MetaLark writes:
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?
Congratulations, you just let the postmodern liberal’s linguistic tricks back you into a corner. Or, put another way, if you accept their “framing” of the issue, you’ve already lost the debate.
I don’t know what Republicans want, and it seems neither do they, but I know what conservatives want: Less taxes and less government on EVERYBODY. Because this includes “the rich,” however you define that, why then conservatives do, in fact, want to lower taxes on “the rich.” Along with everybody else. Liberals and the lapdog media simply focus on “the rich” to the exclusion of everyone else, which is why the recent tax deal raised taxes on the middle class and there was little mention of that and no outrage. Yet.
Another thing conservatives want even more is less spending by government. And if you have less taxes on everybody, you get less government OR more government plus more debt (the latter is what Obamanomics is getting us). One of the many reasons for favoring less taxes is that it gives government less of our money to waste.
My question to you is: what’s wrong with this? Do you WANT to pay more taxes, yourself? Do you think government actually spends wisely? Is $1 trillion+ per year in deficit spending (which we’ve had every year Obama has been president) is a good idea? Is it sustainable?
Conservatives don’t like ANY of this, and I have no problem defending that. If only we could get Republicans to do it!
Do I WANT to pay more taxes? No.
But at bottom, though I believe conservative policies would benefit me personally, I am not passionate about the benefit to myself, but about the benefit to mankind. I believe those policies are wise because they create the best life for the most people.
You seem to be saying that it is contrary to conservative principles to be concerned about people in general.