The Grand Illusion
Both the Democrats and the Republicans continue to spend more money than the government takes in.
The Republicans say that they want to cut spending, but only on programs that benefit the poor and working classes, while cutting taxes paid by well-off Americans, and allowing programs that benefit business and the rich to continue uncut, while the Democrats continue to press for expanding social programs they can’t fund, except through deficits.
When somewhere around 23% of this year’s federal spending requires running a deficit, neither political party is behaving rationally, but then, we all know that the term “responsible politician” is an oxymoron.
But why are politicians unwilling to face up to the problem?
The answer is simple. Any politician who goes anywhere close to telling unpleasant factual truths quickly gets attacked and voted out of office. Of, if they’re “fortunate,” like Nikki Haley, when she pointed out that both political parties were responsible for inflation and excessive spending, they’re simply ignored.
But it’s worse than that. In today’s political climate, politicians who tell, time after time, popular political and economic falsehoods get rewarded by a public that also doesn’t want to hear unpleasant truths.
You can’t have lower taxes and all the programs people have come to rely upon without running a deficit or increasing taxes. You can’t have an all-volunteer military without paying them more. You won’t get better teachers with higher standards unless you pay them more. You can’t have less expensive consumer goods without offshoring or automating production of those goods, and either way reduces industrial jobs in the U.S. You can’t keep producing more college graduates, when the economy requires only half the number of graduates, without increasing the debt-loads of the graduates who can’t get higher paid jobs. You can’t keep increasing income inequality in the United States without creating more and more anger and resentment.
But no one wants to hear any of this, least of all the majority of politicians, all of whom insist that they’re not like that.
Progressive politicians are always asked “but how would we pay for that”, so they are used to having to cost their plans. This doesn’t work out in their favor in the usual ‘horse race’ style of reporting running up to elections.
When politicians like Elisabeth Warren do come up with complete plans on how to afford their policies without raising the deficit,they are called ‘policy wonks’ and ‘unelectable because they have no charisma’ – then they, and their policies, get ignored while almost all the attention is concentrated on the more flamboyant politicians, who give great soundbites and create controversies.
Then lo and behold, the politicians who get called ‘policy wonks’ and ignored, fail to get enough traction to reach the head of the pack.
Neither the people from any of the billionaire-owned news sources, nor the opponents of such politicians with well-researched and solidly costed plans will get into a discussion of the details and effects of their proposed policies.
That is seen by the newspeople as ‘uninteresting’ to all those people who’se lives would be affected, by the news owners as a threat to their profits (even if it’s only a 4 cent tax on every dollar you make *after the first million*, not even on that first million); and the opponents know they can’t win on a discussion of the contents, but can seem to win on baseless and rarely challenged soundbites.
As with advertising, it matters how much and how positively people have seen or heard of something, when theymake choices based on how they feel – and a lot of voters do choose that way, if they don’t automatically vote for their party line.
If policy wonks are constantly cut off and denigrated, in favor of flamboyant personalities who squabble or cause outrage, then it’s no surprise you get mostly the latter kind from an election.
Hanneke, very well said!
Democracy is tough to manage in the best case, because everyone ends up partly satisfied, partly dissatisfied.
And although people have more information now about what’s going on than ever before in history, it doesn’t result in a more informed electorate.
In the 21st century United States, half the people don’t vote. And more than half of the people that do vote, do so on the basis of sound bites.
It says something about the very nature of humans.
As one European politician famously observed during the Euro crisis of 2010, “It’s not that no one knows what needs to be done. What no one has figured out is how to be re-elected once we’ve done it.”
To quote H.L. Mencken from 100 years ago, “The best thing about democracy is that it ensures the people get the government they deserve – and deserve to get good and hard.”
Is it any wonder that autocracy is seen as more and more attractive a form of government, particularly by younger people? At least that is what recent surveys are showing. Hopefully, I won’t live to see that come to fruition!