the rise of fantasy politics

[Azazello1313]

 

WASHINGTON -- What we have here -- to borrow a line from the old movie "Cool Hand Luke" -- is a failure to communicate. By all rights, we should be having a fierce debate over the role of government. What should it do, for whom and why? What can we afford? Who should pay? These questions would suggest a campaign that seriously engages the future, but instead, we have a bidding war between candidates to see who can promise the most appealing package of new spending programs and tax cuts.

 

As we watch the conventions, we should recognize that we've entered an era of fantasy politics. Like fantasy football and baseball, fantasy politics is an exercise in make-believe that is intended to keep its players occupied and to make the winners feel good. Barack Obama and John McCain emit pleasing slogans and programs that, as often as not, are disconnected from the country's actual problems they'll encounter in office.

 

Last week, I viewed "I.O.U.S.A.," an 87-minute documentary exploring the grim budget outlook. It is unbalanced budgets that, in many ways, define the political deadlock. The persistence of deficits over so many years (42 of the past 47) can have only one basic cause: Politicians of both parties prefer spending to taxing. As everyone knows, the disconnect will worsen, because aging baby boomers will bloat outlays for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. These programs already total nearly two-fifths of the $2.9 trillion federal spending in 2008.

 

The documentary's sponsors hope to arouse public opinion on budget issues just as "An Inconvenient Truth" did on global warming. Maybe, but I'm skeptical. It's not merely that melting icebergs are more compelling images than charts of mounting government debt. The mismatch between the government's existing spending commitments and the present tax base is so great that we cannot simply tinker a little with government. By 2030, federal taxes could rise 50 percent if all spending programs are kept on automatic pilot, notes Andrew Yarrow in his book "Forgive Us Our Debts."

 

That would be, I think, an unconscionable burden on workers (the main taxpayers) and a huge threat to the economy. Over the years, I've suggested changes to minimize these dangers. Eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare should gradually rise to 70; people now live longer and should work longer. Medicare premiums for middle-income and richer retirees should increase; the young shouldn't bear most of the expense of growing health costs. Government programs that have outlived their usefulness or are wasteful should end: farm subsidies and Amtrak, for instance.

 

But "I.O.U.S.A." barely mentions choices and solutions. Ideally, of course, our political leaders would assume the task of choosing. Unfortunately, they don't.

 

The most exhaustive examination of the McCain and Obama budget proposals I've found comes from the Tax Policy Center, sponsored jointly by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. It's discouraging reading. Though details differ, neither plan would realistically limit spending or eliminate deficits. For example, both their health proposals would cost far more than $1 trillion over a decade, says the Tax Policy Center.

 

Obama and McCain have each embraced symbolic gestures that falsely suggest they've made tough choices. Democrats blame deficits on Bush's tax cuts for the rich and the Iraq War. OK, let's whack the rich. Obama would restore the 36 percent and 39.6 percent income-tax rates for couples with taxable incomes above $200,300 and $357,700. He's suggested higher capital-gains taxes and Social Security taxes for those with incomes exceeding $250,000. Together, these changes might generate about $80 billion of revenue in 2010, says the Tax Policy Center. By contrast, the 2008 budget deficit is reckoned at $389 billion. Even saving $125 billion by winding down the Iraq War -- a highly optimistic estimate -- wouldn't erase the deficit.

 

McCain denounces wasteful spending, citing congressional "earmarks." These are projects usually designated by individual members of Congress for their districts. OK, let's scrub them all. In 2008, earmarks numbered 11,610 and cost $17.2 billion, estimates Citizens Against Government Waste. That's less than 1 percent of federal spending.

 

Elections serve, in civics textbooks, to reach collective decisions about the future. The real world is different. Many campaign proposals are so unrealistic or undesirable that they may never be enacted. McCain would cut taxes again for the rich. Is that needed or likely? No. Obama would create more special tax breaks for homeowners, college students, workers and retirees, among others -- further clutter in an already complex tax system.

