PLANK OCTOBER 12, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Joe Biden scored a hit in last night’s vice-presidential debate after Paul Ryan dropped the name “Jack Kennedy” to defend Mitt Romney’s proposed tax cut. “Oh, now you’re Jack Kennedy,” he quipped. Political commentators delighted in the reference to Lloyd Bentsen’s famous put-down in his 1988 vice-presidential debate with (the similarly much-younger) Dan Quayle. Quayle, you’ll recall, said he had just as much political experience as “Jack Kennedy” had when he sought the presidency. That prompted Bentsen to reply: “Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.” Even as vice-president, Quayle never really recovered from Bentsen’s pointed dismissal.
In their rush to declare Biden the victor in that exchange, however, the commentariat missed an opportunity to address the substance of what Ryan was saying, which was significant. Let’s review. Biden had just gotten done beating up Ryan for refusing (as Mitt Romney does) to say precisely which tax loopholes Romney-Ryan would close in order to--as promised--recoup all revenue lost by lowering all marginal tax rates by 20 percent.
(Digression: Among many reasons to be grateful for Martha Raddatz’s presence as moderator was that she got Ryan to acknowledge that the Romney-Ryan tax cut would indeed be 20 percent across the board—an elementary point that neither Jim Lehrer nor President Obama managed to establish with an energetically obfuscating Romney during the first debate. Obama kept saying Romney’s tax cut would cost $5 trillion. Romney kept saying it wouldn’t neither. Obama could have—but, weirdly, didn’t--shut Romney down by saying: “Dude. You’ve said you want to cut taxes 20 percent. Here on Planet Earth a 20 percent tax cut costs $5 trillion.”)
Biden (citing the oft-mentioned Tax Policy Center analysis) told Ryan that it was mathematically impossible to make up the lost revenue without raising taxes on the middle class. Here’s what happened next:
Ryan. It is mathematically possible. It's been done before. It's precisely what we're proposing.
Biden. (Chuckles.) It has never been done before.
Ryan. It's been done a couple of times, actually.
Biden. It has never been done before.
Ryan. Jack Kennedy lowered tax rates, increased growth. Ronald Reagan —
Biden. Oh, now you're Jack Kennedy.
It was smarter for Biden to shut Ryan down with the Jack Kennedy crack than to explain why the Kennedy tax cut doesn’t help Ryan’s case. That's because establishing why requires much more explanation than Biden had time for. Me, I’ve got nothing but time. So here goes.
In 1964 Congress passed, and Lyndon Johnson signed into law, a big income-tax cut that had originally been proposed by John F. Kennedy. The top marginal rate dropped from 91 percent to 70 percent, which represented a 23 percent cut. The bottom rate dropped from 20 percent to 14 percent, which represented a 30 percent cut. The middle rates dropped from 59 and 62 percent to 45 percent, which represented a cut of 24 percent to 27 percent. So we start out with one significant difference between the Kennedy and the Romney plan. Romney and Ryan want to lower taxes by the same amount for all brackets, high and low. Kennedy (really, Johnson) lowered taxes more at the middle and especially at the bottom than he did at the top.
Support thought-provoking, quality journalism. Join The New Republic for $3.99/month.
The 1964 tax cut has been embraced by supply-siders as a supply-side cut, and JFK even sold it that way to big business in a 1962 speech that supply-siders love to quote. But in fact Kennedy, and his chief economist Walter Heller, saw the tax cut as a demand-side cut aimed at creating old-fashioned Keynesian stimulus in a sluggish economy. Indeed, what Kennedy really wanted was to stimulate the economy through government spending, but he didn’t have the votes in Congress for that. So he went with the tax cut instead. The giveaway that Kennedy's wasn’t really a supply-side tax cut was that the cuts were greater in the middle and at the bottom than at the top. If you want to stimulate consumer purchasing, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts in the middle and at the bottom. If you want to stimulate investment, you’re better off concentrating income-tax cuts at the top—or, if that’s politically impossible, you make the cuts the same across the board. Ronald Reagan’s tax cut in 1981 was pretty obviously a supply-side cut because it lowered the top tax rate more than it did rates at the middle or the bottom. After it passed, White House budget chief David Stockman got in a lot of trouble for admitting what was obvious to anyone paying the slightest attention: The only cuts Reagan cared about were those at the top. "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,'" Stockman blurted out to William Greider in the Atlantic, "so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."
