I don’t remember exactly when “Tomorrow is canceled due to
lack of interest” first appeared but I think it was on a bulletin board at a
women’s college. In any case it seems to me to be perfectly relevant at the
moment, especially when it comes to our current political scene. Tomorrow might
as well be canceled as the possibility of anything much happening is about
non-existent. With President Obama and
the Democrats taking the position they will not accept anything that does not
include an increase in revenue, and the Republicans maintaining the position
they will not under any circumstances agree to increased revenue, there would
seem to be little point in any further non-negotiations. This seems to be an
unprecedented situation.
It has always been the case, as far as I know, that the two
parties have disagreed over taxes and spending. Republicans have always claimed
to be the party of smaller government and fewer taxes (even though they have
not always followed this claim). It is understandable such disagreements have
always existed. But there has never before, to my knowledge, been a situation
in which one party has completely refused to negotiate at all and taken such an
absolutist position as, “no increase in revenue, period.” I fail to understand
how this can be tolerated as it is the equivalent of saying “we are not going
to participate in governing.” That is to say, government, if it is to exist at
all, has to be funded somehow. Raising and lowering revenue is an integral and
necessary part of governing. Thus to say we are not going to either raise or
lower taxes is the functional equivalent of saying we are not going to govern.
This is not simply a disagreement over how much or how little the population
should be taxed, it is saying taxation is not something that should even be
discussed. I fail to see how this can be tolerated, especially in a large
industrialized society that can only exist and function if it has sufficient
revenue. I suppose Republicans could argue the current revenue is enough and
should not be raised, but as this is clearly not the case it is a facetious
argument.
It is true we have a larger than desirable national debt,
but the obsession with the debt as the major (if not only) problem is itself
the major problem. The debt can only be overcome, paradoxically enough, by
adding at the moment a little more debt. That is, we need to borrow a bit more
money at the moment (at about the lowest rates in history) in order to put more
people to work in order to acquire enough money through taxes to solve the
problem. We know this works as it has been successfully done in the past, and
we know that austerity does not work as that, too, has been amply demonstrated,
both in the past and currently in Europe.
While I am not at all
certain of this I think that perhaps much of the problem lies in the concept of
“human costs.” Democrats (and “Liberals”) are interested in the human costs of
such and such. This can be seen, for example, in the ad featuring Chris Hayes
where he speaks of the human cost of people not having health insurance. I have
the sense that “human cost” is not a relevant concept in Republican circles. I
do not see how it can be salient for them when you consider their positions on
such things as unemployment insurance, food stamps, unions, minimum wages,
Planned Parenthood, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and any other forms
of aid for the needy. You cannot hold such positions if you have any sense
whatsoever of human costs. As President Obama, Democrats in general, and other
“liberals” believe in the concept of human costs, and Republicans in general are
apparently unconcerned about them, it is unlikely there will ever be a meeting
of the minds about such things. I think Obama and others are unable to
understand that Republicans, in fact, are simply not concerned about human
costs, and thus the attempts to reach out to them will inevitably fail. You can
see this failure to be concerned about human costs when it comes to immigration
reform, gun control, health care, and so-called “entitlements.” I guess you
might say Republicans are not truly monsters who are willingly engaged in
savaging the working poor, they are simply ignorant people who have no
understanding of the problems of such people. We might hope they may come to
such an understanding but that does not seem to be on their agenda. It is a
curious situation, to say the least, when half the population seems to have
empathy and understanding and the other half has none (and doesn’t seem to want
any).
A man who thinks he has a higher purpose can do terrible things, even to those he professes to love.
No comments:
Post a Comment