I’ve just had an argument with a Liberal daughter, an argument ensuing from a headline summary of an op-ed piece: “Paul Krugman says Democrats are fighting to preserve social programs while Republicans seek lower taxes on the wealthy.”
I pointed to the summary and asked, “Now, would you call that a balanced statement of the two parties’ objectives?” I was thinking, of course, that a balanced representation would go something like this: “…Democrats are fighting to preserve social programs, while Republicans are seeking to create more jobs”–both statements of ostensibly benign goals.
But she thought not. She does not believe the Republicans’ goal in lowering taxes on the wealthy is more jobs; she says she reads the National Review almost daily, and she never sees anything to make her believe that Republican legislators are much concerned with creating jobs. She says their main goal seems to be to smaller government. So, her nutshell summary would read more like this: “…Democrats are fighting to preserve social programs, while Republicans seek to downsize government.”
I was flabbergasted. Well, yes, Republicans do want fewer government programs and fewer government regulations, but the reason is that we believe less government and lower taxes lead to more commerce, and more commerce means more and better jobs, hence healthier and happier people.
But she thinks that even if that were Republicans’ goal (which she doesn’t grant), that would not be a “direct” goal. Preserving social programs is a direct goal, but more jobs would be an indirect goal, and therefore the statement would not be balanced.
Well, I looked at NRO recent archives, and sure enough, there was nothing to be found about pushing for job creation. Why would that be, I wonder? Is it because conservative writers think that their goal of job creation is so well understood that it does not need to be stated? Or is it because I am wrong, and that job creation is not the real reason my party’s representatives want lower taxes on “the rich”? And if job creation is not the reason for wanting lower taxes, then what is the reason?