The first thing that must be affirmed when discussing the issue of taxes - and of the tax rate on the wealthy - is that taxes are not only necessary but important to the economic health of this country. Vice President Joe Biden was derided when, in the lead-up to the 2008 election, he said that paying taxes is doing your 'patriotic duty.' Yet he was correct. While it can be argued that individuals don't get a full return from the government on their tax money (i.e. people paying in half a million dollars don't get half a million in benefits back), what can't be argued is that everyone gets something back in return for the money they send to the IRS.
Additionally, I firmly believe that corporate and personal tax loopholes should be closed. Much of the following discussion revolves around use of the word 'fair', and the main problem with loopholes is that they lead to an unfair playing field. They lead to a massive advantage for the wealthy - who can afford to pay someone to find and exploit the loopholes - and put the less advantaged - who can't - at a loss. This not only sends a horrible message to the middle class, it also leads to frustration and mistrust of the government. How can a government that claims to look out for the average middle-class family allow wealthy corporations and individuals to legally skirt the rules without any repercussion?
When it comes to tax increases, however, much of the talk from the left regarding tax increases involves constant use of the word 'fair'. We hear it every time the issue of raising taxes comes up, that the the wealthy need to pay their 'fair' share. What I have never heard from the left, however, is what they mean when they say 'fair.' One definition of the word is 'in accordance with rules.' I would argue that anyone paying in taxes what they legally owe is doing so in a 'fair' manner by that definition. Another definition is 'sufficient but not ample.' However, when it comes to the facts, the wealthy pay what is, by any standard, a sufficient amount. According to the Washington Examiner:
'As matters stand, the top 1 percent of
American households paid 39 percent of income taxes in 2009, according
to the most recent data compiled by the Congressional Budget Office, and
the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid 64 percent.
But income taxes, taken in isolation, do not
tell the whole story, because lower-income Americans do pay payroll
taxes. But even taking into account all forms of taxation, the top 1
percent still paid 22 percent of federal taxes while earning just 13.4
percent of household income. The top 5 percent paid 40 percent of all
federal taxes, despite earning only 26 percent of all income. No matter
how you slice the numbers, it's hard to understand why anyone would
think the wealthy aren't already shouldering a burden commensurate with
their blessings.'
This leads to a basic question: how is a system in which those who earn 13.4% of the income yet pay 22% of all taxes possibly fair, by any definition of the word? If we want to be truly fair, by the definition of the word, the governement would confiscate the income of every individual and spread distribute equally. Yet no one is proposing this solution.
As I see it, there are only two truly fair options. The first would be to implement a national tax rate that is the same regardless of income (a flat-tax). Everyone who receives a paycheck would pay, let's say, something along the lines of 14%. If you make $30,000 per year, $4,200 of it would go to the government. If you make $2.5 million, you'd owe $350,000 to the IRS on April 15th. Just as a mother, when dividing up dessert between her three kids, is almost certain to divide it into three equal parts - she doesn't consider who ate the most for breakfast or who wants more. In order to be fair, she makes things even.
The other fair taxation plan would be something akin to what is virtually universal in Europe, the Value Added Tax (VAT, basically a national sales tax). With a VAT, people pay taxes on what they spend, not on what they earn. Some argue that this system should replace the entire US tax system. In this way, the wealthy really will - assuming they spend like wealthy people - pay a higher percentage of the taxes. And like the system already mentioned, it's fair in the truest sense of the word in that it's even; the VAT doesn't effect different people based on their income level, just on their spending level.
When discussing an issue as contentious as this it's important to keep something in mind: on most topics (and this is one), there are facts and there are opinions. It is a fact that the government should try to get as much revenue as is reasonable via taxes (although it is an opinion about what 'reasonable' means). It is also a fact that in most cases, increases in taxes lead to a decrease in revenue. This is something Chris Christie has pointed out: New Jersey at one point 19 consecutive tax increases and 19 times, tax revenues decreased. When they lowered taxes, revenues increased. Again, this is a fact, not an opinion. The same is currently happening in Spain, where the government this year increased VAT and projected a revenue increase of 4.3%. Revenue actually decreased by 3.5%. Even under the administration of John. F. Kennedy, Secretary of the Treasury C. Douglas Dillon reduced taxes to increase tax revenue.
