After trying to post on something other than the FairTax, I find myself again replying to a post by yt_knight. Though this time, I am posting more because he provides an example of something else. So, though this is a reply to yt_knight, for once it may not be mostly about the FairTax.

The reason I am actually interested again in replying to yt_knight is precisely because his most recent post is symptomatic of something larger. While ostensibly he is replying to my post made earlier today, in reality he is demonstrating a mindset I have been trying to understand for some time, the mind of people who accept Obama at face value.

No, I am not saying yt_knight is an Obama supporter, I don't know who he supports for president, nor even what party he supports, if any. What I am saying is that he made some statements that, are characteristic of Obama supporters, and that, under the right circumstances, someone who believes as he does could become Obama supporter. This is not meant to in any way insult yt_knight. His mindset is far from unusual, he is simply more honest than most in describing his thoughts, providing me with a better than normal example.

But enough disclaimers, if I have offended someone , more words won't help. So on with my argument.

The main point of yt_knight's argument is that my approach is setting us up for failure. He argues that the tax system is broken, the FairTax generates excitement, the rest of the world is changing, and so we should change. My approach of finding the problems with a proposal and then refraining from change until a solution arises which is better, will lead us to stagnate*.

Now, for the moment, I will ignore the validity of his arguments. I can't resist pointing out that the world maybe changing, but no other nation is moving toward anything resembling a FairTax, that in fact VATs (the cousin of the FairTax) seem to be losing favor, but that is all I will say. I will concede his points for the moment, that the FairTax is superior to what we have, that it is the only proposal which could find supports, and so on. I don't buy it, but I will concede them for now.

But that still doesn't help his point.

Essentially, yt_knight's position still comes down to this "things are bad, here is a change, let's do it!" By saying that we should not evaluate a change unless we have an alternative proposal, he is telling us to shut off our critical facilities and assume that, when in a bad circumstance, any change is for the better, and that is simply wrong.

When I responded to his post I provide done example, pointing out that the Weimar Republic was a hopelessly defective government, weak, inefficient, torn apart by nationalist and communist conspiracies, unable to govern effectively. Yet, the "change" than fired up the imagination of the Germans was the NSDAP. In that case, insisting on change just because things were bad gave the world Hitler**.

However, after I wrote this, as my first few paragraphs suggest, I came up with an even better example, the Obama campaign. With his mantra of "change", repeated early in the campaign every 10 seconds or so, Obama managed to fire up huge groups while providing no details. For the longest time, I was confused by this, unable to figure out why anyone would buy into a plan for "change" which provided no details.

Now, I know why. It is the mindset that yt_knight demonstrates in his reply. He focuses solely on the negatives of the current situation, maybe with a slight nod to the claims of those promising change, and that is it. He is so unhappy with what is, and so enamored of what has been promised, that eh forgot the important question of how that change will really take shape. And I think that is the mindset of the Obama supporters as well. They are so unhappy with present circumstance that they are willing to accept any change, without asking what that change will be.

But I need to warn anyone who adopts this "any change is good when things are bad" belief. If you are sick and someone promises to change your circumstance, he could cure you, but he could kill you as well. Both are changes. And this side fo the grave, ther eis never a situation which could not get worse.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* To be fair to myself, I did not shoot down the FairTax while proposing no alternatives. However, even had I done so,. I still think it is valid to examine a proposal and ask whether or not it delivers on its promises, as well as asking if the benefits are great enough to make it worthwhile to go through all the problems that any change would cause. It simply seems common sense to me.

** Yes, yes, mention of Nazis is the cheapest rhetorical trick in the world. However in this case it is apropos. The Nazi party essentially ran on empty promises of change. How else could nationalists, industrialists and labor socialists all endorse the same party? In a move reminiscent of the modern Obama campaign, a lot of early Nazi rhetoric was intentionally vague to draw in large, discontented groups. Hitler later forced a slightly more narrow focus, but that was more to drive out Strasser and the Berlin faction than due to any firm political beliefs. Even when trying to drive out the Strasser/labor faction, he still tended to promise everything to everybody.