They may orate on the Judeo-Christian ideal of brotherhood that makes every man his brother's keeper, but then wallow in envy and covetousness. In short, they are political Jekylls and Hydes with quasi-schizophrenic phases of kindness and cruelty. There is much disagreement among the Jekylls and Hydes of politics. They disagree on their concern for the needy as well as their anger against the wealthy. One may prefer an allocation of funds to elderly members of society rather than to the younger poor and needy, or he may opt for more aid for higher education, or for infant health care rather than for foreign aid.
All candidates promise their constituents bigger slices of the transfer pie.
Some may want to extract the necessary means from corporations, other from wealthy individuals, while yet others may prefer deficit spending. No matter how furious and derisive the debate, all interventionists are really kindred souls in philosophy and policy. Few critics challenge them on ideological and moral grounds. Most objectors who raise their voices against a particular transfer scheme give purely economic reasons. In fact, the empty-pocket argument cannot ring true in view of so much private and public wealth and conspicuous consumption.