Bush's Economic Policy Guidelines
Document Actions
By Dean Ohlman
The George W. Bush administration, as per Vice President Dick Cheney, has established three guidelines for setting policy:
1. A policy will be based on sound science.
2. A policy will make sense economically.
3. A policy will do more good than harm.
Few would disagree that these are fine and logical guidelines. But one doesn’t have to go far with them to recognize that they need critical elaboration and clarification. Here are some questions that need to be asked about the guidelines:
1. Who decides what’s good science, economists or scientists?
Far too many economists and libertarian think-tank fellows are being used as judges regarding what’s scientifically sound. Scientists should be the ones making decisions about what’s scientifically sound. Because science is ever a work in progress, it’s always possible to find some scientist who will question the conclusions of the scientific majority. As Francis Bacon pointed out centuries ago, people tend to believe what they wish to be true rather than what is actually true. Unfortunately, scientists are not immune to such a psychological bent. Therefore, it’s essential for the Bush administration to prove its integrity by determining what’s good science by finding the most unbiased and carefully arrived at scientific consensus. This means getting the conclusion from those who are not in the employ of organizations that stand to gain from their own scientists’ research and conclusions. The best science is done by scientists committed to learning the truth about God’s creation, and not to finding evidence for a predetermined conclusion—especially a conclusion that will benefit the institutions they work for. An old German proverb is significant here: “Whose bread you eat, his song you sing.” It’s bad enough that our presidents and lawmakers are often elected via campaigns financed by special interests; must our policies also be made by economists, think-tank fellows, and scientists more interested in their own personal gain than in the truth?
Finally, policy makers can always refuse to act by using the ploy that “all the facts are not in yet” (e. g. global warming). The truth is that, with science in particular, all the facts are never in. It’s always an ongoing process. That’s the reason that almost three millennia ago Aristotle pointed out to policy makers that it’s better to act in time on a fact half proved than to wait until it’s too late to act on a fact fully substantiated. Waiting until all the facts are in to delay a decision is ultimately to do nothing. The problem, however, is that there are thousands of vested interests who will gain from the Bush administration’s failure to both act or not act. Ultimately the citizen suffers if “good science” is merely what some vested interest wants to believe and not what is actually true.
The epitome of a bad government is one that hires or fires its counselors on the basis of their saying what the president wants to hear and not on what’s true. A truly courageous president would be a committed “truth-seeker”—one who allows the truth to fall where it may whether it supports or scuttles his proposed policies. God protect us from a president unwilling to allow truth to prevail—regardless of what it may do to his agenda.
2. Who decides what’s good economic sense, profiteers or prophets?
The lumber barons who raped the forest of the Midwest so horribly that they virtually destroyed the forests’ capacity to reproduce felt all their cutting and management procedures made good economic sense—because they made fabulous profits in a short time. Was that truly good economic sense, or would it have made more sense economically for them to assure long-term sustainable yield? What makes sense for short-term economic profiteers hardly ever makes sense for the prophets whose primary interest is in calling for the conservation and sustainable management of a resource so that a nation’s future is not jeopardized.
Consider an analogy: It obviously wouldn’t make sense for a home owner to ignore termites, dry rot, and cracks in his house’s foundation yet spend lavishly on his home and all its furnishings. A nation’s economy is its house; a nation’s environment is its foundation. Economists are primarily concerned with the house. Environmental scientists are primarily concerned with the foundation. Ecologists study the interactions of the two. Seeking to be faithful prophets, honest environmental scientists and ecologists have been pointing out for decades now that the foundation of our economy is deteriorating. But because we all love the appearance of our house, we put most of our attention there. We wine and dine our economists for their wonderful work in manipulating the exchange of goods and services, and scoff at the scientists who are pointing out that the source of our goods and services is showing signs of failure. The trouble is that we’re proud of the house. We like to show it off. We get all sorts of attention drawn to the beauty of the house. But we also know it’s foolish, as any Sunday school student will tell you, to build your house upon the sand. Is it smart to gamble on how much damage the foundation can sustain? Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to risk their rightful heritage—like hungry Esau trading his birthright (and that of all his descendants) for a mess of pottage?
