ABC, 123
Apart from a two month period in the summer of 1982, I was not a Michael Jackson fan. Also, I find it hard to buy the notion that he changed or even significantly influenced popular music. He may have been the most famous and most successful individual performer of the last 30 years, but his impact was fairly narrowly focused. In effect, he was a one-person genre unto himself.
On the other hand, it may be too easy for non-fans to be distracted by the last 20 years of Jackson's life as a musician and celebrity. For people like me, now is an excellent time to remember Michael Jackson before the hype, eccentricity, and scandal, when his talent was purer, if not yet fully developed.
The Jackson 5 - "ABC"
I never realized what a great song "ABC" is until I saw this joyous scene in the Kevin Smith movie "Clerks II":
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Ask Canadians
The Montreal Gazette published an editorial a few days ago commenting on the health care debate in the United States ... "Americans are being misled about our health care". It is a rare dose of truly balanced analysis. It acknowledges the flaws in Canada's Medicare system ... actually, only one flaw: waiting lists for certain procedures. At the same time, the editorial notes, America's "system" is rationed as well, by money.
Is it taboo for politicians to comment on internal issue debates in other countries? Like Matthew Yglesias, I think it would be very helpful for Canadians, especially Canadian Conservatives, to add their two cents to our health care debate. The pros and cons of their system are regularly cited by the Right and the Left anyway - its either a socialist nightmare or an egalitarian paradise. Obviously, it is neither, and we need to hear more from the people who live with the systems we are always hearing stereotyped or lionized in our rather dumb discussions about health care.
The Montreal Gazette published an editorial a few days ago commenting on the health care debate in the United States ... "Americans are being misled about our health care". It is a rare dose of truly balanced analysis. It acknowledges the flaws in Canada's Medicare system ... actually, only one flaw: waiting lists for certain procedures. At the same time, the editorial notes, America's "system" is rationed as well, by money.
Is it taboo for politicians to comment on internal issue debates in other countries? Like Matthew Yglesias, I think it would be very helpful for Canadians, especially Canadian Conservatives, to add their two cents to our health care debate. The pros and cons of their system are regularly cited by the Right and the Left anyway - its either a socialist nightmare or an egalitarian paradise. Obviously, it is neither, and we need to hear more from the people who live with the systems we are always hearing stereotyped or lionized in our rather dumb discussions about health care.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Real Divide
John Hodgman gave a wonderful speech at the Radio and Television Correspondent's Dinner last weekend. It was a comedy speech, of course, but I think Hodgman was onto something when he said that the real divide, the real culture war in America today is between the jocks and the nerds:
John Hodgman gave a wonderful speech at the Radio and Television Correspondent's Dinner last weekend. It was a comedy speech, of course, but I think Hodgman was onto something when he said that the real divide, the real culture war in America today is between the jocks and the nerds:
Sunday, June 21, 2009
"Wow" Indeed
My response to this?
Not just "wow." Maybe Princeton did recommend that Sotomyor brush up on her English over the summer by reading kids' books. That doesn't equate to her being stupid or academically unfit for the Ivy League. Ivy League universities, and many other colleges and universities, admit quite a few foreign students every year. They're generally accepted because they're brilliant and prepared, but I'll bet quite a few of them have to struggle a bit with their English for awhile. I mean, they do have universities and geniuses and such in countries where people speak other languages. And learning another language is hard, especially for adults, even brilliant ones.
I wonder if Pat Buchanan thought of this angle. Which is he more of ... ignorant, opportunistic, or deliberately deceptive?
My response to this?
Not just "wow." Maybe Princeton did recommend that Sotomyor brush up on her English over the summer by reading kids' books. That doesn't equate to her being stupid or academically unfit for the Ivy League. Ivy League universities, and many other colleges and universities, admit quite a few foreign students every year. They're generally accepted because they're brilliant and prepared, but I'll bet quite a few of them have to struggle a bit with their English for awhile. I mean, they do have universities and geniuses and such in countries where people speak other languages. And learning another language is hard, especially for adults, even brilliant ones.