Therefore, the fact-based conclusion we can draw is that when a government is in financial crisis and needs as much revenue as possible, taxes should be lowered on all. Lower taxes equal higher revenue, which leads to a quicker end to any financial crisis.
One final note: I read constantly when individuals such as Warren Buffet clamor for a higher tax rate on themselves, who feel that they should pay more to the IRS. I'd like to remind these people that the tax rate they're in is the lowest amount required by the federal government. They are more than welcome to pay more - their checks won't be returned. As Gandhi once said, 'You must be the change you wish to see in the world.'
Friday, December 14, 2012
Friday, November 30, 2012
The Ideal Hypothetical Third Party Candidate
One of the major takeaways from the last election - when 14 million fewer people voted than in 2008 - is that many American people are seemingly disenfranchised with the way both parties are being run. As voters, we receive one chance every four years to express our voice, and when 14 million people who expressed that voice four years ago choose to waive their option to vote, it speaks volumes.
This led me to start thinking of what an ideal third party should look like, one that would engage the moderate members of both parties as well as speak to independent voters. It's clear that in many cases it's the far left and right wings of the Democratic and Republican parties that have co-opted the message of the center and are skewing the message that the people want to hear. Thus, an ideal hypothetical third party candidate (IHTPC) would be centrist and should contain the following ideals:
1) Gay Marriage/ Marijuana:
Like it or not, these issues are ones that are not going away in national politics any time soon and if anything, they will just get larger. I combine them here because they are similar in that the national opinion on them is shifting from the right to the left and because both involve state's rights issues that are consistently put on local ballots throughout the country.
I think that an IHTPC should take a position of neutrality and let voters in individual states decide the law (or for the issue of gay marriage, take the Ron Paul stance and get government out of marriage entirely by simply changing the word that the government use to 'civil union' and allowing churches to use 'marriage'. It's a somewhat radical view but one that is at least logical). Most voters, except for those passionately for or against gay marriage or marijuana, can at least appreciate when someone puts the issue in the hands of the voters and stands by whatever the people decide, regardless of their own beliefs. In fact, this is a strategy used by one of most successful young politicians in the country, Gavin Newsom, current Lieutenant Governor of California. During his time as mayor of San Francisco, Newsom - a staunch Roman Catholic - simply set aside his personal beliefs and did what he thought was appropriate for those who voted him into office.
The same can be said about the legalization of marijuana (not counting medical marijuana, which is a much less controversial issue). I even think that for some, the only thing more disturbing about the passing of the legalization of marijuana laws in various states is the idea that the federal government and the DEA can (and, no doubt, will) immediately shut down any places within the states selling marijuana and arresting the owners as violators of Federal law. The smartest stance that an IHTPC can take is to get the Federal government out of the marijuana issue and let individual states decide.
2) Taxes/Spending:
Much like the first item on the list, these two issues are so intertwined that they are easily lumped together.
The current talk dominating the news involves the 'Fiscal Cliff'' that the nation is rapidly approaching, which is odd because anyone who takes a serious look at the numbers knows that the 'Fiscal Cliff'' has been around for a long time and it's only entering national discourse now. The solution proposed by the White House and the Democrats in Congress is to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 per year while the Republican plan is to keep taxes the way they are and cut spending - without naming which cuts they would make - and closing loopholes.
Our ideal candidate should actually borrow much of their stances on these issues from The Tea Party. While some view the Tea Party as radical or right-wing, what they propose is lowering taxes across the board while cutting government spending at the same rate, if not higher. Anyone who honestly looks at the size and scale of the Federal government will instantly tell you that it's in drastic need of cutting.
A great place to start the cutting is the defense budget (most think of entitlement programs as the ones in need of cutting first, and while that's true, the amount spent on entitlement programs is tiny compared to the defense budget). Logically, one would think that this would be done automatically, that defense cuts would go hand-in-hand with a reduction in US troops abroad. Logic is something that Washington does poorly, however, demonstrated by the fact that many are calling for an increase in defense spending that this time (of course, should a terrorist attack against the US happen again, any politician who advocated trimming the defense budget would be an instant pariah).
