This morning Jeffrey Tucker wrote:
In this sense, the market is the great leveler, the force in the universe that humbles all people and reminds them that they are no more important than anyone else and that their wishes must ultimately be shelved when faced with the overwhelming desire on the part of market traders that some other reality emerge.
A few hours later, a local D.C. politician named Carol Schwartz helped prove Tucker’s point. Schwartz is the lone Republican on the D.C. Council; indeed, she is the only elected Republican officeholder in the entire city. Thanks to a quirk of the District’s Congressional home rule charter, two Council seats are reserved for people other than Democrats. Schwartz has held her seat for most of the last 25 years.
Last Tuesday, Schwartz was defeated for renomination in the Republican primary. Her opponent, Patrick Mara, had won support from the Washington Post and local business groups. Business owners were especially upset with Schwartz because she championed a mandatory “sick leave” bill — in other words, forcing businesses to pay people not to work.
In contrast to the market, politics means never having to admit error or defeat. Schwartz announced today that she would reject the Republican primary results and continue her campaign as a write-in candidate. Her remarks nicely summarized everything you need to know about politics-versus-markets:
Last Tuesday, after the nastiest, most unrelentingly negative campaign I’ve ever seen in the District was waged against me by a relatively unknown person, I lost the chance to be on the General Election ballot in November to a candidate who only received 2,234 votes….Granted, I received only 1,483 votes – 751 fewer votes than my opponent. But we also know that he targeted and registered a comparable number of College Republicans from schools throughout the city. And why should these hundreds of students, with no real vested interest in the District of Columbia – rather than the hundreds of thousands of voters who do have a vested interest – decide my fate, the potential fate of our city and the possible fate of workers who need sick leave?
The basic thrust of Schwartz’s argument is that she’s entitled to perpetual reelection and that her defeat was really a failure of the system to perform correctly — the very antithesis of the market process. She then attacks Mara (1) for being “relatively unknown”, (2) encouraging people to actually register and vote; (3) taking advantage of the fact that Schwartz’s alleged legions of supporters failed to show up and vote for her in the primary. What a jerk.
Jeffrey Tucker noted, “The theory of democracy was that we would have a voting mechanism to enact and force change, but the problem is that votes and personnel shifts bring a change in the look and feel of government but do not get below the surface.” Of course, Schwartz argues we shouldn’t even vote or shift personnel. The mere presence of the “relatively unknown” Mara will fatally compromise the carefully planned structure of the District of Columbia. Of course that’s nonsense. Mara’s unlikely to seriously challenge the rotting socialist structure that holds the District together like a ball of chewing gum. He’s just a new face. But even that’s too much for Schwartz, who repeatedly addresses “my fate” and her right to appear on the election ballot.
The truth is that when Schwartz mugged business owners one time too many, they struck back. No, it didn’t reach the fundamental problem, but it’s good to sea some signs of life from the District’s lethargic profit-seeking community.
{ 1 comment }
For some reason, this reminds me of two material changes that the politicians made to their status in going to the US Constitution from the Articles of Confederation:-
- They switched responsibility for their pay from their electorates to the US government (which meant, they got to determine and secure their pay); and
- They abolished term limits (which meant that they could make a career out of it).
Comments on this entry are closed.