 

All this makes sense only as fantasy politics. Proposals aren't necessarily intended to be adopted. They're selected to win applause and please voters -- just as quarterbacks, in fantasy football, are selected for their accuracy. In November, one candidate will win this game. But the country as a whole may lose.

 

everything he says there is true. most of you know I'm a big mccain supporter and have been since at least 2000. but one of the most disappointing things for me about mccain's campaign so far has been his unwillingness to address this issue head-on with much "straight talk". of course, that is how it always works in election season -- you tell people what they want to hear (tax cuts, new spending) and keep quiet about what they don't want to hear (cutting SS benefits, etc.) -- hence, the "fantasy". it wouldn't be so bad if that sort of politicking ended after the election, and those chosen to govern were a little more responsible while actually governing. but our system has basically become round-the-clock and round-the-calendar electioneering. bush's biggest failing IMO was falling into that trap headlong and without the slightest resistance. mccain has a record that shows him to be different, but his campaign schtick sure sounds like more of the same. and then there's obama, who is promising only 2.9 trillion in net tax cuts (yes net, so that includes his proposals to raise taxes on the rich) versus mccain's 4.2 trillion, but is also proposing hundreds of billions more in new spending. so what we're really being sold is two big deficit expanding agendas, one with relatively higher taxes and relatively bigger government, and one with relatively lower taxes and relatively smaller government. there doesn't seem to be much hope for anything that responsibly addresses the deficit if you look solely at their respective campaign promises.

Edited August 27, 2008 by Azazello1313

[Puddy]

Crap. I thought this was a new league forming

[detlef]

Crap. I thought this was a new league forming

+1

 

I wanted to hear about Congressional "sleeper picks" or whether you want to load up on stud Senators or just take the best available regardless of office.

[godtomsatan]

everything he says there is true. most of you know I'm a big mccain supporter and have been since at least 2000. but one of the most disappointing things for me about mccain's campaign so far has been his unwillingness to address this issue head-on with much "straight talk". of course, that is how it always works in election season -- you tell people what they want to hear (tax cuts, new spending) and keep quiet about what they don't want to hear (cutting SS benefits, etc.) -- hence, the "fantasy". it wouldn't be so bad if that sort of politicking ended after the election, and those chosen to govern were a little more responsible while actually governing. but our system has basically become round-the-clock and round-the-calendar electioneering. bush's biggest failing IMO was falling into that trap headlong and without the slightest resistance. mccain has a record that shows him to be different, but his campaign schtick sure sounds like more of the same. and then there's obama, who is promising only 2.9 trillion in net tax cuts (yes net, so that includes his proposals to raise taxes on the rich) versus mccain's 4.2 trillion, but is also proposing hundreds of billions more in new spending. so what we're really being sold is two big deficit expanding agendas, one with relatively higher taxes and relatively bigger government, and one with relatively lower taxes and relatively smaller government. there doesn't seem to be much hope for anything that responsibly addresses the deficit if you look solely at their respective campaign promises.

 

Here's the response to your post by the American electorate:

[Jimmy Neutron]

Here's the standard political acumen of the American electorate:

 

 

Fixed.

[Ursa Majoris]

 

 

 

everything he says there is true. most of you know I'm a big mccain supporter and have been since at least 2000. but one of the most disappointing things for me about mccain's campaign so far has been his unwillingness to address this issue head-on with much "straight talk". of course, that is how it always works in election season -- you tell people what they want to hear (tax cuts, new spending) and keep quiet about what they don't want to hear (cutting SS benefits, etc.) -- hence, the "fantasy". it wouldn't be so bad if that sort of politicking ended after the election, and those chosen to govern were a little more responsible while actually governing. but our system has basically become round-the-clock and round-the-calendar electioneering. bush's biggest failing IMO was falling into that trap headlong and without the slightest resistance. mccain has a record that shows him to be different, but his campaign schtick sure sounds like more of the same. and then there's obama, who is promising only 2.9 trillion in net tax cuts (yes net, so that includes his proposals to raise taxes on the rich) versus mccain's 4.2 trillion, but is also proposing hundreds of billions more in new spending. so what we're really being sold is two big deficit expanding agendas, one with relatively higher taxes and relatively bigger government, and one with relatively lower taxes and relatively smaller government. there doesn't seem to be much hope for anything that responsibly addresses the deficit if you look solely at their respective campaign promises.