If Ryan means to suggest that the 1964 tax cut paid for itself, that’s definitely not true. Despite what many supply-side fantasists maintain, tax cuts always deprive the Treasury of revenues, and the ’64 cuts were no exception. Whether the Kennedy-Johnson tax cut achieved its desired economic stimulus is a matter of some dispute. Bruce Bartlett was, in 1981, staff economist to Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., an architect of the big Reagan tax cut (and also Ryan's mentor). Bartlett gave the 1964 cut close study at the time. He says it recouped about one-third of its revenue loss through economic stimulus. But according to a recent Congressional Research Service survey, there’s no clear evidence that tax cuts have ever stimulated economic growth, going all the way back to 1945.
Ryan is right that the 1964 cuts were achieved without the elimination of any tax loopholes benefiting the middle class. But to paraphrase Bentsen: “I knew 1964. 1964 was a friend of mine. 2012, you’re no 1964.” Most obviously, the economy was in much ruder health in 1964 than it is today; even allowing for the slowdown Kennedy wished to address, the postwar boom was in full swing and annual GDP growth rates were, through the 1960s, much higher than anything we’ve seen lately. For another, the top marginal rate fell from 91 percent, which probably was too high, to 70 percent, a level that Ryan nor Romney would never, ever tolerate (but which, in case you're curious, lies within the optimal range of 57- 83 percent identified by the economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez).
Possibly the most significant difference, though, is that in 1964 the Treasury wasn’t as dependent on rich people for revenue as it is today.
This last point is easy to misconstrue, and conservatives have done their best to turn it into an argument that the rich are paying more taxes than ever before. That isn’t true. As a percentage of their income, they’re paying much less than they did then; the top marginal rate is today half what it was after the ’64 tax cut. But as a percentage of the Treasury’s total take, they’re paying more. The top one percent, for example, pay (very roughly) a little more than one-third of it, which is more than twice the percentage they paid back in 1964. Why has their share of the national tax bill doubled? Because their share of the national income has doubled from about 10 percent in 1964 to about 20 percent today. The more income you have, the more income tax you’re going to pay, even if the top rates (and the capital gains rate and corporate tax rates) are falling.
Today's grotesquely lopsided income distribution explains why any uniform reduction in tax rates (say, Romney's proposed 20 percent) is really a tax cut for the rich in disguise. A 58 percent majority of all income tax is paid by the top 5 percent (i.e., families making more than $155,000) and fully 70 percent of is paid by the top 10 percent (i.e., families making more than $112,000. When rich people pay most of the taxes, rich people get most of the tax cuts.
If conservatives want the rich to pay a smaller share of the nation’s collective tax bill, they should forget about eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit—that’s small potatoes—and instead figure out a way to revive the middle class, which was thriving in 1964 (therefore paying a much larger share of America's taxes) but is sagging today. And no, Rep. Ryan, showering rich "job-creators" with ever-larger tax cuts won’t achieve that. (We know because we’ve been trying that for the past 50 years.) The way to reduce the rich’s share of the nation’s taxes is to reverse the 33-year trend toward growing income inequality. I have a few ideas about how, but Ryan won’t like most of them.
56 comments
Excellent post. I argue that the backward bending supply curve of labor suggests that tax rate increases encourage work among over compensated people who make so much they would rather take a vacation. Only tax cuts for lower incomes encourage work. Someone should address why, when Reagan eliminated the cap gains preference, job growth went up, when Clinton reinstated it, job growth went down, and when Bush added in dividends with a 15% cap, it went anemic. That's because the CG preference tilts the playing field from higher taxed business income to lower taxed income from sales of investment property. See job growth numbers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
- Nusholtz
October 12, 2012 at 5:47pm
I should add that Reagan eliminated the capital gains preference in 1986 and Clinton Reinstated it in 1997.