And as to the issue of taxes, something often forgotten is that in many cases, lower taxes lead to an increase in tax revenue. This is due to something called the Laffer Curve, and it's been proven time and time again, nationally in the 1920s and 1960s and most recently in states like Wisconsin and New Jersey, where governors, wanting to add money to their state's coffers, decreased taxes. It's a concept that is contradictory to our instincts and that might be hard to explain to some, and the IHTPC should be able to articulate the need to hold tax rates steady - if not lower them - in order for the government to receive more money. Also, the IHTPC should advocate that tax loopholes be closed immediately. The existence of loopholes not only create a strong unbalance in the free market, they also make the average American highly resentful of the companies for using them and of the government for allowing them.
3) Foreign Policy:
I think that a lot of level-headed people look at the President's foreign policy and agree with much of what he's done, and an IHTPC looking to carry a national election would do much of the same. There have been significant troop drawbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden is dead, and the US has recently reasserted Israel's right to defend itself in the light of recent attacks in Gaza. The president could be ripe for criticism for his decision to keep Guantanamo Bay open after promising to close it during his campaign in 2008, but it's likely a decision that has kept the American people more safe. The IHTPC should do the same.
The only major difference between what President Obama has done and what the IHTPC could do is to reduce the amount of foreign aid across the board. While most recognize the necessary of this aid, there's a growing national consciousness of the amount of money spent on other countries while there are so many pressing financial issues domestically.
5) Immigration
The final issue that was key in deciding the last election and it's an issue that is growing with every election cycle.
Much like the above issue of Foreign Policy, I think the IHTPC should follow much - but certainly not all - of the President's policies. While most on the right look at the President's immigration policy (and specifically the DREAM Act) with disdain, what they probably don't realize is that the current administration is cracking down on illegal immigration at record rates thanks to the Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Secure Communities Program, created in 2008, which calls for police to submit suspects' fingerprints to the DHS so they can be cross-checked with federal deportation orders. This has led to the deportation of up to 10,000 people to day. As for the DREAM Act, while not perfect I think most look at as a reasonable piece of legislation that attempts to address the question of what to do with the children of illegal immigrants.
However, there are two areas in which the IHTPC should differentiate from the current administration. The first would be to support legislation similar to Arizona SB 1070, the controversial law that was signed into law in 2010 and that had elements of limited by the Supreme Court in 2012 (if not supported on a national level, the IHTPC should least support the rights of individual states to pass their own legislation). For those thinking that SB 1070 was in some ways radical, keep in mind that 1)When the legislation was first proposed in Arizona, the law had 70% support in the state at a time when 70% of people can't agree on anything politically, and 2) Being asked to see your documents when stopped by the police shouldn't be thought of as radical - it's something we do all the time. People can't get a book from a library without proving who they are so why shouldn't we all do the same when stopped by the police?
Additionally, when it comes to legal immigration we are currently a nation that welcomes around 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year. We do so even when the unemployment rate is over 9%. The IHTPC should propose a policy saying that we will significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants brought in until the unemployment rates drops to something less than 6%. This would protect both the jobs of US Citizens and immigrants already here at the same time.
Finally, something gone under the radar under the current administration is that, for virtually the entire history of the country, immigrants applying for visas had to prove their economic stability, had to demonstrate that could stand on their feet financially upon entering the country (a sensible policy). However, this requirement has been hued to the point that individuals looking to come to the US are now eligible to apply for Federal Aide immediately. This is a policy that the IHTPC should look to end immediately.
This led me to start thinking of what an ideal third party should look like, one that would engage the moderate members of both parties as well as speak to independent voters. It's clear that in many cases it's the far left and right wings of the Democratic and Republican parties that have co-opted the message of the center and are skewing the message that the people want to hear. Thus, an ideal hypothetical third party candidate (IHTPC) would be centrist and should contain the following ideals:
1) Gay Marriage/ Marijuana:
Like it or not, these issues are ones that are not going away in national politics any time soon and if anything, they will just get larger. I combine them here because they are similar in that the national opinion on them is shifting from the right to the left and because both involve state's rights issues that are consistently put on local ballots throughout the country.