Completely agree. I generally get even more cynical than usual around convention time and through to the election but this year is even worse. I don't see a single substantive long-term measure from either candidate. The several elephants in the living room are still crapping on the carpet and being ignored. The problem is contained in the third line of your post quoted above - "you tell people what they want to hear (tax cuts, new spending) and keep quiet about what they don't want to hear (cutting SS benefits, etc.)". This is a total fantasy we're all living.

 

Sooner or later, someone with the nads to actually yell down the ear of Mr and Mrs Brain Dead American Idol Watcher will come along. And probably lose. How can a moderately sentient being fail to understand that the deficit (and, by extension, the national debt) absolutely MUST be addressed - and soon.

[Azazello1313]

a reply I was just typing to JN in another thread that apparently got gunned, figured I may as well post it somewhere else...

 

I think that's sadly true of just about anyone from either major party. The system is broken folks. Expecting real change from any of these quacks is beyond folly. Democrats and republicans are painted as polar opposites and not much is further from the truth. Our politics argue a pretty narrow range of arguments. Until a majority of Americans demands real change, we'll get more of the same and fully deserve it.

 

the democrats and republicans represent fairly broad constituencies reflecting the center-left and center-right of american politics, respectively. together, they represent a very large majority of the american body politic. they always will, because that is their function in the american political system. as the attitudes and issues confronting the country change, so do the two major parties. "real change" may be initiated outside of the two-party system (it nearly always has been), but will be absorbed by the two-party system prior to any significant political implementation.

 

the question of actual difference between the parties is relative. each party plays tries to make the differences seem greater than they really are as part of the partisan gamesmanship, but when forced to actually govern the differences become more slight. there are real differences, but they are functionally closer to each other than american fringe parties, or many foreign political parties, etc.

 

the system works badly in a lot of ways (see that thing I posted yesterday about fantasy politics), but it functions essentially the same way it has for 200+ years.

[yo mama]

I still don't understand why there isn't a mainstream candidate who is willing to make the following commitment: to raise tax revenues *and* cut spending - in equal amounts - until the budget deficit becomes a surplus. I'd vote for that person in a heart beat. Our Nation's long-term fiscal health is so much more important than issues of abortion, gay marriage, immigration, gun control, death penalty, gas prices, etc. It's truly unfortunate that the electorate is too stupid or distracted by metaphorical shiny objects to care about the national budget. Because if it was voters' top issue, it would become politicians' top issue.

Edited August 28, 2008 by yo mama

[H8tank]

Because if it was voters' top issue, it would become politicians' top issue.

 

Nope.

[yo mama]

Nope.

Well, you can't argue with that caliber of logic.

[H8tank]

A politicians top issue is to get re-elected.

[Ursa Majoris]

It's truly unfortunate that the electorate is too stupid or distracted by metaphorical shiny objects to care about the national budget.

The whole point is to make sure they stay stupid and shiny objects play their part in that. Some time ago politicians realized that an educated thinking electorate is the antithesis of what they actually want, which is a drooling flock of zombies intent only on their next personal pleasure, the next episode of American Idol or Angelina Jolie's next brat. Since then, education has gone in the crapper, TV has dumbed down so much that it has hit bedrock and the number of shiny objects has massively increased.

 

It's not coincidence.

[yo mama]

A politicians top issue is to get re-elected.

Politicians don't get reelected if they ignore the issues that are most important to the majority of voters, or take positions that are too contrary to what the majority of the electorate wants. Its specifically because of the naked self-interest you describe above that, if the majority of the electorate placed a balanced budget above all other issues, that politicians would change their tune. They're all pandering dewschbrags; the trick would be to get them to pander over real issues.

