|
|
|
Jewish World Review Jan. 5, 2011 / 29 Teves, 5771 Showdown at the Fiscal Corral By Arnold Ahlert
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
If truth be told, there are very few "monumental moments" in the history of governance. We're at one of them right now. While the details of the moment are somewhat complicated, the big picture is not: we are either at the beginning of dismantling of our socialist/marxist welfare state, or we are at the end of American exceptionalism. We already know how the Democrat party plans to counter every sound fiscal argument Republicans will make: by labeling any and every attempt to reduce government spending as "extremist." Why? Because emotionalism is their stock in trade, and it works very well — which is why Republicans must fight the budget battle at this level as well.
First, let's begin with where we are, not where we'd like to be. Republicans must realize that a public school system controlled for decades by unions and their Democrat Party enablers has produced legions of Americans who not only feel instead of think, but are also largely lacking even the most fundamental understanding of economics. That means, to a large degree, even the most basic concepts of economic reasoning, will be met with blank stares and emotional indifference. They must realize that such terms as "debt ceiling," "quantitative easing," or even the difference between government debts and government deficits do not resonate with a substantial portion of the electorate. As I have learned from personal experience, if I want to write a column which generates little or no interest, something about economics — with some mind-numbing statistics thrown in — is a guaranteed snore.
How do you connect emotion to economics as successfully as Democrats do? By tossing away the stats and the pie charts and explaining what fourteen trillion dollar of national debt really represents: multi-generational stealing. Parents literally taking that which belongs to their children and grandchildren and squandering it on themselves. And here's where Republicans can use one of the Democrat party's favorite words against them.
What does one call people who have been ripped off to the point where their entire futures may be compromised?
Victims.
Of course in a better world, the tawdriness of such emotional manipulation would be seen for what it truly is. But we are long past the point in this country where Republicans can continue to automatically cede the emotional argument to a Democrat party which has no hesitation whatsoever in exploiting human emotion by any means necessary. Democrats understand that putting one "helpless" American in front of a TV camera is worth ten thousand intellectual arguments. They understand that the face of one ostensibly broken human being more than compensates for the thousands of faceless Americans who have been truly broken by the colossal failures of the socialist welfare state. They understand that the emotionalism of a given moment more than balances any need for intellectual consistency.
How unnecessary is intellectual consistency when one is a dedicated progressive? Here's a couple of quotes that should give you an idea. The first one is by Austan Goolsbee, the Obama administration's chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, speaking about the need to raise the debt ceiling, which would allow a government already drowning in debt to borrow even more money:
"Well, look, it pains me that we would even be talking about this. This is not a game. You know, the debt ceiling is not something to toy with. If we hit the debt ceiling, that's essentially defaulting on our obligations, which is totally unprecedented in American history. The impact on the economy would be catastrophic. That would be a worse financial economic crisis than anything we saw in 2008."
The counter-argument to that statement? Try this:
"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can't pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that 'the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
The author of that quote? The Double-talker-in-Chief, president Barack Obama, who in 2006, voted against raising the debt limit then — along with every other member of his party in the Senate.
Note what Goolsbee is selling above all else: fear. It is precisely the same fear, aka "never let a crisis go to waste," that has animated every socialist/marxist move this administration has made since it assumed the reigns of power. Several nationalizations and almost one trillion dollars of stimulus money later, we have seen the irresponsible spending by the Bush administration, catastrophic in its own right, dwarfed by a progressive movement determined to prove their ideological bona fides, even if it means destroying the nation in the process. That they can do this, even as the European model they long to emulate is self-destructing before their eyes — to the point where some European nations are confiscating their citizens' retirement funds — is the ultimate testament to an arrogance that knows no boundaries. An arrogance whose central thesis bears repeating: socialism only fails when the wrong people are in charge.
The emotional argument the Republicans should make to counter such arrogance is simple: capitalism can not only thrive, but prosper without a scintilla of socialism in the mix, and it can do so exactly within the Constitutional limits that allow for federal spending as specifically stated in the document itself. Socialism without capitalism? A system that runs on "other people's money" is unsustainable — and has been, throughout the course of history.
And spare me the comparisons with any "success" story Europe. It's easy to be "successful" when the burden of defending one's country can be sloughed off to an American military that has led every single attempt to keep the world from the clutches of those who would crush a European continent left to its own defense. That, above all else, is the greatest contributing factor to their socialist ambitions. And despite being relieved of such an enormous and important burden, they are floundering nonetheless.
They are floundering not only because socialism needs other people's money to survive, but because when individual incentive is destroyed, the only thing left is coercion. It is a coercion that requires massive amounts of government regulation and micro-managing in order to keep people in line. It is a system which, by definition, relegates individual ambition and achievement subservient to the needs of the state, which is why such a system requires massive amounts of revenue to keep it afloat: it must not only care for everyone's needs, but necessitates an army of bureaucrats to make sure those needs are being met. By force, if necessary
For far too long, Republicans have been reticent to engage in emotional arguments to make their case. As I said earlier it would be nice if they didn't have to, but a substantial portion of the population has grown quite comfortable with empty slogans like "social justice," "speaking truth to power," "evil corporations," and a host of others designed to do one thing: convince Americans that the greatest country in the world must abandon the very economic system that has made it the envy of the world.
What both political parties have done with regard to irresponsible spending is criminal. One party wants to "go straight." The other will not be content until every American is equally miserable — with the exception of a ruling class which must administer that misery "fairly."
Here's how Republicans should handle the "extremist" label Democrats and their media shills will try to hang on them. Over and over again they must ask the electorate a simple question: which is the more extremist position, to cut spending, exactly like millions of Americans must do when they run out of money — or to run the country, and perhaps the entire world, into bankruptcy to satisfy the demands of an equally bankrupt ideology?
If there's a debt ceiling, my fellow Americans, that means there's also a spending floor. Lower the floor, Republicans, even if it means fighting emotional fire with emotional fire.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Comment on JWR Contributor Arnold Ahlert's column, by clicking here.
© 2010, Arnold Ahlert |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||||
