China's Rise Is Inevitable -- So Deal With It

Forbes Magazine ^ | 6-28-02 | Mark Lewis

[AIG]

Sure, moral principles are absolute. They're absolute by definition or else they wouldn't be moral "principles." That's not the issue here. The issue here is that those moral principles guided the Founders in constructing America's system of government which calls for elections as the means to decide important issues of the day. I merely pointed out that economics is often the most important issue in any election. What's wrong with you just admitting this? Can't you both acknowledge moral principles and the fact that economics is often the most important issue in moral principle-inspired elections simultaneously? Economics dictates how Americans live on a daily basis and often determines their happiness. Most Americans hope to achieve the "American Dream," which in most cases means "hitting the jackpot" in one way or another. Most importantly, US Presidential elections often come down to the question, "How are you (the American people) doing economically?" As we speak, Republicans are worried about losing the House because of the economic issue of corporate scandals and the lousy stock market performance. These are simple fact you seem unable to comprehend, but even any teenager knows that Bush Sr. lost because he neglected the economy.

[AIG]

Most Americans acknowledge moral principles, but they also acknowledge America's electoral system. The electoral system is not perfect but it's the system America has, for good reason. They don't say that merely because someone acknowledges that electoral decisions don't go one's way that acknowledging the reality of the electoral system and and that economics plays a big role makes one a "moral relativist."