 

But good luck with that when the most important issue to Billy Bob Six Pack is which candidate is the least likely to take his guns, or let gays marry.

[yo mama]

The whole point is to make sure they stay stupid and shiny objects play their part in that. Some time ago politicians realized that an educated thinking electorate is the antithesis of what they actually want, which is a drooling flock of zombies intent only on their next personal pleasure, the next episode of American Idol or Angelina Jolie's next brat. Since then, education has gone in the crapper, TV has dumbed down so much that it has hit bedrock and the number of shiny objects has massively increased.

 

It's not coincidence.

Sometimes I feel like we're about 40-50 years away from the government just handing out Soma tablets.

[cre8tiff]

Sometimes I feel like we're about 40-50 years away from the government just handing out Soma tablets.

 

Soylent green... IT'S PEOPLE!

[Azazello1313]

The whole point is to make sure they stay stupid and shiny objects play their part in that. Some time ago politicians realized that an educated thinking electorate is the antithesis of what they actually want, which is a drooling flock of zombies intent only on their next personal pleasure, the next episode of American Idol or Angelina Jolie's next brat. Since then, education has gone in the crapper, TV has dumbed down so much that it has hit bedrock and the number of shiny objects has massively increased.

 

It's not coincidence.

 

a couple things. one, in a sense, the populist lowest-common-denominator stuff is as old as democracy itself. two, to the extent our present circumstance is unique in this respect, don't blame politicians. they are beholden to the public "flock" whether they are drooling zombies or sophisticated civic-minded citizens. we basically get exactly the government we, the people ask for. that is both the greatness, and the biggest failing, of american democracy.

[Jimmy Neutron]

a reply I was just typing to JN in another thread that apparently got gunned, figured I may as well post it somewhere else...

 

the democrats and republicans represent fairly broad constituencies reflecting the center-left and center-right of american politics, respectively. together, they represent a very large majority of the american body politic. they always will, because that is their function in the american political system. as the attitudes and issues confronting the country change, so do the two major parties. "real change" may be initiated outside of the two-party system (it nearly always has been), but will be absorbed by the two-party system prior to any significant political implementation.

 

the question of actual difference between the parties is relative. each party plays tries to make the differences seem greater than they really are as part of the partisan gamesmanship, but when forced to actually govern the differences become more slight. there are real differences, but they are functionally closer to each other than american fringe parties, or many foreign political parties, etc.

 

the system works badly in a lot of ways (see that thing I posted yesterday about fantasy politics), but it functions essentially the same way it has for 200+ years.

 

I disagree and ursa's post below explains one reason why. Right and left have not served us well in many respects. Limiting ourselves to Choice A or Choice B is limiting because little real debate takes place. Ideas that fall outside the platform of either party are quickly dismissed.

 

The whole point is to make sure they stay stupid and shiny objects play their part in that. Some time ago politicians realized that an educated thinking electorate is the antithesis of what they actually want, which is a drooling flock of zombies intent only on their next personal pleasure, the next episode of American Idol or Angelina Jolie's next brat. Since then, education has gone in the crapper, TV has dumbed down so much that it has hit bedrock and the number of shiny objects has massively increased.

 

It's not coincidence.

 

I believe the elctorate is largely distracted becuase the totalitly of the arguments are framed by the left and right. It's national healthcare on one side and keep it a private (like it's truely private now) like it is now. Those are the only choices? I don't think so. Congress effectively created HMOs and now blames them for rising costs.

 

Some of us keep harping on the elephant in the room - why in the hell isn't the electorate demanding solutions to the impending SS/medicare meltdown? More and more people are becming aware of the problem, but even acknowledgement of the scope of this problem is mostly absent from the candidates' mouths to the media.

