As a bonus, there is quote from Irving Kristol:
"I was not certain of its economic merits but quickly saw its political possibilities."Translation: It may not work in practice, but it's election gold.
Photo credit: islandwoo.tumbler.com
Update 7/26/12. I want refer to this post so frequently that I can't leave it as mostly a link. I have to say what the Two Santas are:
- Santa Dem brings all the children lots of government services.
- Santa GOP brings all the children tax cuts.
- Both Santas blow huge holes in the federal budget. Fundamentally, they aren't that different.
Now that you know the core of Two Santa theory, I still recommend reading the original column. It's short, readable, and more fun than ... um, two Santas.
18 comments:
Well, DUH!
As you so frequently and effectively point out, MP, both political parties and just about all candidates try to win by promising positives and blaming their opponent for negatives. Stuff we like is positive, stuff we don't like is negative.
Could any candidate win promising less stuff costing us more? Of course not. Now you can't even suggest anything that might impact anybody negatively or you'll pay a price. It's the main burden of a democracy: demagogery works.
If Romney beats Obama, you can expect that we'll have at least a generation of ridiculous pander and two-Santas for every election for every office in the land. Say what you will, at least Obama is willing to put vegetables on the table -- tax increases on those who can afford it and a "balanced approach". Romney would win by just offering goodies: cut taxes on everyone (especially the rich) and cut unspecified wasteful spending, which they will never do.
I'm disgusted by the politics today but at least Obama is still trying to be an adult in addressing the problems. He's tried to change the tone. But the GOP won't let him with incessant attacks on everything. If they can win a national election that way, I quit.
I hear Ottawa is very nice.
@Anon,
Watch the language. Don't insult me or the readers. Of course I knew what the GOP and Dems offer. I just didn't know about this perfect metaphor. Have you heard it before? I still think it's a great anecdote.
As for your other points, I hope the people with the best fiscal plan win, but I'm probably going to be disappointed because Romney will be coy about his plan.
If he runs on a Tea Party platform, he should lose. But that doesn't mean Obama deserves to win. I don't see Obama as a thorough adult in this either. At a lot of junctures when he could choose the smaller approach, he doesn't.
Let's see how the campaigns play out. I don't see this year as a repeat of 2010 0r 2011, with the Republicans doing nothing but attacking. I think they might try looking 'reasonable' though I don't know what legislation they have to bolster this. Nothing so far and nothing on the horizon.
By the way, I had a friend who had a hard time emigrating to Canada. Are you sure it's an option?
MP,
You are quite right that this is a very good way to envisage an unfortunate aspect of our politics that may, in fact, have become an essential element thereto. But in this, as in so much else, we should not really blame the politicians. They are just trying to get elected, and to be fair that means they are just trying to give the people what the people want. The fault is not in our leaders, but in our electorate.
I happened on a very good column by Rannesh Ponnuru the other day. He was criticizing Tom Friedman on one of Friedman's periodic musing about a third party. Friedman has, of course, long been pressing for a policy of fiscal responsibility -- meaning increasing taxes and decreasing services. As Ponnuru pointed out, there is a very good reason that politicians have not managed to accomplish that -- and it isn't primarily because of obstructive Republicans or spendthrift Democrats. It is because the people, including most of the population that can be reasonably described as moderate, have made clear that they will not support any such thing. Oh sure, increase the taxes of someone else (especially if they are someone else I don't know or interact with). Sure, cut the services of someone else (ditto). But true reform, meaning that a very large percentage of the population would pay more taxes and a very large percentage would also see cuts in services? Woe betide the legislator who brings THAT up at a town hall.
So, until more people are willing to at least live with such an outcome, there is very little to be done. Obama is not a complete adult in this, you are right. But given the realities of our politics he cannot be expected to be. Romney will be coy, but given the realities of our politics he has very little choice.
I'm not sure that I agree that Obama has been as spendthrift as you seem to believe. The fact is that we have serious systemic problems that will only yield to systemic solutions, and those are bound to be very difficult and very expensive. Piecemeal tinkering at the edges would not help much, and would likely end up making things worse in the long run (that is, after all, what got us the tax, healthcare, education, housing, budget, immigration, criminal justice,income inequality, social deterioration, infrastructure and regulatory crises we now decry daily). Nevertheless, I will agree that his basic proclivities are not those of a budget hawk. If you really, really feel that the budget deficit is all that important, Obama is not the man to please you.
