Son Of A Plumber
There are two ways to assist poor or working-class people: you can (1) improve their situation while they remain poor or working class, or (2) help them rise to a higher economic layer. As far as I can tell, the Democrats seem completely uninterested in the second method, and even show contempt for people who aspire to improve their economic station in life.
Some Quick Personal Background
I grew up a liberal Democrat, and remained so until my late 30s. The story of my change is long, and probably of little interest to anyone but myself, but this issue — the contrasting attitude among conservatives and liberals to working people who aspire to greater economic success was one of the driving forces. I’m the son a pipefitter, who worked in a sugar refinery. Neither of my parents attended college. I obtained a professional degree, and liver in a different economic world from my parents. It is a common story, and one that America can be proud of. I do not believe that the liberal/left/Democratic political contingents appreciate it properly.
The story of Joe Wurzelbacher is well known, including the attacks on him based on licensing issues, tax lien issues, and the assumption that he (1) should base his political views on his current status, and the related assumption that (2) his aspiration to run a successful plumbing business, grow it, and generate substantial revenue to is a dream to be mocked.
Saddest for me is that some of my friends have mocked him. Not all, probably not even most, but enough. They’ve done it in conversation and in writing. Professional, educated individuals who mock a plumber for aspiring to better himself and his family lack class — in the only sense of that word that is important. Left-wing disdain for people who try to better themselves, instead of looking for handouts or looking with envy at those with more money, was a strong factor in my move from left to right. So was the failure of most of my friends and allies on the left to support the three issues promoted by the IJ that I discuss below.
I had ambitions of writing a more comprehensive post about Joe, but so much of what I would have covered has been addressed elsewhere, and I have limited time.
I will instead focus on a few important strategies to help people economically that do not involve increasing government spending or control, and that increase both freedom and self-reliance, and in doing so draw attention to a worthwhile organization. Ideally, I think these strategies should be embraced by both the right and the left, but I have not seen any enthusiasm for any of these measures on the left.
Licensing and Related Regulations
Among the bases for mocking Joe is his lack of a plumbing license. The attitude that you need a license to be a legitimate voice is preposterous. This betrays the blind faith that too many on the political left displays in licensing schemes, and in government restrictions on businesses, generally. Licensing schemes, can, sometimes, provide a useful corrective or preventive service. But they almost invariably become captured by industry insiders to stifle competition. There is an organization, called the Institute for Justice, that fights for small entrepreneurs who are prevented from competing on a fair basis by entrenched cartels. Sadly, the Institute for Justice (“IJ”), which should be supported by folks of all political persuasions, is a creature supported almost exclusively by the libertarian and conservative wings of US politics. I have no connection to IJ except to give it an annual donation.
Here are a few of the areas in which the IJ has helped individuals
African-American hair braiders are required to obtain irrelevant licenses. For example, as described by IF:
To practice their craft, African hairbraiders in Minnesota must enroll in 1,550 hours of government-mandated “training” that does not include even one hour of instruction in braiding. They must also take State-mandated examinations that do not test for braiding skills. Any braider who refuses to secure a government license can face up to $1,000 in fines and up to 90 days in jail.
****
Anderson v. Minnesota Board of Barber and Cosmetologist Examiners was resolved by court order on June 10, 2005. The Board was permanently enjoined from enforcing its cosmetology licensing regime against hairbraiders and it was also required to publish administrative rules that exempt hairbraiders from regulation. On May 15th, 2006, the Board officially adopted new rules that free hairbraiders from State licensing requirements.
The Institute handled similar cases in many other states.
Interior designers who are required to get a licensee and training to pick drapes:
New Mexico interior designers are now protected from the state’s interference in their business and speech, thanks to the Institute for Justice’s successful challenge to the state’s “title” restriction. The title law prevented individuals who practice interior design from calling themselves interior designers unless they first obtained an expensive and increasingly difficult-to-secure government license.
Importantly, the law did not prevent anyone from working as an interior designer. Instead, the law achieved its anti-competitive purpose by dictating who could call themselves “interior designers” or use the term “interior design” to describe what they do. Such “titling laws” are part of a larger effort by certain members of the interior design community to suppress competition by suffocating would-be competitors with government regulations.
