| (Don't ask about the title ...)
Steve T. offered some impressive insight into a post down below:
This has become a debate over vision, and the Center-Left and the Left can only seem to argue about which side is helping the Republicans more. Of course this has become a personal pissing match. And it'll keep happening until people decide to stop being such assholes.
His conclusion is truly unhelpful and way off base. Personally, I see it as those who stand against the GOoPers and those who stand against those who stand against the GOoPers. My opinion is as one who has not failed to stand against the GOoPers. But his observation about vision is pretty much spot on. We can argue more about the conclusion in the future.
Regardless of that, in case you, the reader, might have missed it there was a bit of a dust up in the Montana online left recently. The ignition point was an op-ed by Jon Tester in which he called for rational cuts in government spending. James Conner asked a rational question that went unanswered in the sturm und drang which ensued.
What does cutting spending responsibly mean? Exactly what gets cut, why, and by how much?
That is a fine question. James answers it himself almost immediately:
I think spending cuts will weaken the economy.
Fair enough. But is that actually accurate? James jumps into the argument of rhetoric, that even agreeing that cuts need to be made is somehow a capitulation, a crime. To JC, that was apparently 'a given'. After the compromise of last Friday night, many are supporting that position as if their view of the rhetoric is truly reality. Ezra Klein seems to agree. Even discussing cuts leads to more austerity. And austerity is bad.
That is the assumption there. That austerity is a blanket bad. Far from being merely rhetorical, that sets the opposition among the left, an opposition that the wingnuts will take full advantage of. I would contend, with some certitude, that the rhetorical counterpoint is one we've been spoon-fed since the Reagan years, that of the "tax and spend" liberal. Should any think I'm incorrect then I would point out that they haven't read a single comment in the Montana online newspapers or any comment from Eric Coobs in the last 6 years. "Austerity" is not a talking point to these people; it's a goddamned religion. So, as Steve T. would have us, leave the rhetoric behind and just deal with our own source of disagreement.
It seems there are two camps. The first is what I personally call the "Atrios camp". They believe that at a point of fiscal crisis all spending is good spending. Let's pay people to shovel dirt out of a hole just to pay others to fill it in. If any wish to focus that just a touch, then all employment spending is good spending. they hearken to Krugman as if that gives their argument weight beyond the rational consideration it deserves. There's a helluva lot to recommend that, for Keynesian economists. If you want the counter, then search up some of Budge's posts elsewhere.
Then there is what I now call the "Booman camp". There are cases in which cutting spending is completely rational and worth doing. When arguing with JC, I brought up the most obvious, one that many of us have been arguing for a decade now. Cutting military spending for our nation building is a goofy duh-now thing. Booman brings up other great points, but I would like to offer a few of my favored, which come from Jon Tester, and of course my own non-liberal brain.
I am calling for a commission to see what overseas military bases we can afford to close.
Why do we have battalions of armor in Germany? Why do we have unfavored battalions in South Korea? Why do we have airfields share in England? Why do we have a nuclear mission in Great Falls, Montana? These things make no sense. But, to any who believe that all spending is good, they do make sense. The military is now a jobs program, something I've been claiming for decades and now am told I shouldn't point out lest it be just harmful to our economy, just as the right have been telling me for decades. Imagine my debilitating disappointment.
In truth, this argument of lefties isn't about the military. We all have blindspots. But it should be clear that I am in the "Booman camp". Not all spending is good spending. So, I refuse to subscribe to an obvious ideology just because agreement is demanded else derision ensue. That is likely the only disagreement I have with Steve T.'s critique. This really isn't about who enables the right more. It might really be about who wants to do the right thing, and we don't agree what that is, though the consequence might be comparable. It isn't just about vision. It's about a moral plan to get us to where we want to go. Spend more that we may be healthy. Cut spending where it make sense that we may be healthy. Removing the personal investment, are those really that much in disagreement? |
