So, I got to thinking about all of the political upheaval we've experienced in these difficult economic times over the last four years or so. I was just watching an interview with Tom Brokaw on The Daily Show where Brokaw argued that the paralyzing polarization in Washington is the worst he's ever seen in the country's recallable history. I agree, and as someone who leans mildly left, it's easy to want to float ever further away philosophically from the Michelle Bachmanns of the world. It's obvious that everyone only looks for evidence that confirms their already spun opinions, and I'm sure I'm guilty of that, too. However, as I've said before on here, the Political Center is not the average of the two sides, but a different viewpoint, as Paul Krugman from the New York Times has also stated (his academic accomplishments being of somewhat greater weight than mine). So, I think it's helpful to go ahead and outline that argument.
For starters, the extreme right wing wants the government shrunk down so it's manageable. So, allowing that looking at the extremes of an issue makes it a little bit easier to see the nuances (not militias-to-Nazis extremes), let's do a little thought experiment: what would we lose if the government were shrunken down to Grover's desired level as that of a puppy in a burlap sack? Well, for starters, there's public infrastructure, such as streets, bridges, stoplights, and the like. There's no way to make a profit off of such things, so it's unlikely that privatization of these public works would bear any fruit. Then there's the Nation Park system, as well as the local city and county parks, which make our lives just a bit nicer, with the local hiking and biking. Not to mention the local neighborhood parks managed by the cities. Would you want to pay an entry fee? I wouldn't, either. There are many other such examples. It stands to reason, then, unless you want to live in a place that completely lacks these things (where the lands that contain them would be sold for profit, probably to build awesome houses that you can't afford), that SOME government is necessary. Now it's a simple question of how much.
I think the military may have been overused in the last 10 years, but that's my lefty way of thinking. It's hard to say "Get rid of the military," so let's call that a necessary, if very expensive, government agency (righties would agree, especially the hawks). So, that's something government has to do. The social safety nets are important to most Americans, right or left. In other countries, the social safety nets are much larger and catch a lot more people. I'm for moderation here, as long as it's fair to everyone who pays in.
Look at the other extreme: tax rates exceeding 50%, health care paid for by the State, free education all the way to college, a nearly-flat economic distribution? Sound miserable? It is! Actually, it's a great way to live where that system works. While such a thing is nice, with our current political distribution, it's unlikely to fly here. But the claims of evil socialism by the more hysterical branches of the right wing are unfounded in the world; socialism is only a bad word here.
So, with this thought experiment, what have we learned? It seems likely that we're going to be happiest somewhere in the middle of the scale that has pure capitalist plutocracy at one end and pure socialist society at the other. Small government isn't the answer, but neither is bigger (for the sake of argument).
It's plain to see that cuts are not the answer. So, if government at all is necessary, it might be better to be less black-and-white, or hysterically hypochondriac about our government in its current form, but instead, to focus on ways to make life better for all Americans, and, especially, more equal.
No comments:
Post a Comment