Where, Oh Where, Have the Moderates Gone?
Where, oh where, have the moderates gone?
Where, oh where, can they be?
With their rationality, common sense
And reasonableness guarantee?
(to the tune of "Where Has My Little Dog Gone?")
We have a budget!!
In my personal opinion, this is a damn good compromise. I'm not happy with everything it entails, but that's the point of a compromise, especially on something like this where there are no definitive "right" and "wrong." Both ideologies have merit, even if I only adhere to one of them. Both have historical precedents to back them up and both- I hope- are legitimately trying to do what they feel is best for the American people. Given that, I can't really say that the other side is wrong or evil.
Yet so many people do. I can barely go look at the comments pages on any news sites anymore, because most of the posters there don't seem to share this sentiment. It's appalling how quickly they revert to ad hominem arguments, attacks on "opponents'" personal integrity, intelligence, etc. And they generalize, "all liberals are X" "all Republicans are Y." One of the worst things, for me, is when people are like, "God will smite you for your pagan ways" or "God will smite you for your selfish ways." Or, "How can anyone be a Christian and a liberal?" hits really close to home, too. There's absolutely no Biblical reason why you can't.
I'm a member of the 2011 Senatorial Colloquy at WC. It's basically a not-for-credit class where former Senator Birch Bayh talks to and with us about civil rights issues. I find it really interesting. Anyway, the first session was about separation of church and state and why it is so vital. His main reason was that religion is one of those things about which you'll never be able to change people's mind. They're going to believe (or not) no matter how hard you push. And the political system necessitates compromise, and such an immutable opinion does not compromise make.
This is exactly what we're seeing here, only with party ideology instead. Extremists on both sides refuse to bend, to give up ground. I admire standing up for your beliefs and trying to do what's right. But there comes a point when you have to be able to work with others who may not have the same idea of "right" as you. You have to be mature enough to concede some points.
So I admire Boehner and Reid for their work on this bill. I truly do. (And Obama for helping to foster it…) But it's people like Rep. Jordan that make me sick. One tiny issue- that, frankly, shouldn't even be a budget issue in the first place- and you're going to vote against something that both parties spent so hard crafting? The Tea Party, as it is representing itself currently, scares me for this reason; they are too inflexible, too unwilling to compromise even the slightest bit. And what's with the sudden focus on social issues, anyway? Didn't they all run on deficit reduction?
Deficit reduction is definitely needed. No one denies that. (So claims that Democrats want expanded government at this juncture are ludicrous.) The argument now is from where these cuts come. (Frankly, I'd like to see a breakdown of the cuts in the compromise budget.) I actually think a very good way to go about it is something that I read in a comment section on The NY Times, where for every dollar one side gives up from a pet project the other side should give up just as much.
Now, this bill cuts about $39 billion from the 2011 budget. Republicans are upset because they wanted more. Thing is, they will always want more. Personally, depending on where precisely those cuts are coming from, I might not mind more cuts either. Things like oil subsidies, farm subsidies (paying people NOT to grow food when we have famines all over the world…), whatever money is going into No Child Left Behind, possibly the defense budget in the form of the building of artillery, bases, war planes etc, NOT soldiers' pay or benefits, and um… Congressional salaries? (what??) But I think it is dangerous to do all of these cuts immediately.
Here's why. Some moderate Republicans will admit that we need a safety net for the disadvantaged in society, and this is true. But then they go and ruin it by saying things like "to ensure that America’s safety net does not become a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency.” Paul Ryan and the Tea Party crowd honestly think that this will happen? Regardless. Let's just look at one piece of this safety net, shall we? Food stamps, for instance. Now, suppose the budget slashes funds for the program to the point that, abruptly, half of the people who are relying on them no longer receive ANY help. What would they do? "Get a job!" Tea Partiers will yell. While at the same time asserting that there are no jobs because of Obamacare and the bailout and other Democrat actions. So, a job from where? And in the interim, how will they get food? They could go rob a store, of course, or turn to drug peddling or gangs. And get caught and put in already-overcrowded jails that still cost taxpayers money. They could go to food banks, maybe, if they have transportation there, and if the banks have food. (In an economic downturn, people are probably less likely to give to such charities.) They could rob the food bank (true story; this happens in inner-city Baltimore at a church-run shelter I've visited). My point is, if we all of a sudden pull the rug out form under people, they won't be able to adjust, even if they want to. And many of them do; this is a one-degree-of-seperation recession, with many newly-poor people who are now struggling through no fault of their own. They're not all the stereotypical lazy welfare recipient, they're former accountants, restaurant owners, and teachers (those cuts sweeping the nation are a whole other issue).