 

Obama has come out in recent weeks and acknowledged that Iran is indeed a problem and promised to get tough with Russia on the Georgia issue. Nobody on either side of the aisle has done anything other than further extend our resources around the globe. We spend close to a trillion dollars a year maintaining military bases and personnel in 130 coutries around the world. A trillion dollar a year expense and nobody ever suggests a reduction in these expenditures (OK, other than Iraq?) Meanwhile, we're unable to keep simple immigrants from crossing our borders at will. How about getting a few of those soldiers serving in those 130 countries to patrol our borders? Nah, that would be crazy.

 

What about the practice of the federal reserve simply printing money on a whim. It's been done for decades and it's starting to catch up with us - the mighty dollar is falling hard and it's not just tied to oil.

 

It's nucking futz and that's all ther is to it.

[Azazello1313]

Limiting ourselves to Choice A or Choice B is limiting because little real debate takes place.

 

while that is true to a large extent, have you spent much time studying the alternatives to our two-party system?

[Jimmy Neutron]

while that is true to a large extent, have you spent much time studying the alternatives to our two-party system?

 

Admittedly, no I haven't. I know several EU governments have multiple parties and have run amuck too. Wiegie pointed this out regarding one of my previous 2-party rants. I do think we can do better - I just think enough people have to care and demand creative, non-partisan thinking. Idealsitc, but worth pushing for.

[Ursa Majoris]

a couple things. one, in a sense, the populist lowest-common-denominator stuff is as old as democracy itself. two, to the extent our present circumstance is unique in this respect, don't blame politicians. they are beholden to the public "flock" whether they are drooling zombies or sophisticated civic-minded citizens. we basically get exactly the government we, the people ask for. that is both the greatness, and the biggest failing, of american democracy.

We do indeed get the government we deserve / ask for. And that's kinda the point. Is it a chicken / egg situation such that it's John and Jill Public that have become stupid of their own volition, so now we have politicians talking in only 5 second snatches in order to make themselves understood to the vegetables on the couch, or are the vegetables on the couch the result of relentless dumbing down by politicians, media et al?

[yo mama]

Admittedly, no I haven't. I know several EU governments have multiple parties and have run amuck too. Wiegie pointed this out regarding one of my previous 2-party rants. I do think we can do better - I just think enough people have to care and demand creative, non-partisan thinking. Idealistic, but worth pushing for.

You know, the 2-party system would be just fine if the people within it weren't so freakin' corrupt and self-interested. As long as those factors are heavily in play with the players, the format of the system they play in is largely irrelevant. Find a way to take money out of politics and I'll bet you a bottle of 25-year old scotch that the 2-party system would work to your liking. I guess I'm just trying to say that I doubt that changing the format of the system will fix the root problem. Politicians will still be greedy crooks, and average voters still won't be smart, informed, or altruistic enough to be trusted en masse.

Edited August 28, 2008 by yo mama

[Clubfoothead]

 

 

 

everything he says there is true. most of you know I'm a big mccain supporter and have been since at least 2000. but one of the most disappointing things for me about mccain's campaign so far has been his unwillingness to address this issue head-on with much "straight talk". of course, that is how it always works in election season -- you tell people what they want to hear (tax cuts, new spending) and keep quiet about what they don't want to hear (cutting SS benefits, etc.) -- hence, the "fantasy". it wouldn't be so bad if that sort of politicking ended after the election, and those chosen to govern were a little more responsible while actually governing. but our system has basically become round-the-clock and round-the-calendar electioneering. bush's biggest failing IMO was falling into that trap headlong and without the slightest resistance. mccain has a record that shows him to be different, but his campaign schtick sure sounds like more of the same. and then there's obama, who is promising only 2.9 trillion in net tax cuts (yes net, so that includes his proposals to raise taxes on the rich) versus mccain's 4.2 trillion, but is also proposing hundreds of billions more in new spending. so what we're really being sold is two big deficit expanding agendas, one with relatively higher taxes and relatively bigger government, and one with relatively lower taxes and relatively smaller government. there doesn't seem to be much hope for anything that responsibly addresses the deficit if you look solely at their respective campaign promises.

 

So your gripe is that neither candidate addresses the issue?