I wonder if Pat Buchanan thought of this angle. Which is he more of ... ignorant, opportunistic, or deliberately deceptive?
Polls On Health Care
The New York Times has a poll that reinforces the notion that a hefty majority of Americans support, in one way or another, health care reform plans that include the choice of joining a government-run health insurance plan of some kind. As Matthew Yglesias points out, not for the first time, this underlines the fact that the "political barriers" to a public option on health care aren't the voters, but rather insurance companies and medical care providers who either don't want to see too much change or are afraid they won't be able to stand competition from a government-run program.
The New York Times has a poll that reinforces the notion that a hefty majority of Americans support, in one way or another, health care reform plans that include the choice of joining a government-run health insurance plan of some kind. As Matthew Yglesias points out, not for the first time, this underlines the fact that the "political barriers" to a public option on health care aren't the voters, but rather insurance companies and medical care providers who either don't want to see too much change or are afraid they won't be able to stand competition from a government-run program.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Health Care
If we don't, in the end, get a public option, it may finally trigger my long overdue crackup. The logic of public plan opponents is airtight. It proves that their priority is not providing health care to more people at lower cost, but rather preserving the health insurance industry. And if any Republican or conservative lawmakers who vote against a public plan option ever again utter songs of praise and worship for the magic of "competition", we'll know not to listen.
It reminds me of people in my line of work who caution against going too far in allowing people with disabilities to choose how and where they get support services, because too many of them will choose to leave nursing homes, group homes, sheltered workshops, and other bricks-and-mortar programs, and those programs won't be able to run. But if people don't like them and there's another option to provide the same service, why should they be preserved? Because lots of people work at those places. The ones that aren't profit-driven nevertheless offer fairly high-status and high-wage employment ... sometimes union employment. And people don't like change. I'm all for job security and good wages, especially for people who help others for a living. But the resistance to change here isn't really about pay, it's about comfort zones and inertia. And those are the only real reasons I can see for opposing health care reform that includes structural changes and a publicly-funded option.
If we don't, in the end, get a public option, it may finally trigger my long overdue crackup. The logic of public plan opponents is airtight. It proves that their priority is not providing health care to more people at lower cost, but rather preserving the health insurance industry. And if any Republican or conservative lawmakers who vote against a public plan option ever again utter songs of praise and worship for the magic of "competition", we'll know not to listen.
It reminds me of people in my line of work who caution against going too far in allowing people with disabilities to choose how and where they get support services, because too many of them will choose to leave nursing homes, group homes, sheltered workshops, and other bricks-and-mortar programs, and those programs won't be able to run. But if people don't like them and there's another option to provide the same service, why should they be preserved? Because lots of people work at those places. The ones that aren't profit-driven nevertheless offer fairly high-status and high-wage employment ... sometimes union employment. And people don't like change. I'm all for job security and good wages, especially for people who help others for a living. But the resistance to change here isn't really about pay, it's about comfort zones and inertia. And those are the only real reasons I can see for opposing health care reform that includes structural changes and a publicly-funded option.
O'Reilly vs. Walsh
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good overview and point-of-view on the wisdom and honor of debating Bill O'Reilly on his TV show. I like his "I ain't no punk" analogy. It seems to describe the "honorable pundit's" responsibility pretty well, and provides a useful perspective on it ... that often it is no loftier than the noble victim side of a playground bully mismatch.
The even more obvious observation is that O'Reilly isn't an honorable debater. He doesn't play by the recognized rules. The crucial fact, however, is that he does know what the rules are, and will happily criticize others for not following the rules he himself ignores. I have no doubt that if Walsh had turned down his invitation, O'Reilly would have spent the same airtime calling her, in essence, a "punk" for not having the guts to appear and debate him in an honorable way. But that wouldn't have actually meant she was a punk, and that probably should have been sufficient for her to sleep well at night.