- Nusholtz
October 12, 2012 at 6:18pm
So it is not possible to refer to precedents without being accused of hubris now? I can't see any analogy between the two events Noah is referencing. Ryan is no Dan Quayle and Biden was making too high a leap in his gut-derision. He may have delighted the Democratic commentariat but then, what wouldn't have delighted them when perceived to be righteous zingers no matter how irrelevant and silly? Hats off for Ryan for keeping a cool and elegant demeanour throughout the debate, despite Biden's constant simpering and offputting grimaces. Consider what a real achievement it would have been for Biden to have sailed through this occasion without resorting to these clownish tricks. It really makes you pause to reconsider whether this is the kind of conduct one would wish to see from one's leader.
- Noga
October 13, 2012 at 7:56am
Very nicely done. To fix the issues with the middle class, $32 trillion will need to be repatriated and the tax code will need to be rebuilt as progressive again.
- smabry03
October 13, 2012 at 8:04am
Better link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms
- Nusholtz
October 13, 2012 at 10:52am
I'm with Noga and Malahat. I found this exchange an incredible low point for Biden in the debate, making look desparate and demagogic. Ryan took the position that lowering tax rates could boost revenues Biden interrupted saying it had never been done. They went back and forth for a couple of seconds, "Yes, it has." "No, it hasn't" "Yes it has, at least twice." Then, "Oh yeah, when?" Biden declaiming, interrupting, scowling, smirking, chortling, condescending, dismissing. Ryan, incredibly, keeping his cool, "Jack Kennedy did it. Reagan did it. George H. W. Bush did it." The logical response to this, the intellectually honest one, would have been to despute that claim, which, until disputed, prima facie backed up Ryan's assertion. To that backing up answer, Biden, non plussed, not being able to argue back in good faith, tried to score a Bensten, "So no your Jack Kennedy," which was so fantastically inapposite and stupid, and disanalogous to the exchange between Bentsen and Quayle, it make my head explode. Ryan's answer should have been something like, "What does that comment have anything to do with what I just said. I made no comparison between myself and Jack Kennedy, I was simply answering your question, and refuting your claim of "never ever" by pointing to examples of when conscious tax rate cuts have boosted revenue. You can't deal with my example, so you throw out a red herring of an accusation which is false and reflects on your own inadequacy." (Much easier said in hindsight!) Too bad Ryan let the opportunity slip as he merely nodded in in a shrugging, "What are you going to do?" way and laughed weakly. To tout this exchange as some moment shining well for Biden is either to misread it terribly obtusely or to be so utterly tendentious, or so committed to Obama, that objectivity has fled Noah's mental scene.
- basman
October 13, 2012 at 12:52pm
So sorry for all typos, ungrammatical slips, any malapropism too.
- basman
October 13, 2012 at 12:59pm
Basman I don't know if this sways you, but check out Mr. Noah's link at "no clear evidence." It is a September 14, 2012 Congressional Research Study titled: "Taxes and the Economy: An Economic Analysis of the Top Tax Rates Since 1945" Here is the study's conclusion: "The results of the analysis suggest that changes over the past 65 years in the top marginal tax rate and the top capital gains tax rate do not appear correlated with economic growth." We have had low top rates and low capital gains taxes and anemic growth for 12 years now. Lowering the top rates will not help the economy.
- Nusholtz
October 13, 2012 at 2:06pm
Basman I reread you post and mine may not have been responsive, because you may have been making a point only about appearances.
