Gingrich. Economics. Will. George. Wealth.

My editorial hero is George Will.  He writes for the Washington Post. His editorial is an education in understanding the major differences between liberal and conservative thought. For example, he recently opined that the liberal’s century old mission is to “decrease inequality by increasing government’s redistributive activities.” This mission is contrary to a preferred conservative view of “distribution of wealth by consensual market activities.” 

I agree.

Contrary to the liberal view, these definitions do not characterize conservatives as dispassionate and do not preclude a conservative view that society still retains a responsibility for the disabled, sick, and elderly.  However, this view does beg for common sense in discharging these responsibilities. For example, liberals support state operated nursing homes at an annual cost of $60,000 per elderly person rather than paying $20,000 to a caring family to take care of an elderly person at home. Gingrich lays these choices out like ducks in a row, only to be shot down by non-thinking conservative super-pacs and gangs of liberals. As the liberals promote a redistributive government, they promote a more powerful government bent on its own personal survival, rather than more economic ways of discharging its societal responsibilities.

There is great risk in accepting consensual market wealth distribution – There is a risk we might not get our earned share. There is also a risk, and it is much greater in my view, however, associated with assigning the government the wealth redistribution responsibility. To accomplish this complex redistributive activity, liberals must promote a stronger more powerful government. The conservatives, on the other hand, want to shrink government and let a consensual market operate.  With these opposing notions in mind, it is easy to understand the chasm that exists between liberals and conservatives.

This chasm makes the Grand Canyon look like a pothole.