Ta-Nehisi Coates has a good overview and point-of-view on the wisdom and honor of debating Bill O'Reilly on his TV show. I like his "I ain't no punk" analogy. It seems to describe the "honorable pundit's" responsibility pretty well, and provides a useful perspective on it ... that often it is no loftier than the noble victim side of a playground bully mismatch.
The even more obvious observation is that O'Reilly isn't an honorable debater. He doesn't play by the recognized rules. The crucial fact, however, is that he does know what the rules are, and will happily criticize others for not following the rules he himself ignores. I have no doubt that if Walsh had turned down his invitation, O'Reilly would have spent the same airtime calling her, in essence, a "punk" for not having the guts to appear and debate him in an honorable way. But that wouldn't have actually meant she was a punk, and that probably should have been sufficient for her to sleep well at night.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Sonic Youth Rocks & Swings
I'm listening to the new Sonic Youth album, The Eternal, and it's really remarkably good. I don't know how to describe it, except to say that it rocks and it swings, qualities people don't usually associate with Sonic Youth, though their best work has always done both. I may feel differently about it in a week or two when I'm less influenced by the novelty, but at this point, The Eternal is my third favorite Sonic Youth album, with Goo as number two, and Daydream Nation as my favorite. I am also feeling the same kind of uneasiness I felt a few weeks ago as I enjoyed Green Day's new album. First, I'm too old for this kind of enthusiasm for a rock album, and second, how is it possible that a band that to me is the very definition of "new" can be nearly twenty years old ... in the case of Sonic Youth, thirty years old?
Anyway, Sonic Youth hasn't been this catchy since Goo. They still seem know the location of that perfect midline between avant-garde dissonance and pop tunefulness ... a sound balance that influenced an entire generation of '90s "Alternative" bands.
I'm listening to the new Sonic Youth album, The Eternal, and it's really remarkably good. I don't know how to describe it, except to say that it rocks and it swings, qualities people don't usually associate with Sonic Youth, though their best work has always done both. I may feel differently about it in a week or two when I'm less influenced by the novelty, but at this point, The Eternal is my third favorite Sonic Youth album, with Goo as number two, and Daydream Nation as my favorite. I am also feeling the same kind of uneasiness I felt a few weeks ago as I enjoyed Green Day's new album. First, I'm too old for this kind of enthusiasm for a rock album, and second, how is it possible that a band that to me is the very definition of "new" can be nearly twenty years old ... in the case of Sonic Youth, thirty years old?
Anyway, Sonic Youth hasn't been this catchy since Goo. They still seem know the location of that perfect midline between avant-garde dissonance and pop tunefulness ... a sound balance that influenced an entire generation of '90s "Alternative" bands.
What are we actually talking about here?
The final outcome of health care reform will probably be determined not by the relative merits of various models of providing and paying for health care, but by who wins the contest to define what it is we are discussing. Are we discussing how to provide quality healthcare in ways that every American individually, and America as a whole, can afford? Or are we discussing which proposal sounds more socialist and European-y? I'm going to start linking to news articles, Op-Ed pieces, and blog posts that I think address health care intelligently.
Here's one to start with: Matthew Yglesias, One Cheer for Socialized Medicine.
The final outcome of health care reform will probably be determined not by the relative merits of various models of providing and paying for health care, but by who wins the contest to define what it is we are discussing. Are we discussing how to provide quality healthcare in ways that every American individually, and America as a whole, can afford? Or are we discussing which proposal sounds more socialist and European-y? I'm going to start linking to news articles, Op-Ed pieces, and blog posts that I think address health care intelligently.
Here's one to start with: Matthew Yglesias, One Cheer for Socialized Medicine.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
A Good Idea and A Better Idea
I must be a liberal, because I'm really starting to enjoy reading peoples' ideas for creative ways to tax people, to pay for healthcare. Seriously, here's a discussion about two angles on taxing alcohol consumption and / or negative alcohol-influenced behaviors.
