Dear conservative friend:
There’s a few things I’d like to ask you about. Seriously. Just between us.
For example, fiscal matters. You say you’re worried about our federal budget deficit and our national debt. I’ll take you at your word. But where was that concern just a few years ago when your guys in Washington were voting for huge tax cuts that weren’t offset by corresponding spending cuts? Ditto with two wars, Medicare part D and the TARP bank bailout? It’s weird to me that it was only when Obama took office that charges of “socialism” began to leave your lips. In any case I’m not sure why you thought the auto bailout was a bad idea, as it seems to have worked. I’m not sure why you think the American Reinvestment Act was a bad idea–it seems to have saved us from a second Great Depression (even if it hasn’t spurred the kind of hiring and economic growth we need to fully recover). Besides, they were one-time, temporary expenditures. In the grand scheme of things they don’t really change our future debt outlook much. Not so with the Bush tax cuts or the unfunded Medicare expansion. Those were structural changes that exploded the deficit and, in the case of the tax cut, continues to do so far out into the future.
In my more cynical moments I suspect that you don’t really care about these fiscal issues at all, that you simply use them as a way to attack Democratic initiatives that you don’t like. Perhaps this isn’t true. But you’ll have to admit the record looks suspicious.
Maybe you can help me with some of my health care questions, too. Costs have risen so dramatically over the past few decades that we’re now paying more per capita on health care than any other nation on the planet–double what most other prosperous democracies pay. On top of that, tens of millions have no health insurance. Even those who do have insurance often find themselves financially ruined by one serious family illness. The president put forth a plan to cover everyone which was not only fully paid for, but was actually a plan invented by Republicans. Your response? Death panels! Socialism! Government takeover of healthcare! And not a single one of your congresscritters voted for it. Even the ones who previously supported the idea. Even the Republican who famously implemented the exact same plan in his home state of Massachusetts–the very Republican you’ve nominated to run against Obama–vows to repeal it. Why? Help me understand.
Speaking of Mitt Romney, could you explain why you nominated him? You claim to be interested in job creation, but his record as a job creator in Massachusetts is pretty poor. You claim to be interested in things like abortion, but prior to his current political aspirations he was staunchly pro-choice. You claim to be against gay rights, but he once said he was to the left of Ted Kennedy on such issues. You claim to be against Obamacare, but as I’ve mentioned, Romney’s only real claim to fame in politics is that he put an entire state under the same exact reforms. Some of you harbor fears that Obama isn’t a Christian (horror!), but Romney is a Mormon. You claim to hate elitism, but you nominate a Harvard-educated lawyer to run against…a Harvard-educated lawyer. You claim to be all about self-made men, but you nominated a guy who was born into wealth and power to run against a man who was raised decidedly middle class. And, while perhaps not an ideologue, Romney seems remarkably opportunistic and chameleon-like, even for a politician. You see something different?
I’m confused about your position on taxes, too. Top tax rates have gone steadily down over the course of my lifetime. They are now half what they were when I was born. (The tax burden on the rest of us has been lowered, too, although not by nearly as much.) During periods when taxes were higher (post-WWII, the 90s), the economy grew like crazy. I admit that it might not have done so because of higher taxes, but I think it certainly proves that raising the marginal tax rates of millionaires by a couple of percentage points isn’t going to turn America into the Mad Max-style economic hellscape like you sometimes claim it would do. It would really help that deficit you claim to be so worried about. And I think asking middle class earners, students, the disabled and the elderly to cut back might sting a little bit less if they also knew millionaires were giving a little, too. Why do you resist the raising of any additional revenue as part of a deficit reduction package? You not only resist any tax hikes, you want to cut them more. I’m not a mathematician, but your plan worries me. I hope you can understand why.
Fun fact: Romney paid income tax at a rate of 13% on an income of around $10 million. That’s lower than the rate I paid on an income of…somewhat less than his. Additional fun fact: Paul Ryan’s tax reforms would have Romney paying less than 1% on that same income. This seems good to you?
