We freely acknowledge that our economy runs on a Capitalist model. It really doesn't matter whether I, or you, think it should, that is the reality we live by.
So why, if we are able to accept that reality, are the Republicans not?
After all, broadly it is their model. Capitalism, and a free market economy is the chosen path of the Right. Historically, the Left has consistently tried to introduce some social justice into that scenario, notably through Trades Unions and more progressive leaning politicians.
Indeed it is actually necessary that this is done, because Capitalism cannot survive without the guiding hand of Government and appropriate regulation. The Right might rail against that idea, but they know it is true as well as we know.
So let's jump the socialist squiggle and go look at a few contradictions.
There is one key element that all capitalist economies depend upon to function. One bastion of that system, without which the whole edifice collapses into economic chaos. The one thing that promotes and enables our economy, and those of many countries, to work, however imperfectly.
Supply and Demand!
That's it really. It is that simple. If there is the demand for a good or service, then the market will respond to meet that demand and supply that which is ... er ... demanded!
The market, essentially, can be boiled down to that easy phrase. It is the case that there are some additional scenarios that serve to finesse "supply and demand", but none that supplants it.
For example ... If we as a market decide that we no longer want to buy a Ford Focus, then Ford will rapidly quit making them. Were they not to do that then a bunch of unpleasant things would happen to the Ford Motor Company.
First they would have a large number of Ford Focus's that they could not sell, depressing the price, and any more supplies would simply crash the market to the point where they would be basically giving them away with a packet of Cornflakes; further depressing the price, and the profitability of Ford.
This follows for every item that is manufactured or service that is provided. Markets are demand led, which leads us into a subtle change in the above, simple definition ....
We should really talk about "Demand and Supply".
One area where this is altered is when new products are invented. When the first video-recorders appeared there was no demand. Twenty years ago there were no queues down the street for an iPhone, and that is where Marketing plays a part.
Prior to the VCR we simply stayed in to watch a show, caught a re-run, or missed it. No one really imagined any other than that reality. We grew up with it and it was fine. Marketing, and it's additional components of sales promotion and advertising can, and do, change that but there does have to be a pent-up driver for it to work. Compare, for example, the aforementioned VCR with any number of "As Seen On TV" products. Most of them are only available over the phone because they are so bad that the suppliers can't actually persuade stores to carry them.
So if we accept any of the above to be true, even partially true, then why is it so difficult to get folk to accept that the same, or similar, mechanisms apply to other aspects of life, even social needs?
Let us consider one of the principal battlegrounds, that of abortion ...
Even though we thought this was settled law, it appears that it is rather less settled than the Supreme Court would have us believe. Roe v. Wade did not create a demand for abortions. That demand has always existed. While that decision may have increased the number of such procedures, it was probably because now they were recorded, reported and legal, and less unwanted children were being born. It also reduced the number of deaths occurring which has to be a very good thing.
That the Right hates the freedom extended to women is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they wish to reduce or end the number of abortions by cutting off the supply. They cheerfully abandon their capitalist principles when they suggest this, because reducing the supply of anything simply increases the price paid in money, or in lives. The demand remains the same.
Did they learn NOTHING from Prohibition?
We would all like to see the number of abortions decline, not least, I believe, those women who face this difficult decision. One does not reduce the number of abortions by reducing the supply, because the demand still exists and we know what happens when there exists a demand ... someone will move in to meet it. The Right really should understand this, it is their mantra.
The way to reduce abortions, and anything else we would all like to see reduced, is to reduce demand. There, said it, it really is that simple.
Health education in schools, starting young and very comprehensive. Easy access to counseling for those vulnerable folk who need it. Access to contraception which should be free and easily obtained, with appropriate lessons in how to use the items correctly and appropriately.
A complete debunking and defunding of "Abstinence Only". The very idea is laughable and Purity Rings are, quite frankly, just creepy. Think back ... be a teenager again for a moment. You did it, or wanted to, I did too and so did all those holier-than-thou types who now put our kids at risk with their crazy theories.
If girls don't get pregnant by mistake, then they won't want abortions and the supply will reduce to meet the demand. Oh. and we all will be happier and healthier. It is interesting to note that the GOP opposes every one of the sensible suggestions aimed at reducing unwanted pregnancies.
Drugs fall into exactly the same scenario, with the possible departure only in the suggestion that not all drugs are necessarily bad ... clearly some are.
We have, and have had for many years now, a War On Drugs. So how is that working out? The tired old idea of "Prohibition" is the start and end of the government response to a perceived problem of drug use. Again, the only thing they have ever done is attempt to reduce the supply. Do they never learn? (rhetorical).
The result is that our prisons are full of non-violent offenders. Full of gang members who would never have even existed without the underworld and alternate society predicated on the approach we have taken to drugs. A whole criminal class fueled, and armed to the teeth, by an attempt to do what we have always known is futile; control the supply side.
We do not need a wall to keep Mexicans from crossing the border. Mexico needs a wall to protect itself from us!! Our guns, our criminals, our, America's DEMAND, is wrecking that country, and leaving the dead lying in the street.
If there are any efforts underway to actually reduce the demand for drugs in a way that is realistic, coordinated and achievable, then I am unaware of it. Indeed, all the efforts I do see involve spreading the very conditions that exacerbate the problem .... poverty! Lack of hope and a consequent reduction in ambition.
Illegal Immigration follows the same, by now, well trodden path. They will not stop coming while we continue to invite them. Does this simple idea escape Congress? They will not stop coming because we built a wall. They will simply employ more dangerous methods to get here. Immigrants will continue to arrive while ever we demand cheap labour. This is not a hard thing to understand. Reduce the demand for undocumented aliens, and other countries will stop supplying them. This does mean that wages for Americans might have to be increased. Maybe that is the fatal flaw in this plan.
I'll quit with the examples there because that is a decent trifecta.
I am not someone who believes that one can simply employ an economic model to all issues, especially, social issues, and suggest that we can find the answer. But I am someone who believes that it is ridiculous to simply abandon your principles and assume that the model is useless because of some idiotic religious or political whim.
One cannot reduce abortion by looking solely at demand and supply, any more than one can reduce the use of drugs in society. What we can do though, is take the idea, simplistic as it might be, and use that premise to inform our approach.
When the Republicans are prepared to accept that solutions might be found in ideas they embrace, rather than in the Bible, or in their prejudices, then we might begin once more to work across the aisle.