I must be a liberal, because I'm really starting to enjoy reading peoples' ideas for creative ways to tax people, to pay for healthcare. Seriously, here's a discussion about two angles on taxing alcohol consumption and / or negative alcohol-influenced behaviors.
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Big News in North Country Politics
President Obama's appointment of Rep. John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army is interesting on many, many levels. McHugh has represented my district in the House since 1993 and, barring unforeseen events involving Army administration, the biggest waves from this appointment will probably land on us here in he North Country. There aren't too many people in line to fill this seat ... or there are dozens, depending on how you look at it. I think the most likely Republican contender is State Senator Betty Little (R). It's not much fun being a Republican Senator in New York any more, and she's got a fair amount of good will with her, with the possible exception of her recent stance against gay marriage. We shall see what happens. For the Democrats, I really don't know, but with McHugh out of the way, we have a real chance for the first time in a long, long time.
As for the merits of the choice, I think its probably a good one. No doubt that McHugh is a true expert on military matters, and I have never so far found reason to question his heartfelt commitment to our men and women in uniform, which is not quite the same as being hawk. I don't entirely buy his local reputation as some kind of RINO, but he's no fanatic, and I'm not surprised he would choose to devote his working days to the Army in a more or less bipartisan way, over constantly calibrating how critical he can be of his own party.
President Obama's appointment of Rep. John McHugh to be Secretary of the Army is interesting on many, many levels. McHugh has represented my district in the House since 1993 and, barring unforeseen events involving Army administration, the biggest waves from this appointment will probably land on us here in he North Country. There aren't too many people in line to fill this seat ... or there are dozens, depending on how you look at it. I think the most likely Republican contender is State Senator Betty Little (R). It's not much fun being a Republican Senator in New York any more, and she's got a fair amount of good will with her, with the possible exception of her recent stance against gay marriage. We shall see what happens. For the Democrats, I really don't know, but with McHugh out of the way, we have a real chance for the first time in a long, long time.
As for the merits of the choice, I think its probably a good one. No doubt that McHugh is a true expert on military matters, and I have never so far found reason to question his heartfelt commitment to our men and women in uniform, which is not quite the same as being hawk. I don't entirely buy his local reputation as some kind of RINO, but he's no fanatic, and I'm not surprised he would choose to devote his working days to the Army in a more or less bipartisan way, over constantly calibrating how critical he can be of his own party.
Flight 447
Sane words, though not very comforting, about what might have brought down Air France Flight 447.
Sane words, though not very comforting, about what might have brought down Air France Flight 447.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Seeing with Jean-Do
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is a better depiction of disability than most reviews would indicate. It isn't "heartbreaking", or even especially "uplifting". It is, above all, authentic and absorbing. It seems like "Jean-Do" Bauby was absorbed by the experience of his disability, though obviously he also experienced heartbreak and uplift. What keeps him going, as he says in the film, is imagination and, of course, his one good eye.
From the perspective of someone with a disability, I was very pleased to see that for the most part, we are spared splashy temper tantrums from the disabled person, calmed by a scolding non-disabled mentor. One scene suggests this familiar formulation, but steers away at the last moment.
One thing I do wonder about is whether Jean-Do got to know any of the other residents of his hospital. In the film, they are treated as scenery, in a borderline offensive and definitely dehumanizing way.
This is a very "good" disability depiction, in a "great" film.
You can see this review on my film blog at Spout.com.
The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is a better depiction of disability than most reviews would indicate. It isn't "heartbreaking", or even especially "uplifting". It is, above all, authentic and absorbing. It seems like "Jean-Do" Bauby was absorbed by the experience of his disability, though obviously he also experienced heartbreak and uplift. What keeps him going, as he says in the film, is imagination and, of course, his one good eye.
From the perspective of someone with a disability, I was very pleased to see that for the most part, we are spared splashy temper tantrums from the disabled person, calmed by a scolding non-disabled mentor. One scene suggests this familiar formulation, but steers away at the last moment.