Let’s add a financial analogy: a good economy is that which essentially operates on its interest—interest drawn upon its principal. Ultimately the environment is its principal. We all know it’s folly to live on withdrawals from both the interest and the principal. We may live high on the hog for a short time by doing that, but in the long run the principal is depleted and our economy crashes.
A third word picture is to think of the economy as dealing with the fruit of the land and the environment as the fruitfulness of the land. We live in balance when we live off the fruit and preserve the fruitfulness. We ruin ourselves if we destroy the fruitfulness of the land as we consume its fruit—like the lumber barons did.
The major point of this set of analogies is to affirm that what makes the most sense economically is, in the long run, to preserve the health and vitality of our nation’s environment. For that reason it’s obvious to conclude that the best friend of the wise economist is the honest and astute ecologist or environmental scientist. The Bush administration must not allow short-sighted economists to determine what makes sense economically, and it absolutely must not let short-term profiteers decide what makes sense economically (think Enron!). We need prophets more than they need profits.
3. Who determines what’s good or harmful, materialists or moral realists?
The guideline on “more good than harm” is so subjective it’s virtually useless. Consider the lumber baron again. Was his approach to timber cutting good or harmful? If you were a lumber baron, a member of his extended family, a business associate, or involved in a subsidiary industry, it was wonderful! Your material standard of living was the envy of all. If you were a lumberjack or a person compelled to live on the depleted land resulting from short-sighted timber cutting, it was lousy. And if you considered what was done to the environment, it was downright devastating. This sort of imparity gives rise to the observation that “standards of living that destroy the sources of life are not high; they’re evil.”
This Bush guideline has meaning only if the terms “good” and “harm” are carefully defined—and defined as they relate to more than material values. Corporations, dealing as they do primarily with material benefits involving money, must not be the determiners of what is ultimately good or harmful for the nation. Here’s where Bush’s Council on Faith-based and Community Initiatives and Council on Environmental Quality are most crucial. Will the members of these councils be energized mostly by short-term corporate interests, or by long-term national benefits? If they live up to their names, it should be the latter. Time will tell if these favored councils are really committed to the higher values inherent in their names, or if they are primarily just fronts for vested interests. Will their legacy be merely that of catering to the interests of those with fat wallets and lean souls?
The George W. Bush administration, as per Vice President Dick Cheney, has established three guidelines for setting policy:
1. A policy will be based on sound science.
2. A policy will make sense economically.
3. A policy will do more good than harm.
Few would disagree that these are fine and logical guidelines. But one doesn’t have to go far with them to recognize that they need critical elaboration and clarification. Here are some questions that need to be asked about the guidelines:
1. Who decides what’s good science, economists or scientists?
Far too many economists and libertarian think-tank fellows are being used as judges regarding what’s scientifically sound. Scientists should be the ones making decisions about what’s scientifically sound. Because science is ever a work in progress, it’s always possible to find some scientist who will question the conclusions of the scientific majority. As Francis Bacon pointed out centuries ago, people tend to believe what they wish to be true rather than what is actually true. Unfortunately, scientists are not immune to such a psychological bent. Therefore, it’s essential for the Bush administration to prove its integrity by determining what’s good science by finding the most unbiased and carefully arrived at scientific consensus. This means getting the conclusion from those who are not in the employ of organizations that stand to gain from their own scientists’ research and conclusions. The best science is done by scientists committed to learning the truth about God’s creation, and not to finding evidence for a predetermined conclusion—especially a conclusion that will benefit the institutions they work for. An old German proverb is significant here: “Whose bread you eat, his song you sing.” It’s bad enough that our presidents and lawmakers are often elected via campaigns financed by special interests; must our policies also be made by economists, think-tank fellows, and scientists more interested in their own personal gain than in the truth?
Finally, policy makers can always refuse to act by using the ploy that “all the facts are not in yet” (e. g. global warming). The truth is that, with science in particular, all the facts are never in. It’s always an ongoing process. That’s the reason that almost three millennia ago Aristotle pointed out to policy makers that it’s better to act in time on a fact half proved than to wait until it’s too late to act on a fact fully substantiated. Waiting until all the facts are in to delay a decision is ultimately to do nothing. The problem, however, is that there are thousands of vested interests who will gain from the Bush administration’s failure to both act or not act. Ultimately the citizen suffers if “good science” is merely what some vested interest wants to believe and not what is actually true.
