If you listen to the pundits, the 2012 election represents a referendum on “the fundamental role of government” (see this from one of my more favorite conservative publications, for example; Google the phrase itself and you will get thousands of hits). On one side, we have the Obama administration, which wants more taxes, more spending, more regulation, and more government interference in every aspect of your life. On the other side, we have Republicans who espouse less government, less taxes, less spending, fewer regulations, and a return to the good old days of what made America great. It’s a neat little narrative, all tied up in a bow, that’s easy for people to understand.
Except that’s not quite how would put it. This election is important (every one is, of course), but I wouldn’t say that it represents competing visions of the government’s role in our lives. Instead, this election is about different views of reality. On one side, we have a team that tries to work within the framework of the possible and the realistic, making hard decisions that sometimes make people mad, but have some greater goal in mind. On the other side, we have a team that sells empty platitudes that have little bearing on reality, that simply endeavor to tell voters what they think they want to hear without having a plan to back it up. Truly, we have a difference not based on the fundamental role of government, but the fundamental role of reality.
Exhibit one is the House Republican budget plan, which is similar to most of the budget plans they have been putting forward: long on rhetoric, short on specifics. Most voters would happily agree with the statement “We should cut spending”. At the same time, most voters would disagree with the statement “We should cut spending on defense, Social Security, Medicare, and middle class tax cuts”. The reality is that you can’t cut spending without tackling those issues, seeing as how they make up the vast majority of the federal budget. Yet the Paul Ryan budget blissfully ignores this reality, as Paul Krugman points out. It cuts spending by “closing loopholes”, to the tune of $700 billion in tax revenue a year. Even for this country, that’s a significant chunk of change, but Ryan does not mention a single loophole he would close. He simply waves his magic wand and says “we’ll get the money from somewhere”. Mortgage interest tax deduction? Child tax credits? The charitable donation tax deduction? Even eliminating all of those wouldn’t raise enough revenue, and few Republicans would be willing to run on a platform of cutting popular tax deductions (even though I personally think some of them should go). It is reality-denying at its strongest.
Or take gas prices. Yesterday, I heard a story on NPR about how Romney’s position on gas prices has shifted from his previous, mainstream moderate Republican stance to his current “drill, baby, drill” absurdity. The reality is this: higher gas prices are here to stay. We are not in imminent danger of running out of oil, and frankly, it’s unlikely that we will ever completely drain the lost drop of it from the ground. What is eminently clear, however, is that we have run out of the cheap, easily-extractable oil. We are turning to tar sands, fracking, deep-sea drilling, and other methods to get oil from previously non-economically viable sources. These sources are being tapped because we have no alternative: the easy, close-to-the-surface stuff is gone. Moreover, even drilling isn’t going to get us back to where we used to be: that uptick in North Dakota is an uptick, but compared to oil production even in the 1980s, it’s nothing. One upon a time, Mitt Romney acknowledged that high oil and gasoline prices will be a way of life, and we will need to deal. Nowadays? More of the same reality-denying nonsense.
Health care spending? Climate change? Transportation funding? In every case, the Republicans at a national level are simply denying reality. The things that Americans enjoy, like good schools, roads free of potholes, capable police forces, an environment that is largely unspoiled and unpolluted, and affordable health care, are not without cost. They require sacrifices and prioritization that is done on a community- and country-wide scale. There are no free lunches here. “Fraud and waste” and “overregulation” are not the boogeymen that, when eliminated, will allow us to have what we want without paying taxes. That’s simply not going to happen. We have real, fundamental issues to deal with, and sticking our fingers in our ears will not help.
To be quite honest, I don’t even like this rampant partisanship. I think that this country works best when we have rational, yet honest debates about how to solve problems, from all sides of the spectrum. I’ve often said that the U.S. Senate needs at least one Paul Wellstone, but probably not a hundred of them; the issue now is that I can barely think of a person on the other side who would merit the same statement (any Republican that dares talk with Democrats, like Dick Lugar, is endangered these days). As long as people like Paul Ryan refuse to put realistic numbers on their proposals, we don’t need any of them in Congress, let alone the White House.
I don’t believe any party, or any person, has a monopoly on what is best for this country. At the same time, though, I can comfortably say that people who do not acknowledge the very realities of what this country is facing do not deserve a seat at the table. I sincerely hope that someday, this will pass and once again we can have a discussion about the best, most practical, and most realistic ways to address the very serious issues our country faces. I really do.