One thing I do wonder about is whether Jean-Do got to know any of the other residents of his hospital. In the film, they are treated as scenery, in a borderline offensive and definitely dehumanizing way.
This is a very "good" disability depiction, in a "great" film.
You can see this review on my film blog at Spout.com.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Yglesias, Coates, and "Celestial Navigation"
This is the best thing I've read so far on the Sonia Sotomayor nomination. It doesn't speak to her qualifications, other than alluding to the obvious ... that Harvard U. and Yale Law don't give degrees to dummies. But Yglesias' personal perspective on this actually does go well with his political observations.
I also appreciated Ta-Nehisi Coates' comment that the nomination proves that President Obama is a fighter, just that "He sometimes doesn't fight for things that we want him to fight for" ... this nomination being something Obama is clearly willing to fight for, since Sotomayor comes already at least partially festooned with conservative critiques ... boneheaded critiques, yes, but critiques nonetheless.
What I haven't read yet anyone catching on to the fact that choosing Sotomayor is, in at least one narrow aspect, another Obama administration parallel with The West Wing. In the show's first season, President Josiah Bartlett nominates an hispanic judge, John Mendoza to the Supreme Court, and with Toby's help, gets him confirmed. I trust that Judge Sotomayor won't complicate things by running afoul of the Connecticut State Police. If she does, for reasons anything like those faced by Mendoza, one hopes she will act with similar principle and dignity.
And yes, I do realize that "The West Wing" is a TV show.
This is the best thing I've read so far on the Sonia Sotomayor nomination. It doesn't speak to her qualifications, other than alluding to the obvious ... that Harvard U. and Yale Law don't give degrees to dummies. But Yglesias' personal perspective on this actually does go well with his political observations.
I also appreciated Ta-Nehisi Coates' comment that the nomination proves that President Obama is a fighter, just that "He sometimes doesn't fight for things that we want him to fight for" ... this nomination being something Obama is clearly willing to fight for, since Sotomayor comes already at least partially festooned with conservative critiques ... boneheaded critiques, yes, but critiques nonetheless.
What I haven't read yet anyone catching on to the fact that choosing Sotomayor is, in at least one narrow aspect, another Obama administration parallel with The West Wing. In the show's first season, President Josiah Bartlett nominates an hispanic judge, John Mendoza to the Supreme Court, and with Toby's help, gets him confirmed. I trust that Judge Sotomayor won't complicate things by running afoul of the Connecticut State Police. If she does, for reasons anything like those faced by Mendoza, one hopes she will act with similar principle and dignity.
And yes, I do realize that "The West Wing" is a TV show.
Sunday, May 24, 2009
About "Glee"
I just watched the pilot episode of "Glee", a new hour-long comedy-drama that will start for real this fall. I can't think of another time in my life when my opinion of a TV show went from contempt to rapture in under an hour. About halfway through, I paused so I could eat dinner. As I ate, I was formulating all of the nasty things I was going to say about this show ... mostly revolving around the idea that if you're going to trade in cheap stereotypes and caricatures of anyone "abnormal", there had better be either a deeper satirical purpose or a redemption somewhere in sight. Also, the show's portrait of small-town high school life is so cynical that I just couldn't see a way out.
By the end, I loved the show, and try as I might, I can't figure out how they did it, or where my critical faculties have failed. Was I hypnotized? Brainwashed? Will you please watch this thing and tell me what the hell is wrong with me?
"Glee" - Pilot
I just watched the pilot episode of "Glee", a new hour-long comedy-drama that will start for real this fall. I can't think of another time in my life when my opinion of a TV show went from contempt to rapture in under an hour. About halfway through, I paused so I could eat dinner. As I ate, I was formulating all of the nasty things I was going to say about this show ... mostly revolving around the idea that if you're going to trade in cheap stereotypes and caricatures of anyone "abnormal", there had better be either a deeper satirical purpose or a redemption somewhere in sight. Also, the show's portrait of small-town high school life is so cynical that I just couldn't see a way out.