Therefore, it makes sense to start with gradual cuts to these programs. Give people a warning, saying, "Hey, this is going to get worse, maybe you should think of ways to help yourself out of this." Encourage them to plan ahead, start coming up with contingencies- smart money practices for everyone, actually. That is much more likely to be effective. On the other side of the coin, if you find the cuts are too big and the program is really vital, you can always readjust. It's easier to find, say, $3 million lying around in some other corner of the budget than to scrounge up a disruptive $500 million.
The government has grown bigger gradually; this didn't happen overnight. So why should it be fixed overnight?
Reasonable, right? So how come it is so hard for so many of the people in Congress to see things like that? I have my theories, and a laundry list of solutions (open primaries, term limits, limiting the amount of total spending on campaigns so that candidates don't feel as beholden to donors (in other words, no more politicians in XYX Group's pockets)). But voting would be a much easier way to do something. Vote for moderates. Middle-of-the-road people, on either side. Not the Tea Party activists or the wacky liberals à la Olberman. People who will exercise common sense and logic and not blind party rhetoric.
Alas, I wonder if any of those people are drawn to politics anymore. The partisan squabbling certainly turns me off, and I could not abide the personal attacks and aspersions on my faith and character. Plus with the massive amounts of money required to campaign, let alone win, it's nearly impossible without the backing of one of the parties. Although, if someone who was truly unaffiliated with any party were to run now, I think they'd stand a damn good chance (looking at you, Nader. Or Perot. Or Stewart (heehee please??)).
I guess my point is, there's no reason for things to be this bad, this heated, this uncivil. People will disagree today, as they have in the past and will in the future. The Founders knew this. (Probably part of the reason Washington was so against political parties…) They built the Constitution around the idea of compromise and rational debate, not slogan-throwing and obstinacy. It's one of the many paradoxes of American politics that we want someone who holds firm to their beliefs but also someone who can compromise for the greater good. Without compromises, you have shut downs. And while some people would welcome that in principle to make sure their ideology prevails, the majority of us, the moderates out there, just want things to function.
Where, oh where, can they be?
With their rationality, common sense
And reasonableness guarantee?
(to the tune of "Where Has My Little Dog Gone?")
We have a budget!!
In my personal opinion, this is a damn good compromise. I'm not happy with everything it entails, but that's the point of a compromise, especially on something like this where there are no definitive "right" and "wrong." Both ideologies have merit, even if I only adhere to one of them. Both have historical precedents to back them up and both- I hope- are legitimately trying to do what they feel is best for the American people. Given that, I can't really say that the other side is wrong or evil.
Yet so many people do. I can barely go look at the comments pages on any news sites anymore, because most of the posters there don't seem to share this sentiment. It's appalling how quickly they revert to ad hominem arguments, attacks on "opponents'" personal integrity, intelligence, etc. And they generalize, "all liberals are X" "all Republicans are Y." One of the worst things, for me, is when people are like, "God will smite you for your pagan ways" or "God will smite you for your selfish ways." Or, "How can anyone be a Christian and a liberal?" hits really close to home, too. There's absolutely no Biblical reason why you can't.
I'm a member of the 2011 Senatorial Colloquy at WC. It's basically a not-for-credit class where former Senator Birch Bayh talks to and with us about civil rights issues. I find it really interesting. Anyway, the first session was about separation of church and state and why it is so vital. His main reason was that religion is one of those things about which you'll never be able to change people's mind. They're going to believe (or not) no matter how hard you push. And the political system necessitates compromise, and such an immutable opinion does not compromise make.
This is exactly what we're seeing here, only with party ideology instead. Extremists on both sides refuse to bend, to give up ground. I admire standing up for your beliefs and trying to do what's right. But there comes a point when you have to be able to work with others who may not have the same idea of "right" as you. You have to be mature enough to concede some points.
So I admire Boehner and Reid for their work on this bill. I truly do. (And Obama for helping to foster it…) But it's people like Rep. Jordan that make me sick. One tiny issue- that, frankly, shouldn't even be a budget issue in the first place- and you're going to vote against something that both parties spent so hard crafting? The Tea Party, as it is representing itself currently, scares me for this reason; they are too inflexible, too unwilling to compromise even the slightest bit. And what's with the sudden focus on social issues, anyway? Didn't they all run on deficit reduction?
