Not surprising, many conservatives – with few exceptions such as this blog – are elated over the defeat of Eric Cantor. This is kinda funny because in 2009 and 2010, he worked with the Tea Party in his district and now they want nothing to do with him. He was even on the cover of National Review caricatured on horseback along with Sarah Palin and a few others as crusaders of the ‘Tea Party Revolution’. So what happened? He was too moderate on immigration and too deferential to crony capitalism, as the story goes. His loss speaks of a deeper woe is me attitude among some on the right, and particularly among the left – a wanting to blame the rich and successful for the ills of society, instead of taking personal responsibility. Even liberals, in their quest for crisis and failure, were celebrating Cantor’s defeat, because his loss makes the country more likely to default on its debt and possibly enter a recession. Killing immigration reform means more of those overpaid jobs liberals love. Defaulting on the debt would send a message to the Washington establishment that they, too, have to play by the same rules as individuals and households. We need entitlement reform, but defaulting on the debt when yields are at historic lows reeks of idiocy. Cantor was instrumental to forging compromise to get the ceiling raised, but David Bratt has no inclination to do so. It’s not worth facing the potential consequences of debt default to satisfy a small but vocal constituency. A good compromise would be to cut as much entitlement spending as possible and furlough the non-essental government employees without pay, but still pay the bondholders. Of course, the left would rather stick it to the bondholders and keep the overpaid, useless government employees. The left loathes the bondholder – in particular, the foreign bondholder – more than anyone else, because the audacity buy America when there’s supposed to be crisis and wealth inequality is so high. To the left, everyone should sell so inflation surges and they can fulfill their dream of America becoming Greece and the rich losing money.
There’s a small contradiction with the first part of the podcast about Eric Cantor and the part about race and achievement. In the part podcast about race and education, it’s evident Derb correctly supports the meritocracy, as do I. The best an the brightest earn more because they are better adapted to thrive in today’s hyper-competitive economy. The left, on the other hand, want equal equal outcomes to the detriment of those most capable and the overall economy. This ties in with David Brat, because if you support an economic system where the cognitive elite can reach their full potential, it behooves you to support policy that creates wealth (or at least prevents its destruction) and rewards success; such policy includes, but is not limited to: supporting the fed’s independence, raising the debt ceiling, deregulation, incentives for home ownership and more high tech immigration. If Asians, including immigrants, score higher don’t they deserve admission, so they can apply their skills to creating companies, wealth and advancing society after graduation? In the Marxist tradition of revolution, economic collapse and upheaval benefits the lowest classes. When the economy faltered in 2008, it was the elite that lost the most. The liberals are at constant war with success, so anything that causes many people to lose money or society to decay is embraced with open arms.