I think that an IHTPC should take a position of neutrality and let voters in individual states decide the law (or for the issue of gay marriage, take the Ron Paul stance and get government out of marriage entirely by simply changing the word that the government use to 'civil union' and allowing churches to use 'marriage'. It's a somewhat radical view but one that is at least logical). Most voters, except for those passionately for or against gay marriage or marijuana, can at least appreciate when someone puts the issue in the hands of the voters and stands by whatever the people decide, regardless of their own beliefs. In fact, this is a strategy used by one of most successful young politicians in the country, Gavin Newsom, current Lieutenant Governor of California. During his time as mayor of San Francisco, Newsom - a staunch Roman Catholic - simply set aside his personal beliefs and did what he thought was appropriate for those who voted him into office.
The same can be said about the legalization of marijuana (not counting medical marijuana, which is a much less controversial issue). I even think that for some, the only thing more disturbing about the passing of the legalization of marijuana laws in various states is the idea that the federal government and the DEA can (and, no doubt, will) immediately shut down any places within the states selling marijuana and arresting the owners as violators of Federal law. The smartest stance that an IHTPC can take is to get the Federal government out of the marijuana issue and let individual states decide.
2) Taxes/Spending:
Much like the first item on the list, these two issues are so intertwined that they are easily lumped together.
The current talk dominating the news involves the 'Fiscal Cliff'' that the nation is rapidly approaching, which is odd because anyone who takes a serious look at the numbers knows that the 'Fiscal Cliff'' has been around for a long time and it's only entering national discourse now. The solution proposed by the White House and the Democrats in Congress is to raise taxes on those making over $250,000 per year while the Republican plan is to keep taxes the way they are and cut spending - without naming which cuts they would make - and closing loopholes.
Our ideal candidate should actually borrow much of their stances on these issues from The Tea Party. While some view the Tea Party as radical or right-wing, what they propose is lowering taxes across the board while cutting government spending at the same rate, if not higher. Anyone who honestly looks at the size and scale of the Federal government will instantly tell you that it's in drastic need of cutting.
A great place to start the cutting is the defense budget (most think of entitlement programs as the ones in need of cutting first, and while that's true, the amount spent on entitlement programs is tiny compared to the defense budget). Logically, one would think that this would be done automatically, that defense cuts would go hand-in-hand with a reduction in US troops abroad. Logic is something that Washington does poorly, however, demonstrated by the fact that many are calling for an increase in defense spending that this time (of course, should a terrorist attack against the US happen again, any politician who advocated trimming the defense budget would be an instant pariah).
And as to the issue of taxes, something often forgotten is that in many cases, lower taxes lead to an increase in tax revenue. This is due to something called the Laffer Curve, and it's been proven time and time again, nationally in the 1920s and 1960s and most recently in states like Wisconsin and New Jersey, where governors, wanting to add money to their state's coffers, decreased taxes. It's a concept that is contradictory to our instincts and that might be hard to explain to some, and the IHTPC should be able to articulate the need to hold tax rates steady - if not lower them - in order for the government to receive more money. Also, the IHTPC should advocate that tax loopholes be closed immediately. The existence of loopholes not only create a strong unbalance in the free market, they also make the average American highly resentful of the companies for using them and of the government for allowing them.
3) Foreign Policy:
I think that a lot of level-headed people look at the President's foreign policy and agree with much of what he's done, and an IHTPC looking to carry a national election would do much of the same. There have been significant troop drawbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden is dead, and the US has recently reasserted Israel's right to defend itself in the light of recent attacks in Gaza. The president could be ripe for criticism for his decision to keep Guantanamo Bay open after promising to close it during his campaign in 2008, but it's likely a decision that has kept the American people more safe. The IHTPC should do the same.
The only major difference between what President Obama has done and what the IHTPC could do is to reduce the amount of foreign aid across the board. While most recognize the necessary of this aid, there's a growing national consciousness of the amount of money spent on other countries while there are so many pressing financial issues domestically.
5) Immigration
The final issue that was key in deciding the last election and it's an issue that is growing with every election cycle.