Deficit reduction is definitely needed. No one denies that. (So claims that Democrats want expanded government at this juncture are ludicrous.) The argument now is from where these cuts come. (Frankly, I'd like to see a breakdown of the cuts in the compromise budget.) I actually think a very good way to go about it is something that I read in a comment section on The NY Times, where for every dollar one side gives up from a pet project the other side should give up just as much.
Now, this bill cuts about $39 billion from the 2011 budget. Republicans are upset because they wanted more. Thing is, they will always want more. Personally, depending on where precisely those cuts are coming from, I might not mind more cuts either. Things like oil subsidies, farm subsidies (paying people NOT to grow food when we have famines all over the world…), whatever money is going into No Child Left Behind, possibly the defense budget in the form of the building of artillery, bases, war planes etc, NOT soldiers' pay or benefits, and um… Congressional salaries? (what??) But I think it is dangerous to do all of these cuts immediately.
Here's why. Some moderate Republicans will admit that we need a safety net for the disadvantaged in society, and this is true. But then they go and ruin it by saying things like "to ensure that America’s safety net does not become a hammock that lulls able-bodied citizens into lives of complacency and dependency.” Paul Ryan and the Tea Party crowd honestly think that this will happen? Regardless. Let's just look at one piece of this safety net, shall we? Food stamps, for instance. Now, suppose the budget slashes funds for the program to the point that, abruptly, half of the people who are relying on them no longer receive ANY help. What would they do? "Get a job!" Tea Partiers will yell. While at the same time asserting that there are no jobs because of Obamacare and the bailout and other Democrat actions. So, a job from where? And in the interim, how will they get food? They could go rob a store, of course, or turn to drug peddling or gangs. And get caught and put in already-overcrowded jails that still cost taxpayers money. They could go to food banks, maybe, if they have transportation there, and if the banks have food. (In an economic downturn, people are probably less likely to give to such charities.) They could rob the food bank (true story; this happens in inner-city Baltimore at a church-run shelter I've visited). My point is, if we all of a sudden pull the rug out form under people, they won't be able to adjust, even if they want to. And many of them do; this is a one-degree-of-seperation recession, with many newly-poor people who are now struggling through no fault of their own. They're not all the stereotypical lazy welfare recipient, they're former accountants, restaurant owners, and teachers (those cuts sweeping the nation are a whole other issue).
Therefore, it makes sense to start with gradual cuts to these programs. Give people a warning, saying, "Hey, this is going to get worse, maybe you should think of ways to help yourself out of this." Encourage them to plan ahead, start coming up with contingencies- smart money practices for everyone, actually. That is much more likely to be effective. On the other side of the coin, if you find the cuts are too big and the program is really vital, you can always readjust. It's easier to find, say, $3 million lying around in some other corner of the budget than to scrounge up a disruptive $500 million.
The government has grown bigger gradually; this didn't happen overnight. So why should it be fixed overnight?
Reasonable, right? So how come it is so hard for so many of the people in Congress to see things like that? I have my theories, and a laundry list of solutions (open primaries, term limits, limiting the amount of total spending on campaigns so that candidates don't feel as beholden to donors (in other words, no more politicians in XYX Group's pockets)). But voting would be a much easier way to do something. Vote for moderates. Middle-of-the-road people, on either side. Not the Tea Party activists or the wacky liberals à la Olberman. People who will exercise common sense and logic and not blind party rhetoric.
Alas, I wonder if any of those people are drawn to politics anymore. The partisan squabbling certainly turns me off, and I could not abide the personal attacks and aspersions on my faith and character. Plus with the massive amounts of money required to campaign, let alone win, it's nearly impossible without the backing of one of the parties. Although, if someone who was truly unaffiliated with any party were to run now, I think they'd stand a damn good chance (looking at you, Nader. Or Perot. Or Stewart (heehee please??)).
I guess my point is, there's no reason for things to be this bad, this heated, this uncivil. People will disagree today, as they have in the past and will in the future. The Founders knew this. (Probably part of the reason Washington was so against political parties…) They built the Constitution around the idea of compromise and rational debate, not slogan-throwing and obstinacy. It's one of the many paradoxes of American politics that we want someone who holds firm to their beliefs but also someone who can compromise for the greater good. Without compromises, you have shut downs. And while some people would welcome that in principle to make sure their ideology prevails, the majority of us, the moderates out there, just want things to function.