It never ceases to amaze me. Never. No matter how much historical evidence provided (note I said historical) there are still those that insist, even parrot partisan talking points. I get sticking up for “your side” whichever side that is, but what I will never understand is staying on that side in the face of overwhelming historical evidence. Notice I did not say evidence, for that can be made to look however one wishes to make it look. I said historical evidence, evidence not colored by the notions of the day, massaged by partisans who wish to make it appear a certain way, but, rather, evidence marinated by the passage of time.

Indeed, such evidence can also be manipulated as we have seen so many times, but, if the historian or analyst is honest and true, historical evidence provided will tell the story much better and honestly than curated narratives, because there are very few holes.

I am not naïve and understand full well history and its telling evolve throughout time depending on the writer or the writer’s bias. It is referred to generally as historiography. However, there is a significant difference between telling the historical truth and cherry-picking anecdotal evidence to prove a point. This is where we are at right now, anecdotal evidence being accepted as truth, and it is healthy for no one.

As an example:

It is documented historically that the more one taxes the “rich” the less money the federal government takes in.[1] Further, we know historically that the federal government simply cannot spend its way out of financial difficulty without making things worse. We know this as we have a significant body of evidence to prove both notions. Regarding the latter, no less than Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “money guy,” Henry Morgenthau Jr. stated as much in 1939:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. And an enormous debt to boot!”

-Henry Morgenthau Jr

Tax cuts increase federal government monies, not decrease it, and there is ample evidence to support that as well. It’s not a tax problem, but rather a spending problem. President John Kennedy, a Democrat, recognized this and cut taxes during his term, President Kennedy knowing full well the implications of doing so.[2]

“Our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy; or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve — and I believe this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”

-President John F. Kennedy

Why is it, then, so many are refuting that axiom, and are so against tax cuts despite all evidence to the contrary? Narratives. It is all about narratives and trying to keep control on the levers of power.

The same can be said for the notion of the rich “hoarding money,” a narrative fostered by so many in Congress as well as Democrat activists who take positions “against the rich.” In a society such as ours, there is no such thing as hoarding money for such a statement implies that there is a finite amount of money available and the “rich” are reaching their arms out, encircling the coins and dollars, and dragging them all toward them so as no one can get any more. Our economy is not a zero-sum game.

Just because a rich man has millions of dollars in the bank does not mean there is less for you and me. Our monetary system is not set up that way. Once upon a time, when Mercantilist thought ruled the day, it was believed there was only a finite amount of gold and silver on the planet, the goal, through a favorable balance of trade, was to get as much of it as possible to control one’s adversaries.[3] We no longer operate on a Mercantilist model, and those fostering such a narrative, a blatantly false narrative, are hoodwinking others who buy into said narrative, not telling them the truth of the matter. It is blatent misinformation at best, and an outright lie to foster a political narrative at its worst.

The same might be said of the economic fortunes of nations themselves, much less a result of colonization and more of geography. Resources on this planet are not evenly distributed, nor are natural waterways, the gateway for many nations to economic prosperity. There are many regions in Africa south of the Sahara which are bereft of navigable waterways for trade. Such locations will have significant difficulty, even today, in engaging in trade outside their region. Mountainous regions have the same problem which explains historically why most of South America developed independently, and why that continent never truly followed the model of development of the United States, as an example…states united under one federal government. It is not the only reason, but a significant one with significant ramifications.

This does not mean to say colonization by any group of people didn’t have negative consequences, but it does suggest geography and topography played a much larger and maybe more consequential role than colonization. In fact, there are strong arguments historically to suggest colonization had a net positive effect in the long run. Further, colonization has been going on since one group of people invaded the territory of another. It is not a wholly Western European event.

Even the notion of slavery, that most heinous of all human institutions, is distorted. As hard as it is to fathom, slavery was once an accepted practice, part and parcel of every society and, without too much question, a legitimate form of making a living. One was as likely to be a trader of slaves as one was to be a pottery maker. Slavery was not based on race at all but rather on availability. Europeans were enslaved as blacks were, but not because of skin tone or other superficial means, but simply on availability. Race was never a factor, until recent history wherein it was made a factor by academics and commentators. The truth about slavery is that it was practiced in every society and by every race almost without exception. The ones who attempted, with some success, to end said practice? Western Europeans and the United States. Again, factual history not told to foster a narrative; a divisive, destructive narrative not based in historical fact.

All of this is to say in this age of information overload, it is more imperative than ever to be judicious in one’s “taking sides,” or simply accepting a narrative because it seems to fit whatever side of the political as well as social aisle one sits on. Better to research the entirety of a given notion rather than simply accept what some talking head chooses to espouse.

The more a diverse population such as ours does that investigation, the more the truth will be revealed.

[1] This is where people decry “trickle down economics.” That particular phrase is not only incorrect, but wrong. The correct term is supply side economics. Watch the short video here.

[2] Revenue Act of 1964

[3] This is a rudimentary explanation but the thrust of it holds true.