Our featured Presidential candidate for today is John Cox, a Republican.
"John who?" you're probably asking. That's what went through my mind when I saw his name on a candidate compatibility survey. Incidentally, I've gotten a variety of results on these surveys. One matched me with McCain (what?!), another with Huckabee (better), and another with Duncan Hunter (fine, that makes me as conservative as Ann Coulter, but, alas, he doesn't stand a chance).
So who is John Cox? According to the wikipedia article, he is a "United States lawyer, accountant, businessman, broadcaster, and aspiring politician." An article about him in the Weekly Standard calls him a millionaire (see The Sane Fringe Candidate). According to the article, he has a rags to riches story. He was born "poor on Chicago's South Side to a mother who was raped by a father who split shortly thereafter (he points to his very existence as the reason he's adamantly against abortion)[.]" He put himself through college in two and a half years, after which he started and bought several successful businesses.
The highest government position he has ever held was on a board of education. He's been barred from most debates because he doesn't have much support, but he has participated in a few debates and forums (such as the Value Voters Debate, in which Phyllis Schlafly, Donald Wildmon, and Paul Weyrich asked probing questions). According to the Weekly Standard article, he "won a straw poll in South Carolina, and got more votes in other straw polls than many of the better-known candidates." And he boasts about a letter of praise that he got from Arthur Laffer, one of the founders of supply-side economics (who once explained it on a napkin).
Why am I writing about him? For one, I try to cover as many candidates as possible. This guy has spent a lot of time in Iowa, and he has also appeared in debates and forums (however few their number), so I feel that he deserves some coverage, at least for the audience of James' Thoughts and Musings (which includes James' family, friends, some colleagues, and whoever happens to stumble on the blog while doing a Google search). Second, I like what he says on his web site, for he explains why government often makes matters worse. He could go into more detail, but he does a better job than a lot of conservatives I have read.
Essentially, Cox argues that government "solutions" are mere band aids rather than actual cures. According to Cox, poor and middle-income people cannot afford various goods and services because the price is too high (go figure!), so having the government pay for them doesn't address the underlying problem. And government plays a role in high prices. Sugar supports escalate the price of sugar. When government tax policy favors some industries over others (usually for political purposes), competition is restricted, which means higher prices. When the government gives money to students for higher education (and I am one of those beneficiaries, since I've needed to pay for my education somehow), the result is greater demand than supply, which leads to higher tuition rates (Cox wants to increase the supply of education, but he doesn't specify how). And Cox lists factors that inhibit competition in the field of health care:
"Health care is rising so much in price because there is huge demand and not enough competition or supply. Tort lawyers drive doctors, insurance companies and hospitals out of business or into the practice of defensive medicine. Doctors tell nurses they can't compete in certain procedures or services; hospitals tell clinics and other hospitals they cannot compete in certain areas; states tell insurance companies and other providers of insurance they cannot compete across state lines or in certain markets." I wonder how much the government backs this restriction of competition.
Cox is clear that legal enforcement mechanisms are necessary to punish fraud and abuse, so he's not for giving businesses a free ride. He criticizes over-regulation, but he believes in common-sense rules. And regarding one of the most pressing issues of today, the current housing crisis, Cox states the following:
"The current housing and financial crisis is another example of a failure of enforcement. The solution is to enforce standards of credit, standards of investment review and the prosecution of fraud. What are not necessary are government bailouts of imprudent investors, consumers or banks. The markets have already self-corrected; most of the executives responsible for supervising these markets have lost their jobs; many imprudent loan processors and originators are out of business or merged out of a job."
I'm not sure if I agree with Cox totally on this, since I'm uncomfortable with telling the victims "tough luck." But I hope he's right about the loan sharks going out of business. Not only do they deserve it, but their downfall would also attest to the justice of the free market. Free and informed consumers will not be fooled.
One more thing to add: Cox is a compassionate conservative. I don't mean by this that he is a "conservative" who supports big government policies, but that he has compassion for the poor. According to the wikipedia article:
"Cox created a chapter of Rebuilding Together, a nationwide charitable organization that is dedicated to renovating homes for low-income, elderly, and disabled persons and families with children. Seeing the need for the program in his community, Cox recruited a board and formed the 'Christmas in April' North Suburban Chicago Chapter. He has served on the boards of charities such as the American Cancer Society, Boy's Hope/Girls Hope, and United Charities."
Cox is concerned for the poor, and he has used some of his own money to help them. But, as liberals point out when they dismiss the sufficiency of private charities, there are systemic problems. For Cox, the biggest of them is big government.
So will I vote for Cox? I'm not even sure if he'll be on my ballot, and I probably won't write him in. But he is a good teacher, for he effectively explains how the solution to many problems is not more government, but a recognition of the principles of supply and demand.