A lot of times in political discourse it feels like neither party is speaking the same language, because there seems to be no real communication going on. Individuals of different political persuasions seem to talk past each other, unable to even agree on the most basic of concepts. I believe that the primary reason we have such a vast communicative disconnect is that many of the basic concepts and policy areas at the hearts of political debates can be viewed from so many different angles. For example, depending on your background and ideological bent, the word government regulation can evoke completely opposite emotions and thought processes. If you are an individual who feels that the government has mistreated them, the idea of more government regulation will likely feel wrong, whereas a person who depends upon government assistance will understand a very different connotation. This fundamental chasm of connotation and meaning is central to the bloodthirsty nature of modern political discourse. Instead of free exchange of ideas, we have shouting matches of stock phrases; instead of political parties coalesced around a collection of ideas, we have warring clans. When the very words of the debate have divergent meanings for each party, we can have no dialogue, just two simultaneous soliloquies.
It's amazing how two different definitions of a concept can coexist that agree in most situations, but diverge greatly in policy matters. I think that an individual's conception of what "the economy" is shapes their opinion on how to fix it. The economy is an interesting concept: everyone agrees that it is broken, everyone agrees that unemployment has run rampant, and everyone agrees that we cannot afford to continue at our current rate of entitlement spending, but there is almost no agreement on what to do. I think this is because conservatives primarily view the economy as business while liberals primarily view the economy as labor. The two concepts frequently overlap - usually what's good for business is also good for labor, and vice versa. (As Mitt Romney put it, "What's good for the goose is good for the gander.") For instance, when businesses see increased profits, they can expand revenues, hire more workers, develop new technologies, etc. This is all great news for labor, because there are more available jobs, likely higher wages, lower prices for consumers, etc. This is great for the government too, because it expands the tax base (by creating new jobs, thereby creating new taxpayers), and adds directly to revenue by increasing the taxable revenue of the business and the income of the owners. So in many cases, pro-business policies translate to the greatest good for the masses. This is the conservative thinker's solution to the economic crisis: all we have to do is spur on growth, and the deficit problem will be eradicated through a broader tax base and increased private-sector profits. They argue that taxes are merely taking money out of the hands of investors who would use that money to accelerate growth, thus taxes are anti-growth, in the mind of a conservative. (I've never understood exactly where they think the tax money goes... does it magically just disappear into the IRS?)
Liberals understand the economy very differently. They see the millions of unemployed and know the economy is broken without having to glance at GDP growth or stock indexes. It is not simply a game of numbers, where we need to get the nation into the black, it is a game of human lives and suffering. The losers in the competitive market game are not seen as drains on society, but rather as victims of a systemic illness. All throughout this crisis, we have seen the profits of large corporations and banks rise, while real human damage is being done all across America. The unemployed and the dispossessed are giving up, while the upper class is widening the income gap. I see this as a fundamental failure of pro-growth economics, it fails to take into account the real human pain that occurs when programs and spending are cut, even if growth occurs. Think about what is more important: if you have a job, or if you have food. I understand that food assistance programs and subsidized housing have a negative effect on our economy, but the economy simply does not matter that much. To me, the health of the economy is never more important than the health of the citizenry, and this includes the most impoverished among us. It is not ethical to argue that the destructive nature of the capitalist system we have in place is counterbalanced by the increased profits of businesses. We must consider policy in terms of its human impact, not solely in terms of its economic impact.
This brings me to my fundamental point. Conservatives argue about strategies to improve the economy, and they mean strategies to help businesses, which invariably results in making the rich richer. What we need to consider instead are strategies to eradicate homelessness, ensure that every man, woman, and child has enough to eat every day, promise our elderly that they will always have social security, and provide jobs to our legions of unemployed, regardless of the economic impact. If a policy would hurt oil profits in the name of providing prison beds, I'm all for it. If big pharmaceutical companies lose profits so that new road construction can start, so be it. The wealth of the nation does not always correspond to the wealth of its inhabitants. All I'm saying is to look past the numbers and look at the people. You may have the most efficient plan to balance the federal government (although I don't believe their pro-growth policies will amend the deep imbalances inherent to the system), but the effect it has on the people of the nation is not mere collateral damage. Cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are not "savings," but are tragic losses to many people. These are life or death matters to the people who need these government programs, not a question of profits or losses. It's pretty hard to care about the debt crisis if your family is starving, isn't it?
No comments:
Post a Comment