I agree that Romney should not win as the Tea Party candidate. But "should" and "victory" have no necessary correlation in American politics, unfortunately. Irving Stone once famously said that the American voter tends to pick the better candidate for President with the same regularity as does a tossed coin. I don't think Romney will align himself firmly and clearly with the Tea Party, but if the economy deteriorates he might easily win even while doing so.
You are quite right that immigration to Canada or Australia is not easy. The best way to do it is to have a job already in hand before arriving. Otherwise you need to be under forty, in good health, and have quite a bit of money in the bank.
Anonymous,
Don't kid yourself - Soaking the rich has always been a favorite populist theme. It's not surprising that Democrats should rediscover it in time for the election.
@Couves, While I agree with what you say about soaking the rich, investors have managed to wangle an amazing benefit for themselves--very favorable tax treatment for capital gains and dividends.
I remember the arguments for this favorable treatment when they were considered. They sounded plausible, but they don't anymore. This special treatment hasn't built a stronger economy, and I support taxes all types of income equally.
MP, I am in complete agreement with you on the cap gains / dividends tax argument. The public was sold a bill of goods to support it, and it has become the biggest loophole and give-away to people who make a living off of their money.
I can see indexing how much one would pay a lower rate on these kinds of earnings, so that a regular middle-class family doesn't pay their marginal rate on the little non-earned income they generate. If you recall, that was the argument for, essentially, a flat tax on investment income. But the joke was on the vast majority of Americans as the wealthy simply reassigned most of their income class to this lower rate (e.g., Romney) to reduce their tax bill. That was the plan all along. (Another word for this kind of scheme is a "hustle".)
I'd like to push back on the "we, the voters, are to blame". I agree that sacrifice is a dirtly word now in politics. But we don't get honest discourse in politics now because it only take one side to refuse to be an adult to force the other side to do so as well. To go back to the original post: One Santa forces Two Santas. Perhaps the public will choose a Santa over a parent every time. But with the sophistication of messaging these days -- and relentless hammering of any politician who suggests that what we want isn't cost free -- can and does convince the most logical, open-minded moderate out there. A clever politician will just lie convincingly. How do you beat that?
Anonymous,
I understand what you are saying, and politicians are in no way blameless. Nevertheless, I still maintain the fault is not one original to them, but to the American people -- indeed, to people in general. You are right that when one side acts badly and gets away with it, the other side feels that it has no choice but to reply in kind. But who is to blame for allowing the first side to act badly to start with?
There is probably some systemic problem coming into play here, as well. We often hear that the American system is too non-majoritarian with too many veto points. That is, I think, in general quite true. However, the basic input of the people into the system works quite well, i.e. the ability of the electorate to wreak their vengeance on office holders who annoy them. This comes about due to the fact that Americans are ALWAYS voting. Given the multiple levels of government and the short length of terms, the American people are always registering their preferences with the political system.
As Matt Glassman has pointed out, this makes the J-curve very deadly for American politicians. This is the curve you see when a policy imposes short-term pain for long-term benefit. Long-before the short-term pain is over, the voters will flood to the polls and punish the politicians who caused it. Ironically, the politicians they vote in will then often get the credit for the long-term benefit, thus getting to have their cake and eat it too by opposing the policy and then taking reward for its eventual good outcomes. Given that very predictable outcome, why would any sensible politician vote to inflict short term-pain/long-term gain on the electorate?
Other systems, which have a flatter governmental structure and less frequent elections, can better ride out the down-slope of the J-curve. The British people are enduring austerity for many reasons, but they have the systemic advantage of a flat, simple legislative structure that can postpone any and all parliamentary elections for five years, thus allowing the members to ride out the wave. American Congressmen and Women cannot endure the downslope without being punished, nor can members of state legislatures or local councils, nor can the corresponding executive branches.
It is easy to criticize American politicians as craven, because they are craven. But really, should we expect them to martyr themselves for policies just because such policies would be good for the country. As Glassman points out, what policies would you (the generic you) be willing to lose your job for, especially given that your chances of getting a similar job would be nil? What policies, however worthwhile and beneficial for the country, are worth more to you than your career? I think it is mildly amazing that politicians are willing to make that tough choice even on the rare occasion that they do.