Much like the above issue of Foreign Policy, I think the IHTPC should follow much - but certainly not all - of the President's policies. While most on the right look at the President's immigration policy (and specifically the DREAM Act) with disdain, what they probably don't realize is that the current administration is cracking down on illegal immigration at record rates thanks to the Department of Homeland (DHS) Security Secure Communities Program, created in 2008, which calls for police to submit suspects' fingerprints to the DHS so they can be cross-checked with federal deportation orders. This has led to the deportation of up to 10,000 people to day. As for the DREAM Act, while not perfect I think most look at as a reasonable piece of legislation that attempts to address the question of what to do with the children of illegal immigrants.
However, there are two areas in which the IHTPC should differentiate from the current administration. The first would be to support legislation similar to Arizona SB 1070, the controversial law that was signed into law in 2010 and that had elements of limited by the Supreme Court in 2012 (if not supported on a national level, the IHTPC should least support the rights of individual states to pass their own legislation). For those thinking that SB 1070 was in some ways radical, keep in mind that 1)When the legislation was first proposed in Arizona, the law had 70% support in the state at a time when 70% of people can't agree on anything politically, and 2) Being asked to see your documents when stopped by the police shouldn't be thought of as radical - it's something we do all the time. People can't get a book from a library without proving who they are so why shouldn't we all do the same when stopped by the police?
Additionally, when it comes to legal immigration we are currently a nation that welcomes around 1,000,000 legal immigrants per year. We do so even when the unemployment rate is over 9%. The IHTPC should propose a policy saying that we will significantly reduce the number of legal immigrants brought in until the unemployment rates drops to something less than 6%. This would protect both the jobs of US Citizens and immigrants already here at the same time.
Finally, something gone under the radar under the current administration is that, for virtually the entire history of the country, immigrants applying for visas had to prove their economic stability, had to demonstrate that could stand on their feet financially upon entering the country (a sensible policy). However, this requirement has been hued to the point that individuals looking to come to the US are now eligible to apply for Federal Aide immediately. This is a policy that the IHTPC should look to end immediately.
Monday, November 12, 2012
How the Right Got It Wrong
Following the behind-the-woodshed mauling that the Democratic party gave to the Republican party last Tuesday night, many on the Right have wondered how things went so poorly for the GOP. It was just two years ago that they were swept into office across the nation - especially in the House of Representatives - with a euphoria they assumed would only continue to this presidential election, when many figured that President Obama would be summarily swept out of office, the Democratic party swept out of the Senate, and the Republican party would be firmly entrenched for decades to come.
Then Tuesday happened.
Many on the Right, like Peggy Noonan, Fred Barnes, and Dick Morris, had the exact opposite of their predictions come to life. They figured that the teeming crowds who enthusiastically greeted Governor Romney everywhere - while the President was met with much less enthusiasm than what greeted him four years ago - meant that the nation, as a whole, was ready for change. Wow, were they wrong. There are a number of reason why but posted below are some under-the-radar mistakes that doomed the GOP.
1) The rape comments made by Republicans Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
I don't want to rehash what was said by these two but these comments resonated in a major way on the national stage.
While all political parties have a huge banner under which their candidates and members fall, from the extremes to the moderates, they all have one thing in common: the letter, either R or D, after their names. Therefore, all candidates on all levels, should they choose to not run as an independent, are really representative of their entire party. Any outlandish comments made by someone with these letters after the name can and often do resonate nationally, as the Republicans found out in this election.
Following the comments made by Akin and Mourdock, Republicans everywhere were put on the defensive. Rather than being able to focus on their own issues and their own campaigns, they were all forced to discuss statements made by people who they have zero connection with except the letter R following their names. Many heard those statements and immediately looked at Governor Romney, and it actually became a campaign issue for him. Additionally, those statements no doubt resonated with independent voters, as they gave every Republican in every place a bad name.
Additionally, can you think of something crazy said by any Democrat running anywhere in these elections that caused the level of (well-deserved) furor made by Akin and Mourdock? No. It's an example of how the Democratic party got a huge leg-up not because of anything it did but because of something it didn't do.
2) A Lack of Willingness to Accept Accountability.