The epitome of a bad government is one that hires or fires its counselors on the basis of their saying what the president wants to hear and not on what’s true. A truly courageous president would be a committed “truth-seeker”—one who allows the truth to fall where it may whether it supports or scuttles his proposed policies. God protect us from a president unwilling to allow truth to prevail—regardless of what it may do to his agenda.
2. Who decides what’s good economic sense, profiteers or prophets?
The lumber barons who raped the forest of the Midwest so horribly that they virtually destroyed the forests’ capacity to reproduce felt all their cutting and management procedures made good economic sense—because they made fabulous profits in a short time. Was that truly good economic sense, or would it have made more sense economically for them to assure long-term sustainable yield? What makes sense for short-term economic profiteers hardly ever makes sense for the prophets whose primary interest is in calling for the conservation and sustainable management of a resource so that a nation’s future is not jeopardized.
Consider an analogy: It obviously wouldn’t make sense for a home owner to ignore termites, dry rot, and cracks in his house’s foundation yet spend lavishly on his home and all its furnishings. A nation’s economy is its house; a nation’s environment is its foundation. Economists are primarily concerned with the house. Environmental scientists are primarily concerned with the foundation. Ecologists study the interactions of the two. Seeking to be faithful prophets, honest environmental scientists and ecologists have been pointing out for decades now that the foundation of our economy is deteriorating. But because we all love the appearance of our house, we put most of our attention there. We wine and dine our economists for their wonderful work in manipulating the exchange of goods and services, and scoff at the scientists who are pointing out that the source of our goods and services is showing signs of failure. The trouble is that we’re proud of the house. We like to show it off. We get all sorts of attention drawn to the beauty of the house. But we also know it’s foolish, as any Sunday school student will tell you, to build your house upon the sand. Is it smart to gamble on how much damage the foundation can sustain? Is it fair to our children and grandchildren to risk their rightful heritage—like hungry Esau trading his birthright (and that of all his descendants) for a mess of pottage?
Let’s add a financial analogy: a good economy is that which essentially operates on its interest—interest drawn upon its principal. Ultimately the environment is its principal. We all know it’s folly to live on withdrawals from both the interest and the principal. We may live high on the hog for a short time by doing that, but in the long run the principal is depleted and our economy crashes.
A third word picture is to think of the economy as dealing with the fruit of the land and the environment as the fruitfulness of the land. We live in balance when we live off the fruit and preserve the fruitfulness. We ruin ourselves if we destroy the fruitfulness of the land as we consume its fruit—like the lumber barons did.
The major point of this set of analogies is to affirm that what makes the most sense economically is, in the long run, to preserve the health and vitality of our nation’s environment. For that reason it’s obvious to conclude that the best friend of the wise economist is the honest and astute ecologist or environmental scientist. The Bush administration must not allow short-sighted economists to determine what makes sense economically, and it absolutely must not let short-term profiteers decide what makes sense economically (think Enron!). We need prophets more than they need profits.
3. Who determines what’s good or harmful, materialists or moral realists?
The guideline on “more good than harm” is so subjective it’s virtually useless. Consider the lumber baron again. Was his approach to timber cutting good or harmful? If you were a lumber baron, a member of his extended family, a business associate, or involved in a subsidiary industry, it was wonderful! Your material standard of living was the envy of all. If you were a lumberjack or a person compelled to live on the depleted land resulting from short-sighted timber cutting, it was lousy. And if you considered what was done to the environment, it was downright devastating. This sort of imparity gives rise to the observation that “standards of living that destroy the sources of life are not high; they’re evil.”
This Bush guideline has meaning only if the terms “good” and “harm” are carefully defined—and defined as they relate to more than material values. Corporations, dealing as they do primarily with material benefits involving money, must not be the determiners of what is ultimately good or harmful for the nation. Here’s where Bush’s Council on Faith-based and Community Initiatives and Council on Environmental Quality are most crucial. Will the members of these councils be energized mostly by short-term corporate interests, or by long-term national benefits? If they live up to their names, it should be the latter. Time will tell if these favored councils are really committed to the higher values inherent in their names, or if they are primarily just fronts for vested interests. Will their legacy be merely that of catering to the interests of those with fat wallets and lean souls?