- Nusholtz
October 13, 2012 at 2:08pm
Oh for pete's sake Basman, enough already. It's high time SOMEBODY called out R&R Enterprises on their mendacity and also, their absurdly bad arithmetic. Joe Biden did this nation a great service and if he helped stemmed the bleeding toward the evil GOP, and it is evil, only you don't appear to realize yet that it isn't a "conservative" party it's radical and intends to shred not only social contracts by people's human rights, especially women and gays, and ruin the environment, the unions and other worker protections, then he's a hero. I think he is a hero. WHY are you apologizing for Romney and Ryan and attacking the people and environment of the US? I'd really like a good explanation. PS the people of the world will suffer too, if they're elected (G*d forbid.) Or maybe you think more war, more killing, less environmental protection, is all good? Let me add something here: Bain Capital has "harvested" a company in a small Illinois town, Lockport. The workers were forced to train their Chinese replacements and now they're shipping the equipment to China. This man, this vulture, who got fat from destroying American jobs, is running for POTUS based on ridiculous assertion that HE can save our economy. So, I would really like an explanation from you Basman. Also Noga, so forth. ????????????
- Sophia
October 13, 2012 at 2:11pm
"Oh for pete's sake Basman, enough already." I'm scratching my head. "enough already." ?? Enough with noticing that Biden's performance relied on knowing condescending smiles, eye rolling and resort to red herring crowd pleasers? Is this YOUR best way to respond to the comment I made about Biden's non-sequitur that should have had any Democrat cringing in unease? "WHY are you apologizing for Romney and Ryan and attacking the people and environment of the US? I'd really like a good explanation." Sophia would like an explanation for: How dare anyone criticize Biden's performance as anything less than stellar and brilliant? Kudos to Nusholtz; he realized he was responding to an argument which had never been made. Will Sophia realize it? Enough already, Sophia. You are beginning to sound woefully desperate if you can't distinguish an argument about a rhetorical fallacy from an advocacy. Have you been reduced to "either with us or against us" sort of pleading?
- Noga
October 13, 2012 at 2:38pm
I think in general terms Ryan came across in the taxation section of the debate -- yet again -- as someone who keeps reaching for the detailed plan in their back pocket but making sure they don't ever show it. There's luckily no such thing as Democratic or Republican arithmetic and Biden's pushing on the potential cutting of middle-class deductions was the legitimate way to go. Ryan's performance in the foreign policy section was weak but that was more to do with the fact that the Romney campaign doesn't have a great deal to say in that area that either (a) makes sense or (b) if it does make sense, would be substantially different from the Obama administration. I agree, however, that he kept his head and looked able to manage a coherent argument over a range of issues -- this was a real debate, not a comedy hour like Palin in '08.
- ironyroad
October 13, 2012 at 3:06pm
10/13/2012 - 2:11pm EDT | Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!
- basman
October 13, 2012 at 3:15pm
"Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!" Wasn't that a movie? Or maybe the sequel?
- ironyroad
October 13, 2012 at 3:41pm
OK, all you got is "dumb dumb dumb" and Biden's facial expressions, which were FINE. He's Biden. What's your problem? And, what's your excuse for supporting R&R? You guys read this magazine. You can't be ignorant of Ryan's politics, his religious extremism, his view of women, his attitudes toward Social Security and Medicare. You must know by now about Romney, Bain, Romney's mendacity. So?
- Sophia
October 13, 2012 at 4:40pm
Also, anybody who's been paying attention must be aware that the GOP is no longer the party of Eisenhower, or even Goldwater, or even Nixon, or Reagan, or Bush I. It's extreme. How can you support that? I want to hear it. I don't want a personal attack on me, on Obama, on Biden. I want reasoning.
- Sophia
October 13, 2012 at 4:42pm
Incidentally, another point where Biden cut the socks off Ryan was when Biden pointed out that he had written official letters requesting specific funding for his congressional district from the very 2009 Stimulus Funds that Ryan and his boss regard as the most pernicious budgetary measure ever passed in American history.