Before the election I kept waiting to see an advertisement which showed President Obama and the Democratic party making promises up to the 2008 election and then showing how he and they had reneged on those same promises, one which would show him making a similar error to the first President Bush and his infamous 'Read my lips: no new taxes' line that doomed him in 1992. There are several examples of this, especially on big issues like unemployment and economic growth, and my personal favorite was when he promised to post any bill online for five days before signing it so the public could all read it, then passed his health care law on a Saturday in a very clandestine manner. One could even include Nancy Pelosi saying that we need to pass the bill in order to know what's in it.
The only reason I can think as to why we never saw these types of advertisements is because politicians and their parties are afraid that if they hold the mirror up to another candidate, they open the door for the other candidate to hold the mirror up to them at a later point. There seems to be some sort of tacit consent between the parties wherein they agree not to take certain steps in criticizing the other. It's similar to the 'Mutually Assured Destruction' idea that kept the world from nuclear armageddon during the Cold War: should one party start attacking the lies of the other when it comes to broken promises, they will open the door to being attacked themselves.
What this leads to is no one willing to have a Harry Truman, 'The Buck Stops Here' moment, and it seems that at this time in America, people want someone to stand up and at least be willing to be responsible for something, to not blame someone else for their own shortcomings. This was a perfect opportunity for the Republican party - and Governor Romney in particular - to stand up and welcome scorn, tell the American people that should they fail to live up to their promises they will shoulder the burden and should be kicked out of office. The fact that they was unwilling to do so helped in their downfall.
3) Lack of Clear Direction
Of all the things that I believe irradiated independent voters in the recent election cycle, especially when it comes to Governor Romney, was his lack of a clear plan on numerous issues, especially regarding the economy and spending. As an example of the latter, look to how he repeated time and again the need to get government spending under control yet was open to increasing, of all things, military spending. Most Americans, I assume, would think that the defense budget is the one most in need of trimming.
Stop for a second and consider what most prominent issues facing Americans right now and think of the Republican's position on said issues. They talked about cutting spending while also speaking about the aforementioned increase in the military budget. Governor Romney talked about job creation while repeatedly stating his credentials as a job creator - specifics were lacking. At least Paul Ryan had a plan for Medicare but that was swept away from the national consciousness despite it's effectiveness (it was also ignored quickly because it didn't start having an impact until 2025, which may as well be 3025 in today's culture).
Instead, what Republicans did was say 'Hey, look what the Democrats did. At least we're not them!' This policy clearly failed. As the old saying goes, 'The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know,' and in this case it's clear that the American voters went with the know entity because the Republican party never truly allowed themselves to be know.
4) Hypocrisy in Their Message
Finally, the message that I heard often from the mouths of various GOP candidates this fall is the famous Ronald Reagan quote, 'Are you better off today than you were four years ago?' While this statement is meant to be a sign that the Democratic party has been screwing up the nation since 2008, look deeper at what is actually being said.
What this message implies is that, if you're not better now than you were four years ago, its because of the government, that the government can do something to help you. I'd argue that this statement implies an over-reliance on the government - most people, if they aren't better now than they were in 2008, should look at themselves first and not to any officials. This actually files in the face of the supposed core of the Republican platform, that of lesser government and more personal independence. I think independent voters saw this hypocrisy and rejected the platform outright.
Finally, a little note to those really giddy or upset by the election. On so many key issues, there was no difference between our two presidential candidates. If you were looking for true change, either on the Left or the Right, neither candidate was for you.
Then Tuesday happened.
Many on the Right, like Peggy Noonan, Fred Barnes, and Dick Morris, had the exact opposite of their predictions come to life. They figured that the teeming crowds who enthusiastically greeted Governor Romney everywhere - while the President was met with much less enthusiasm than what greeted him four years ago - meant that the nation, as a whole, was ready for change. Wow, were they wrong. There are a number of reason why but posted below are some under-the-radar mistakes that doomed the GOP.
1) The rape comments made by Republicans Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock.
I don't want to rehash what was said by these two but these comments resonated in a major way on the national stage.
While all political parties have a huge banner under which their candidates and members fall, from the extremes to the moderates, they all have one thing in common: the letter, either R or D, after their names. Therefore, all candidates on all levels, should they choose to not run as an independent, are really representative of their entire party. Any outlandish comments made by someone with these letters after the name can and often do resonate nationally, as the Republicans found out in this election.
