actively informed assent is supposed to be one the primary bases of government, have an odd habit of wanting the best for themselves. The declaration’s explicit promotion of our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” has created a foundational belief that anything short of thriving is not fulfilling the promise of America. While what it means to thrive is defined differently by person, most Americans believe that our access to material goods, pleasures, and freedom from worry should be constantly growing. While this desire is not unique to Americans, the state’s embrace of its role as a servant makes us less skeptical of politicians who promise to give national success in every area. We only apply strong scrutiny to the high-flying claims of the opposing sides’ candidates because we believe that the high-flying promises of our own candidates are merely necessary to the fulfillment of their duty. While in many countries all politicians are more obviously known to be self-seeking charlatans, our institutions’ relative freedom from corruption have allowed us to live under the illusion that we are always one president away from “getting it right.”
This desire creates an endless loop where candidates who do not paint a rosy picture of the future lose favor with the public. While the American political and economic system has created unprecedented human thriving, our desire to select candidates who claim to “do it all” is the root cause of our economic woes.
It may seem fatalistic to claim that positive and multi-focused candidates are the problem. There is nothing inherently wrong with having a diverse policy agenda, but the short term cycle of elections necessitates that plans will skew towards the near future. It is possible to have less inflation, more economic growth, and less taxes, but not immediately. The best that a candidate can hope for is to time everything right so that all the key metrics of economic success are most appealing in the months leading up to their hopeful reelection. People cling to the idea that we can fix all of our problems without associated pain or adjustment periods. We must embrace willing restraint from indulgence if we are to secure the free and prosperous future we dream of. Candidates fuel our ignorant belief that we can be reckless in the present without sacrificing the future, because they know they will be able to escape blame for a collapse that comes many years after they leave office. This negative cycle is not a direct result of our electoral process, or even of the candidates themselves.
This cycle is allowed to continue because of the economic ignorance and low impulse control of voters.
We damn our children by choosing to maximize our own comfort, not fully understanding how it will affect them, or even ourselves in 15 years.
We will not be able to escape this cycle until basic economic principles are more rigorously taught in schools. When forced to choose between two big-spending candidates, choosing the candidate who creates freer market conditions will always be the better choice, because that type of unpredictable and rapid growth can sustain far more spending than the tepid stagnation of a wannabe command economy. While the choice is obvious, it is far from a safe choice. The candidates are not the problem, rather, they are a reflection of our desires. Our desires and understanding must be formed through our upbringing and education in a way that will allow us to cut through empty promises and simplistic hedonism. Wanting low prices, low taxation, a healthy military and a strong healthcare system is natural, but we must be wise enough to know that those things must come slowly.
Fiscal responsibility is boring and painful, but it is the only way to simultaneously secure “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”