The Arizona Republic
Letter to the Editor
Parker Anderson's letter published April 21st is classic liberalism. In it, he assails conservatives as people who despise poor people. He says that conservatives who are against the minimum wage increase (quadrennial liberal election year hoopla) are motivated out of selfish "greed." He accuses conservatives of passing judgement on those "less fortunate." This is liberal class warfare rhetoric in its purest form. In fact, Anderson is probably well aware that raising the minimum wage a dollar will not have any significant effect on the standard of living of poor people. If it would, why not rase the minimum wage to fifteen dollars and take care of poverty once and for all? Such logic belies any knowledge of economics.
In order to say those bombastic words, liberals have to either believe them, (and some who don't understand economics, do) or derive their livelihood directly or indirectly from the liberal "advocacy business." Few liberals successful in the advocacy business really believe the rhetoric because to survive in the advocacy business you must be smart enough to understand something of human nature and economics. It is impossible to possess such insight and still really believe Anderson's ridiculous assertions. Simply put, such advocates (like Ted Kennedy) would suffer economically and politically if there were fewer poor people, as they know there would be if conservative philosophy flourished unimpeded. I therefore suggest that Mr. Anderson somehow profits from advocacy for people who are poor.
Most conservatives I know, (including myself) once were poor. Many still are, but realize that any real prospect of significant financial betterment does not exist with a "handout mentality." When I worked for minimum wage, it was sixty-five cents per hour. Rather than fight for a minimum wage increase, I sought to improve my skills to the point where I could command a better salary. After all, new car was $1,600. Things have not changed since then. Raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars per hour and a new car will simply be proportionally priced. The ones hurt the most are not the "evil conservative capitalists", but people on fixed incomes who can not then afford the increased prices which result on goods and services. This is good for the advocacy business though, and the reason for this lies in economic principles unrelated to Anderson's rhetoric about conservative selfishness and conspiracies to repress the poor--but--he knows this, he is just playing the "advocacy" game.