Example #1: Economic policy (specifically, government spending).
A few months ago Jonathan Chait, for whom writing about the liberal and conservative movements isn't so much an obsession as a way of life, debunked pretty much the entire conservative economic model. Conservatives, he noted, have been pretty blind in their faith that tax cuts will force the government to cut spending (the so-called "starve the beast" theory). Of course, he notes, conservative dogma just doesn't match reality:
Conservatives have a number of analogies to explain why tax cuts will lead to spending restraint: Cut your child’s allowance. Starve the beast. But the analogies are all wrong. The child has a credit card. The beast has a private meat locker. Washington can spend whatever it wants, regardless of how much it taxes.Chait cites a study by the Cato Institute (a conservative-leading think tank!) that shows that government spending goes up when taxes get cut, not the other way around. This study, predictably, was ignored by conservatives, for whom tax cuts are more of a religious belief (or a quick way of lining one's pockets) than a serious policy proposal.
But the obvious failure of tax cuts to restrain spending - and the fact that Republicans have been on a spending bonanza - has given Democrats an opportunity. Are we going to take Republicans to task for letting spending spiral out of control? Are we going to be the ones to argue for fiscal restraint - which means higher taxes, yes, but also lower spending?
I'm afraid we might not. And I'm afraid that we might pass up this golden opportunity because we allowed conservatives to define the terms of debate.
Conservatives have long been fond of saying that liberals see government spending as the solution to any problem. But that just isn't true - or it shouldn't be. There's plenty of spending that liberals shouldn't have any problem cutting - pork projects, corporate welfare, farm subsidies that hurt the Third World, expensive useless helicopters. But because conservatives have spent so long droning that "liberalism = government spending," we have an unfortunate tendency to wail and scream and gnash our teeth whenever we hear the words "spending cuts."
The reality is that liberal programs, like Head Start, the NEA, or housing assistance, are just about the cheapest things our government buys. We should absolutely continue to support these programs - but that's not inconsistent with the idea of slashing overall spending. Most of the budget is going into either the entitlement system, defense, or interest on the debt. Spending restraint is just as important as tax hikes for slaying the deficit and restoring fiscal balance to this country.
But if we let conservatives tell us what we think, they win. If we kick and scream against "spending cuts" because we think that's what liberalism's all about, we've given conservatives a free pass to wreck the government's finances.
Conservative economic policy has never been brilliant, but it's looking weaker than it has in 80 years. As veteran liberal political analyst Bruce Reed puts it, conservative's tax cuts, wild spending, and cronyism have "indenture[d] the country to ideological interest groups and borrowing from the Chinese." This is liberals' moment, should we choose to take it.
But I'm afraid we won't. Chait and Reed, who are some of the most well-reasoned liberal thinkers out there today, are both scorned and derided by the Daily Kos, America's flagship "liberal" blog.
As the Texans say, this ain't no good. In my next post, I'll mention some other examples of how conservatives have forced liberals to adopt terminology and positions that don't fit with the goals of the liberal movement. Freedom of the mind starts with freedom of the vocabulary.
0 comments:
Post a Comment