One of my least favorite Republican "platforms" is being "anti-tax." Now, I'm not saying I *like* paying taxes. (However, I will own up to *believing* in paying taxes. I think a state should provide numerous benefits to its citizens, and I believe I have a duty to shoulder my fair burden of that. If they are being used well [*cough*bite me Cook County!*cough*], I have no real problem in paying for my services). But, I do think that we have a big, modern state - and taxes are a fact of life. I think Republicans - especially the wankers running for office - know this. It annoys me that they continue to use this as a viable platform for running for office, and that voters continue to lap this shit up.
I know TheFuckOffKid can give a good long speech about most tax reductions are really just tax shifts, moving the burden onto another social group (or to future tax payers) - but that's not my sole problem with being "anti-tax." My problem is that it's a sham. Republicans are not against taxes - they want the state to *do* stuff (like kill Muslims!). Really, the battle is over how large taxes are going to be, and what those taxes are going to be used for. Being "anti-tax" is just a vapid, fetish - it's not *at all* a policy position. I'd much rather discuss things that made fucking sense - like tax rates and distribution of those revenues.
I feel the same about discussions of "state's rights" (in the real, federalism sense - not the coded, racist sense). I'm actually a big fan of local control - but I'll gladly concede that there are certain policy initiatives that should be nationally handled. Further, I would argue that there are also local programs that require federal aid and/or coordination in order to thrive. Yet, we keep talking about "stripping down Washington." This is just fucking stupid. Institutional inertia, plus all the goodies that a large executive branch lets you hand out, is going to stop this. Again, what we're really talking about is how we shrink/expand/prioritize particular *elements* of the central state. That's a much more sophisticated way to talk about this agenda.
V.O. Key was a rocking, old school political scientist. And he argued, in response to a growing literature in the 1950s, that voters aren't *dumb.* They may seem dumb - but only because politicians treat them that way. Instead, he posited that the public is a bit like an echo chamber: whatever is put out there, is what comes back. Or, in neat computer science terms: it's GIGO baby. As elected officials spew crap in public and the newspapers, citizens lose any capacity to talk in sophisticated ways - b/c they don't have any good information (or getting the good info takes way too much work - and just isn't worth, given the value of an individual vote in the electoral system). Basically: Damn you empty ideological claims!
I know TheFuckOffKid can give a good long speech about most tax reductions are really just tax shifts, moving the burden onto another social group (or to future tax payers) - but that's not my sole problem with being "anti-tax." My problem is that it's a sham. Republicans are not against taxes - they want the state to *do* stuff (like kill Muslims!). Really, the battle is over how large taxes are going to be, and what those taxes are going to be used for. Being "anti-tax" is just a vapid, fetish - it's not *at all* a policy position. I'd much rather discuss things that made fucking sense - like tax rates and distribution of those revenues.
I feel the same about discussions of "state's rights" (in the real, federalism sense - not the coded, racist sense). I'm actually a big fan of local control - but I'll gladly concede that there are certain policy initiatives that should be nationally handled. Further, I would argue that there are also local programs that require federal aid and/or coordination in order to thrive. Yet, we keep talking about "stripping down Washington." This is just fucking stupid. Institutional inertia, plus all the goodies that a large executive branch lets you hand out, is going to stop this. Again, what we're really talking about is how we shrink/expand/prioritize particular *elements* of the central state. That's a much more sophisticated way to talk about this agenda.
V.O. Key was a rocking, old school political scientist. And he argued, in response to a growing literature in the 1950s, that voters aren't *dumb.* They may seem dumb - but only because politicians treat them that way. Instead, he posited that the public is a bit like an echo chamber: whatever is put out there, is what comes back. Or, in neat computer science terms: it's GIGO baby. As elected officials spew crap in public and the newspapers, citizens lose any capacity to talk in sophisticated ways - b/c they don't have any good information (or getting the good info takes way too much work - and just isn't worth, given the value of an individual vote in the electoral system). Basically: Damn you empty ideological claims!
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
Wow, there's a lot to talk about in this journal; unfortunately, I'll have to do it later.