MP - Short of massive spending cuts, taxes must go up for everyone. Any politician who tells us we can just solve this problem by only increasing taxes on the rich is lying. On the other hand, conservatives need to realize that massive spending cuts would only be politically palatable if they're accompanied by an increase in taxes on the rich. While Obama has proposed cuts, they're nowhere near enough to keep us out of trouble. I don't think it's being too cynical to say that the current talk of tax increases is primarily motivated by the upcoming election.
Anastasios - You're being far too forgiving for our lawmakers. If they're not willing to make the tough choices then they need to find a different "career." Job preservation has to be one of the worst excuses for poor performance.
Couves,
Sure, it's a bad thing that politicians are so craven. If you don't want to be easy on them, by all means don't be. But politicians are craven because people are craven. If you are of certain religious inclinations a good case can be made for this as an aspect of Original Sin. It would be nicer if people could be expected to put the right thing over their own selfish interests. The USA in particular would be find it much easier to deal with its myriad foundational and systemic dysfunctions if people could put aside their mean-spirited selfishness for the public good. But in all my years I have rarely seen anyone do that, and I don't think it's realistic to expect that they will.
@Couves, I agree with most of what you say, but I differ on a few points.
1. I don't think Obama is talking about raising taxes only because of this election, since he talked about the %250K boundary in 2008.
2. While I agree that politicians should be and are responsible for what they say, ultimate responsible lies with the electorate. We have plenty of chances to pick someone else--in primaries, general elections, and reelections, but we don't. It doesn't matter if we have 10% honest politicians or 50%. If the electorate regularly chooses the craven, dishonest ones over honest ones who tell the difficult truth, that's what we'll have.
@MP If this was one of Obama's election pledges, then I must have missed it. Either way, Obama's newfound lefty populism is clearly part of an electoral strategy... some quick googling tells me that I'm not the only person to notice this. It's just another part of the strategy to turn out the base.
Regarding #2, I completely agree! I was only pointing out the first step towards good government, which is to demand it. But you're right, the most crucial step is to actually VOTE for it! Too many people never make it to that second step.
@Anastasios The Founding Founders assumed that our leaders (and voters) would always be driven by self interest -- yet they believed that the proper institutions can use that self interest to motivate politicians to serve justice and the common good.
To my view, the current institutions most likely to mold political action towards those ends are being formed by the "liberty Republicans" who support Ron Paul. They're making the “unreasonable” demands that we follow the Constitution, balance the budget and leave the middle east. Their influence is limited so far, but there are a growing number of politicians who see it as advantageous to their careers (ie, their self interest) to align themselves with these ideas to varying degrees. Orin Hatch is a recent example of this -- one day he was saying that he “despised” libertarians within the GOP and the next day he felt compelled to effuse about how great Ron Paul is. Now that example has nothing to do with policymaking, but it does show us how the institutional pressure of one group (Ron Paul Republicans) can cause a politician to go against his or her natural inclinations. But even more importantly, it can motivate the true believers to actually run for office, with the knowledge that it's possible to make a career in American politics as a libertarian.
Couves,
Sure, the Founders tried to channel private interests to public ends. In some ways they succeeded. In other ways they, and the Constitution they wrote, we're dismal failures. But that is OK, for they did not by-and-large idealize themselves, and expected to be forgotten and discarded one day. And of course they will be. In time the Constitution, which is a useful but flawed document and not Holy Scripture to be fervently preached much less literally obeyed, will be torn up and discarded. Any attempt to enforce it as such a sacred text only hastens the day of its abandonment. And that is also OK. All constitutions fail, and all countries fall. The Founders expected the republic to fall and be replaced in two or three hundred years. They were probably too pessimistic, but insistence on rigid adherence to the letter of the Constitution will only prove them correct.
Anastasios,
Perhaps we will someday lose all of our freedoms and our Republic. I count that as something to be dreaded and fought against. Thankfully, there are many on all points of the political spectrum who still view any violations of our freedom as a threat to the whole.