About the campaign. The lying is starting to get to me. Surely we can agree that the whole “Obama took the work requirements out of welfare” thing is grade-A bullshit, right? Between us? Because it obviously is. I’ll go further and say that it’s awfully dog-whistley and maybe racist besides. And the $716 billion dollar Medicare savings thing? The one your boys criticize Obama for even though they had the same thing in their own plans? The savings that are mischaracterized as benefit cuts that undermine the financial health of the program when actually the president is expanding benefits and has put the program on a more sound financial footing? That shit is too much. It’s so dishonest that fact-checkers are going to have to invent a new way to categorize it. Maybe they’ll have to resort to coming up behind the candidate and actually light his actual pants on actual fire just to express the depth of the mendacity on display here. I realize that campaigns of all political stripes have long histories of distorting reality. But they usually at least still maintain some tenuous relationship with it. Is this bugging you the way it’s bugging me?
Speaking of lying liars who lie, why Paul Ryan? I mean, I get that he gave the base a boner. But do you seriously think you’re going to win Florida with the “kill Medicare” guy on the ticket? Seriously? The way I understood it, Romney was polling poorly with minorities, young people and women. Really poorly. When older people are the only ones supporting you, it probably isn’t a good idea to fuck with Medicare. See what I’m getting at?
Look, I know that you’re not voting for Obama. There’s plenty of room for criticism there. Unemployment’s still too high. The economy isn’t growing fast enough. Maybe you just don’t like the man’s style, I don’t know. But your candidate is weak, his proposals are frightening and his campaign is deceitful. Surely you can do better.
Or maybe you’ll just have to resolve to do better in 2016. Zing!
XOXO Scott
Dear Conservative friends…
Scott’s right. The Republican Party is corrupt for all the reasons stated above. In fact, the Republican and Democratic Parties are pretty the same. Everyone loves big government, and wants to control your lives in some fashion. Sure, when an election comes around, both sides scream and yell at each other, and claim that the choices are stark and couldn’t be more clear… but I bet that once the winners take office, they all go back into a cozy room with a cigar and laugh their asses off that they fooled you again.
It’s boiled down to simple tribalism now. If my guy says it, it’s genius. If your guys says the same thing, he’s the devil. Neither party has a theory of government anymore. Neither wants to create a predictable, legal structure for people to live under. They both want to create systems of boards, and bureaucrats, and people who have to get paid to maybe make the decision that will let you do what you want… if it pleases them.
That is no way to live.
It is time to live free. Be Libertarian with Gary Johnson for just one election, and see what it’s really like to have a President with a theory of government that can help this nation move forward. If after four years you don’t like the result, you can always go back to the two bitter rival football teams and wear your red jersey or your blue jersey.
I will agree that money plays too big a role in government, making sure that the deepest pockets never go underserved. That’s true of both parties, although the Republicans seem to take special glee in it.
Still, I think there’s a real and meaningful difference between today’s Democratic and Republican parties. Democratic policy ideas tend to lean a bit more toward the middle class and poor rather than stone cold catering to the wealthiest lobbyists. Perhaps even more importantly, they don’t pander to religious zealots or anti-science know-nothings, enabling them to actually deal with issues of public health and the environment in a more realistic and sensible way. Also, they tend to be more fiscally responsible, actually making an attempt to balance the books with real math rather than engaging in fantasy economics. In short, they take the task of governing more seriously than today’s Republicans do.
@Nick I don’t think you can generalize and make a broad statement that both parties are the same. In some ways they are and in others they are most definitely not. I am a realist and am fully aware that Democrats are under the influence of corporate lobbyists and Wall Street, but they are definitely the lesser evil when it comes to the lives of the 99 percent. Had Al Gore been president, we would not have invaded Iraq, would not have gave irresponsible tax breaks to the richest of the rich, and the rest of the conservative dirty laundry list. We wouldn’t be in the mess we are in now. Conjecture, I know.
I think that’s a pretty fair assumption, Jeff. I bet we would still have had the banking and housing market collapse, might still have had the Great Recession, though. Even Democrats were keen on deregulation of Wall Street.
Bravo Nick. The rest of you are brainwashed twits. Scott, your rant proves your case. Democrats are just as slick and shady as the Repulicans, maybe even more slick, and you fall for it hook, line and sinker. You are a proud and vocal member of the tribalism Nick has described. Its why even though you may have an interesting point from time to time, its hard to take anything you say seriously, because over-all you appear more as a parrot than a free thinker. I am proud to be fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What label do you have for that? Where does that fit in to your broad generalizations that you have plagerized from the media? Been following your blog for about a year and am still waiting for you to open your eyes and come around. Its frustrating because I know you are smarter than this (or maybe I just hope so). Peace, love and God bless. PS – be proud and capitalize your name, I am so sick of seeing you belittle yourself, seriously, just between us.
fiscally conservative and socially liberal. What label do you have for that?