By the end, I loved the show, and try as I might, I can't figure out how they did it, or where my critical faculties have failed. Was I hypnotized? Brainwashed? Will you please watch this thing and tell me what the hell is wrong with me?
"Glee" - Pilot
Recommended
I've lost track of when I started reading Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog regularly. I think it was 5 or 6 months ago. I like his politics. His social commentary is consistently challenging and never dull. Hs music posts are a joy. And, I like his writing, whatever he's talking about.
Today's jem from Mr. Coates is this video:
Passion Pit - "The Reeling"
(Note: I am posting a YouTube clip of the video instead of the Vimeo clip that was on Coates' site). To me, this is essentially an '80s video, only better. I'm starting to think that in the case of '80s dance music, the "retro" is better than the original.
Here are two other video "discoveries" I picked up from his blog over the last few months:
The Animals - "House of the Rising Sun"
I love the title he gave this post: "No Mayo. All Awesome-Sauce".
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - "Turn Into"
Click here to read Mr. Coates' thoughts on the video, dancing, and the "white girl thing".
While I was digging around for these clips, I also found this post from February that I'm sure I hadn't read before. I'm glad i found it, because it says something I've always had difficulty figuring out how to say. This is what so-called "political correctness" was originally about ... "How about we stop making insulting jokes about people different from us, that haven't been funny for several decades anyway?"
Ta-Nehisi Coates: Ann Coulter's Racist Jab At Bobby Jindal.
I've lost track of when I started reading Ta-Nehisi Coates' blog regularly. I think it was 5 or 6 months ago. I like his politics. His social commentary is consistently challenging and never dull. Hs music posts are a joy. And, I like his writing, whatever he's talking about.
Today's jem from Mr. Coates is this video:
Passion Pit - "The Reeling"
(Note: I am posting a YouTube clip of the video instead of the Vimeo clip that was on Coates' site). To me, this is essentially an '80s video, only better. I'm starting to think that in the case of '80s dance music, the "retro" is better than the original.
Here are two other video "discoveries" I picked up from his blog over the last few months:
The Animals - "House of the Rising Sun"
I love the title he gave this post: "No Mayo. All Awesome-Sauce".
Yeah Yeah Yeahs - "Turn Into"
Click here to read Mr. Coates' thoughts on the video, dancing, and the "white girl thing".
While I was digging around for these clips, I also found this post from February that I'm sure I hadn't read before. I'm glad i found it, because it says something I've always had difficulty figuring out how to say. This is what so-called "political correctness" was originally about ... "How about we stop making insulting jokes about people different from us, that haven't been funny for several decades anyway?"
Ta-Nehisi Coates: Ann Coulter's Racist Jab At Bobby Jindal.
Taxing and Spending
When it comes to taxes and spending, are American voters "rational actors", or are they "delusional"?
This morning I read some blog posts that pose and address this question, and they lean towards the "delusional" interpretation. The short version: American voters don't want taxes raised, and while they very much want spending cut, they don't approve of cuts in most things the government spends money on. When they do approve of specific cuts, it is in programs that don't cost much in the first place. Here are the blog posts I read:
Matthew Yglesias: Everything is Unpopular
Open Left: Status Quo Nation
Harris Poll on Closing the Budget Deficit
Now, I don't actually think voters are delusional about taxes and spending. I think they have quite natural human likes and dislikes. People approve of things they like and disapprove of things they don't like. People want to avoid unpleasant things, and this shows up in policy surveys and, quite often, voting patterns. Plus, most people are misinformed. They don't really know how much money the government spends on various programs. Hence, they call for NASA to be cut, criticize foreign aid, and decry "pork barrel" spending, going so far as to blame such things for deficits. Yet, a modest amount of research shows that while we can debate the efficacy or morality of these programs, they don't amount to much and cutting them back or eliminating them wouldn't do much to erase the deficit. This is made worse by the fact that a lot of people ... probably most people ... have a terrible grasp of scale, especially when really big numbers are involved.