Couves,
Don't confuse freedom with the republic or the Constitution. These are very different things, and have no necessary connections to each other. Freedom can easily exist without the republic, and the republic can exist under many different constitutional arrangements. The question is what is best for a given set of people in a given historical situation. If a situation arises where a constitution no longer functions, you tear it up and start again, literally or in essence. It happened in 1787, and very nearly happened in 1860. Someday it will happen again. Rome could not prevent it, nor Britain, nor China, nor Russia, nor Japan, nor anyone else. America is not a magical place, nor is it specially beloved of God. The eventual destruction of the present constitutional order is as certain as the rising of the sun. But on the day it happens the birds will still sing, the rain will still fall, doggies will still play with chew toys, goodness and justice will not vanish from the Earth, babies will still need burping, and the vast majority of people in the world will not shed a single tear. Neither the republic nor the constitution is all that important in the great sweep of things.
But the immediate circumstances surrounding such a fall would not be pleasant for the people directly involved, so it is better to keep such episodes to a minimum. If the constitutional order is able to solve our problems, it will survive. If it is not able to do so, it will be destroyed. It really is as simple as that. I don't see anything in our present circumstances that threatens such an end, although things will get a lot worse before they get better. Still, the present order will manage, if without grace or savoir-faire. Nevertheless, one day the the order will not manage, and it will die, and no amount of fighting or protest will save it. And maybe, if we are very lucky, we might even learn a little bit and do better next time.
Anastasios,
Whatever the distant future may hold, our freedoms, in our lifetimes, will rise or fall with our current Constitution. This is why adherence to the Constitution is so important and why we need to overturn Constitutional violations such as the Patriot Act and the NDAA. You say that freedom can exist without the Constitution. Perhaps in theory. But our current reality is that freedom is under siege even with Constitutional protections. The fastest way to lose our freedom completely would be to end all adherence to the document.
Couves,
By all means, if you feel threatened fight. I even agree with you in regard to some aspects of the Patriot Act and the NDAA. But, to get back to the original thread, I am afraid you will have to accept the greed and craven behavior of the electorate, and thus the greed and craven cowardice of politicians, as a given. No, we are not in a Weimar situation, much less are we a crumbling empire like Tsarist Russia. We are.nowhere close to the decay of a falling Rome. But although Americans are no worse than Germans or Russians or Romans, we are no better. If you want to preserve the present constitutional order, then you (using the generic you) must prove that it can function to solve the major problems of the day in terms of living standards, safety, and general well-being. If it cannot, then Americans in all their craven cowardice and mean-spirited selfishness, will abandon it (perhaps while keeping many of the forms intact a la Rome of Caesar Augustus or Britain of 1688). In the face of mounting problems and falling living standards, 1787 and/or 1860 will come again, much faster and much more easily than most would imagine. We are not there yet and I really don't think we will get there in the next century. But then, no one envisaged 1787 in 1763, and in 1845 the events of 1860 seemed an unlikely nightmare. So hope for the best but don't discount the worst, and pray for a return to rising living standards.
Anastasios,
Yes, greed and change are two constants of human history... I'll leave the predictions to you, but I think we're each focusing on different things in this thread. I'm less interested in the grand sweep of time than I am in the immediate problems we have a stake in and some control over.
Couves,
Sure, we do have many immediate problems. But those problems are not helped by apocalyptic language about loss of freedom or literalist readings of historical documents. Are we losing freedom? Maybe, or maybe not. People's views differ, and freedom is far from the most important thing in life. Are we departing from the letter of the Constitution? Sure, but it is only a 200 year old document written by men very different from us. The order it established far from the only one. The American political order is very superior to some in some ways, deeply inferior to others in other ways. A lot of its inferiority has been on display in the current crisis - but that is okay, its strengths are still there, and will make themselves felt in different circumstances. It is not magical or sacred, and like all other things,it is temporary -- very temporary in any reasonable historical frame. We need to remember that. Much of what we stew about will be forgotten in a surprisingly short time. People of the near future will read what we say today and laugh as hard as we do when reading speeches from the 1960s, much less the 1860s. We are craven and we are selfish, and we also take ourselves and our obsessions much to seriously. In even the midterm of history, neither we as individuals, nor our politics, nor our constitutional preferences, are very important.
Post a Comment