Following the comments made by Akin and Mourdock, Republicans everywhere were put on the defensive. Rather than being able to focus on their own issues and their own campaigns, they were all forced to discuss statements made by people who they have zero connection with except the letter R following their names. Many heard those statements and immediately looked at Governor Romney, and it actually became a campaign issue for him. Additionally, those statements no doubt resonated with independent voters, as they gave every Republican in every place a bad name.
Additionally, can you think of something crazy said by any Democrat running anywhere in these elections that caused the level of (well-deserved) furor made by Akin and Mourdock? No. It's an example of how the Democratic party got a huge leg-up not because of anything it did but because of something it didn't do.
2) A Lack of Willingness to Accept Accountability.
Before the election I kept waiting to see an advertisement which showed President Obama and the Democratic party making promises up to the 2008 election and then showing how he and they had reneged on those same promises, one which would show him making a similar error to the first President Bush and his infamous 'Read my lips: no new taxes' line that doomed him in 1992. There are several examples of this, especially on big issues like unemployment and economic growth, and my personal favorite was when he promised to post any bill online for five days before signing it so the public could all read it, then passed his health care law on a Saturday in a very clandestine manner. One could even include Nancy Pelosi saying that we need to pass the bill in order to know what's in it.
The only reason I can think as to why we never saw these types of advertisements is because politicians and their parties are afraid that if they hold the mirror up to another candidate, they open the door for the other candidate to hold the mirror up to them at a later point. There seems to be some sort of tacit consent between the parties wherein they agree not to take certain steps in criticizing the other. It's similar to the 'Mutually Assured Destruction' idea that kept the world from nuclear armageddon during the Cold War: should one party start attacking the lies of the other when it comes to broken promises, they will open the door to being attacked themselves.
What this leads to is no one willing to have a Harry Truman, 'The Buck Stops Here' moment, and it seems that at this time in America, people want someone to stand up and at least be willing to be responsible for something, to not blame someone else for their own shortcomings. This was a perfect opportunity for the Republican party - and Governor Romney in particular - to stand up and welcome scorn, tell the American people that should they fail to live up to their promises they will shoulder the burden and should be kicked out of office. The fact that they was unwilling to do so helped in their downfall.
3) Lack of Clear Direction
Of all the things that I believe irradiated independent voters in the recent election cycle, especially when it comes to Governor Romney, was his lack of a clear plan on numerous issues, especially regarding the economy and spending. As an example of the latter, look to how he repeated time and again the need to get government spending under control yet was open to increasing, of all things, military spending. Most Americans, I assume, would think that the defense budget is the one most in need of trimming.
Stop for a second and consider what most prominent issues facing Americans right now and think of the Republican's position on said issues. They talked about cutting spending while also speaking about the aforementioned increase in the military budget. Governor Romney talked about job creation while repeatedly stating his credentials as a job creator - specifics were lacking. At least Paul Ryan had a plan for Medicare but that was swept away from the national consciousness despite it's effectiveness (it was also ignored quickly because it didn't start having an impact until 2025, which may as well be 3025 in today's culture).
Instead, what Republicans did was say 'Hey, look what the Democrats did. At least we're not them!' This policy clearly failed. As the old saying goes, 'The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know,' and in this case it's clear that the American voters went with the know entity because the Republican party never truly allowed themselves to be know.
4) Hypocrisy in Their Message
Finally, the message that I heard often from the mouths of various GOP candidates this fall is the famous Ronald Reagan quote, 'Are you better off today than you were four years ago?' While this statement is meant to be a sign that the Democratic party has been screwing up the nation since 2008, look deeper at what is actually being said.
What this message implies is that, if you're not better now than you were four years ago, its because of the government, that the government can do something to help you. I'd argue that this statement implies an over-reliance on the government - most people, if they aren't better now than they were in 2008, should look at themselves first and not to any officials. This actually files in the face of the supposed core of the Republican platform, that of lesser government and more personal independence. I think independent voters saw this hypocrisy and rejected the platform outright.
Finally, a little note to those really giddy or upset by the election. On so many key issues, there was no difference between our two presidential candidates. If you were looking for true change, either on the Left or the Right, neither candidate was for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)