This sounds remarkably like the attmept to claim that Joe the Plumber is not a real plumber because he lacks his license, no?
Why would the Louisiana Horticulture Commission force a florist to either throw away seven perfectly fine floral displays or be fined $250? Because would-be Baton Rouge florist Sandy Meadows, like so many other women, has been unable to pass a highly subjective State-mandated floral exam—an exam graded by existing florists in the state who have a vested interest in keeping her out of work.
No other state in the nation requires a licensing exam for florists, and it is easy to understand why. Consumers—not bureaucrats—can best decide which florists are good and which are not.
Texas law requires computer repair technicians be licensed as private investigators.
Missouri law prevented anyone but licensed funeral directors from selling caskets.
Property Rights
Another area in which IJ excels is property rights. IJ is the leading legal supporter of individuals fighting eminent domain takings, and were counsel in the famous Kelo decision. The left side of our political divide — to its credit — was nearly as appalled by the Kelo decision as were conservatives and libertarians. However, to the left, Kelo was an individual case. Left/liberals/Democrats generally do not support property rights against the government, and would not support either political or judicial solutions that protect property rights against excessive regulation or environmental restrictions. Everyone I know on the left side of the political divide was unhappy with Kelo as an individual case, but relieved that the Supreme Court did not create a broader basis for protecting property against the government.
There is a strong argument that Kelo was decided consistently with prior precedents, but it is no coincidence that the Supreme Court’s four more conservative Justices at the time all voted in the dissent and in favor of the Kelo homeowners against the government: O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. The 5 more liberal justices, all voted against the homeowners and for the government, Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy. I have no doubt but that Obama will appoint justices like those who supported the government against the little guy, because they are worried about strengthening property rights too much, while McCain will appoint Justices who would would be more likely to decide cases such as Kelo differently.
Kelo was decided under the “Takings Clause” of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The entire Takings Clause states:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The issue in Kelo was the effect to be given to the phrase “for public use.” Private homes were being condemned under the government’s power of eminent domain. The purpose was not to build a public amenity, such as a park, school, courthouse, or road. Insteadd, the prpperty, privately owned by individual homeowners, was to be given to a developer who would “improve” the land so it would generate more money in taxes for the local government to spend. The Kelo plaintiffs argued that this was not an appropriate use. The 5 more liberal members of the Supreme Court disagreed, and allowed the government to take their homes so that the government could collect more in taxes.
Here are the IJ links for property rights in general, and the Kelo case in particular. The Kelo case is not an isolated incident.
School Choice
The last area of IJ’s focus that interests me is school choice. I first heard education vouchers proposed in the very early 90s, and was immediately excited. It was one of those ideas that seemded to come out of nowhere, but that should have existed forever. Just as we assist people of limited means to attend the college of their choice, so should we do the same for primary and high school education. I was both shocked and disappointed that nearly everyone on the left opposed the idea. This was a major tipping point in my miove to the right.
I am aware of various arguments agsinst school choice. I see no merit in them. I especially detest the argument that choice will remove the best students from public schools. Children are not tools or pawns to be used in an attempt to improve society. If a child’s parents want to place him or her in a non-public school, but lack the resources to do so, they should have that choice.
The IJ is a leader in the fight for school choice, and so is the Milton Friedman Institute.
Closing: Tito the Builder
Finally, I’ll close with a video of Tito the Builder, who showed up at a McCain rally after Joe the Plumber was villified by the media and by the Democrats:
I think the Anchoress had the best succinct summary of how I feel about Tito and people like him:
An attitude of gratitude instead of entitlement. A patriot’s love of country. An individual’s understanding of personal exceptionalism. A guy who truly embodies the transformative power of genuine hope; the sparkle from the wheel.
The guy who came to America and said, “all I need is a chance.”
I look at people like Tito, and Joe, and I smile. I love them: their optimism, their confidence, their independence. I cannot understand a political view that thinks that Joe and Tito are deluded, that they should realize they have no chance to succeed, but that also thinks that if, somehow, they do succeed financially, then they deserve to have their money taken away by the government and given to others. I trust Joe and Tito to handle their own money decisions, incuding their choices of how much charity to give, and where to direct it. I can never be on a left where such people are snooped on, mocked, and opposed.