Maybe Ross Perot had it right. Maybe it's time for President Obama to break out the pie charts in his next prime-time chat with the American people. That said, I also think it is important to consider what topic peoples' minds are on when they express opinions about taxes and spending. Sometimes, their judgments aren't about numbers or efficacy at all ... it's about morality or ethics. I may wish to cut defense spending, but my reasons on any given day are going to be mixed. I do think cutting defense spending would help reduce the deficit. I also think it's a good idea regardless of how much it reduces the deficit, because I would like to see the United States pursue a less militaristic approach to the world. Someone who is anti-abortion wants to cut or stop any government funds from going to programs that include abortion, but not for fiscal reasons. And, we'd all like, on some level, to see less pork-barrel spending. For some of us, it's because we hate to see petty patronage. For others, it's because we would rather see spending decisions made rationally, based on a reasonable assessment of needs. Still others disapprove of specific projects, either because they don't care about the projects themselves, or because it's in some other part of the country and appears to be of no benefit to them, personally. But, during the 2008 campaign, we had John McCain seeming to say that cutting pork-barrel spending was going to reduce deficits, even though there's little evidence that it would have much effect. The numbers just don't add up to much in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe the surveys should allow respondents to say why they support this or that spending cut. Then we'd have a better idea whether voters are truly irrational about fiscal matters, or if they're simply having a different conversation.
When it comes to taxes and spending, are American voters "rational actors", or are they "delusional"?
This morning I read some blog posts that pose and address this question, and they lean towards the "delusional" interpretation. The short version: American voters don't want taxes raised, and while they very much want spending cut, they don't approve of cuts in most things the government spends money on. When they do approve of specific cuts, it is in programs that don't cost much in the first place. Here are the blog posts I read:
Matthew Yglesias: Everything is Unpopular
Open Left: Status Quo Nation
Harris Poll on Closing the Budget Deficit
Now, I don't actually think voters are delusional about taxes and spending. I think they have quite natural human likes and dislikes. People approve of things they like and disapprove of things they don't like. People want to avoid unpleasant things, and this shows up in policy surveys and, quite often, voting patterns. Plus, most people are misinformed. They don't really know how much money the government spends on various programs. Hence, they call for NASA to be cut, criticize foreign aid, and decry "pork barrel" spending, going so far as to blame such things for deficits. Yet, a modest amount of research shows that while we can debate the efficacy or morality of these programs, they don't amount to much and cutting them back or eliminating them wouldn't do much to erase the deficit. This is made worse by the fact that a lot of people ... probably most people ... have a terrible grasp of scale, especially when really big numbers are involved.
Maybe Ross Perot had it right. Maybe it's time for President Obama to break out the pie charts in his next prime-time chat with the American people. That said, I also think it is important to consider what topic peoples' minds are on when they express opinions about taxes and spending. Sometimes, their judgments aren't about numbers or efficacy at all ... it's about morality or ethics. I may wish to cut defense spending, but my reasons on any given day are going to be mixed. I do think cutting defense spending would help reduce the deficit. I also think it's a good idea regardless of how much it reduces the deficit, because I would like to see the United States pursue a less militaristic approach to the world. Someone who is anti-abortion wants to cut or stop any government funds from going to programs that include abortion, but not for fiscal reasons. And, we'd all like, on some level, to see less pork-barrel spending. For some of us, it's because we hate to see petty patronage. For others, it's because we would rather see spending decisions made rationally, based on a reasonable assessment of needs. Still others disapprove of specific projects, either because they don't care about the projects themselves, or because it's in some other part of the country and appears to be of no benefit to them, personally. But, during the 2008 campaign, we had John McCain seeming to say that cutting pork-barrel spending was going to reduce deficits, even though there's little evidence that it would have much effect. The numbers just don't add up to much in the grand scheme of things.
Maybe the surveys should allow respondents to say why they support this or that spending cut. Then we'd have a better idea whether voters are truly irrational about fiscal matters, or if they're simply having a different conversation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