“Libertarian”? That wasn’t so hard.
Also, you have made it clear that I’m a wrong-thinking victim of the media, but you haven’t actually addressed a single point I raised above. Are there one or two things I’ve written that inspire such an insulting rant? Let’s hash them out. Glancing back over what I’ve written, I’m not inclined to walk any of it back. Do you think I should? Lay it on me.
My lowercase name has everything to do with a desire not to capitalize usernames–that and laziness–and nothing to do with my self-esteem. Besides, if it was good enough for e. e. cummings it’s good enough for me.
““Libertarian”? That wasn’t so hard. ”
Damn. You may be right. Ive been thinking that too. I fucking hate to label myself.
“Also, you have made it clear that I’m a wrong-thinking victim of the media, but you haven’t actually addressed a single point I raised above.”
There is no point to hashing out the specifics because the specifics are not the point. I keep waiting for you to go beyond liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat. Real people dont live in that polarized world. It annoys me you tend to side with and yes, often write nearly word for word, much of what is in the media. I expect you to call their bullshit out, not promote it. And for goodness sake if you really believe all that media shit…
“My lowercase name has everything to do with a desire not to capitalize usernames–that and laziness–and nothing to do with my self-esteem. Besides, if it was good enough for e. e. cummings it’s good enough for me”
I was thinking about what an asshole comment that was on my part after I wrote it and was chuckling (and hoping) that I would come back to find you had capitalized all the letters in your name. Your response was probably better.
I have given up thinking (a while ago) we will have a meaningful political conversation and that is truly why I have lashed out a few times of late. Because there was a time when we saw eye to eye on many things, I take your (in my view of course) insane positions personally. I guess it hurts to lose a friend and when I find them again discover they are still lost (personally, not politically for that one). As far as politics, you are of course not the only dedicated left-wing person out there and hell, I have plenty in my own family. You might be interested to see what it is like to eat dinner at the table of a Holocoust survivor and have guests at the table openly promote left-wing ideology! Go figure. People are nuts.
So, I promise (will try) not to chime in attempting to force your will anymore. Its not nice and out of character for me. Though for the record I think left-wing ideology is for fools, ignorance and power hungry men. Enough said.
I leave you with two bites of food for thought that sum up much of my politics:
16 trillion dollars is a ridiculous number. Not only is it immoral, it should be criminal.
The USA is the most radical right-winged country to ever exist.
It seems to me that you think you are wiser than people like me because you have, instead of taking ideological sides, transcended the entire argument of American politics. That you are, in your wisdom, far more cynical than naive dupes like myself. A pox on all houses, that’s the only shrewd and enlightened position.
And I think it’s a convenient and self-serving copout.
I see all too well what the fundamental problems in American politics are, especially the ones that affect all participants–even the ones I vote for. Actually, I’m surprised you think me such an unthinking follower after having read some of my more scathing critiques of the American political system. (See my post on how to make American elections better. Notice I didn’t simply say “elect more Democrats.”)
It’s also very weird that you accuse me of parroting “the media”–as if I had the remotest idea what “the media” is saying. I eschew almost all television, for one. I’m probably the most media-disconnected person you know.
Even odder that you want to lecture me about what it’s like to share a holiday table with a holocaust survivor. You’re joking, right? But it’s surely no odder than the fact that you think adding a left-wing ideologue to the mix is the height of irony–or something. I’m sure it made sense in your head before you wrote it, my friend. But it makes none to me.
Finally, don’t go! I welcome your comments at all times. I am always willing to engage. If you have something important to tell me, I’ll listen. And if I don’t understand it, I’ll ask for an explanation. Believe me, someone who writes a public blog like this one, for as many years as I have written it, cannot be thin-skinned about such things. I can take it! Really!
I wrote a couple of responses, but really, what’s the point?
I liked your recent post on the universe and the knowledge of mankind. It wasn’t that long ago people were convinced the world was flat and blood-letting was a good idea. American politics will have it’s day too. I hope the people will still be in a position to get what they want when the truth finds it’s way.
You got the cop-out comment backwards old friend.