- ironyroad
October 13, 2012 at 5:15pm
Are you saying Sophia that since I read this magazine, I have to share your extreme opinion about Romney and Ryan? You look at these two and see extremists. I look at them and I see two candidates who have conservative positions with which I disagree but I don't find as meriting the kind of demonisation you resort to. I actually somewhat agree with ironyroad that Romney is not qualitatively all that different from Obama. As I said, Sophia, you seem to advocate for all or nothing. You are one in a crowd and your voice has become as shrill and frenetic as that of the crowd. That is not a good sign for any liberal society. Can you hear yourself? You are demanding an excuse for thinking differently. Unbelievable. What are you? Where is this dogmatism coming from? What's your excuse for speaking to me as if I'm accused of some egregious thought crime? Perhaps there should be a condition stipulated by TNR: If you want to become a subscriber you must swear an oath of allegiance to Obama and TNR's official anti-Republican positions. Then there would be a trial period supervised by a reception committee at the end of which it will be decided whether one can or cannot subscribe and make comments.
- Noga
October 13, 2012 at 5:17pm
Noga touches on a key problem, but I would put it this way. Romney is not an extremist at all. His record in Massachusetts shows that clearly. He is, however, someone who will jettison his own acheivements and embrace ugly positions that he thinks will get him somewhere on his quest even if the end effect is negative for him, revealing someone who has no central beliefs or ideas at all. And he will turn on a dime without embarrassment as he did ten days ago. Ryan is a different kettle of fish and I think it's easy to become somewhat seduced by the polite Catholic-schoolboy demeanor and moderate manner, because they are very different in tone from what I think drives him ideologically.
- ironyroad
October 13, 2012 at 5:36pm
How can anyone say that Romney and Ryan, especially Romney, are more extreme than Goldwater? Are you kidding! [These bizarre and out of control attacks on Romney and Ryan have gone too far. Two can play the insult game.] If Goldwater were President, the US would be on the gold standard and the US would not have a 16 trillion dollar deficit. Goldwater also would have had oil and gas drilling throughout the United States, would never have established the Departments of Energy and Education, among other things. Goldwater was for state's rights and individual liberty. Goldwater was not for same-sex marriage, unrestricted abortion, and racial preferences. Goldwater wouldn't bow to foreign heads of state. Goldwater believed that America alone was number 1. Goldwater would not have returned the bust of Winston Churchill to England. Only a moron would do that. The real difference between Obama and Romney is economic freedom and individualism. Reducing the rates for income taxes creates incentives and allows people to keep more of their money, thereby promoting growth, economic freedom, and individual liberty. In fact, that is the difference between the Republican party and the Democrat party. The extreme left Dems remind me of the pigs in Animal Farm. Their fantasy is to rule over a Kafkaesque United States, where people are drones for the state. You know the dream, people die so trees can flourish. It is typical of the extreme left that its hero is the smiling rapist of Juanita Broderick, Bill Clinton. Now I know why they wanted to keep God out of the 2012 party platform. Why worship God when you can worship a rapist. [Revelation 20:11-15] By the way, while Paul Ryan is not Jack Kennedy, neither is Obama, who isn't even Millard Fillmore. The best comparison for Obama is David Dinkins.
- john336
October 13, 2012 at 5:58pm
It is interesting that such clarity of view ironyroad displays when it comes to Romney yet cannot see how I look at Obama and perceive a similar sort of subterfuge and denial of primary principles. For example, Obama has never furnished a plausible explanation as to why he had been listening to Reverend Wright for twenty years, why he has such friends like Rashid Khalidi (who used to show up on Canadian TV during the years of the Intifada and suggest that Arafat should not bow to Israeli and American pressure to capture and imprison Palestinian terrorists). Obama went to Israel as a candidate, prayed at the Kotel, promised the kids of Sderot that he would do everything in his power to stop the rockets from falling there, schmoozed with Jewish leaders etc etc and what do you know, he did all that IN ORDER TO improve his chances of GETTING ELECTED. So when Romney adopts positions he doesn't really believe in it is ugly behaviour. When Obama did and does it, it's all par for the course; Obama is righteous and decent as per definition. Romney is evil (as someone here suggested not long ago), a smarmy politician, an opportunist, a racist, a man who makes war on women's bodies, who would take the bread out of children's mouths for a few dollars more. Is there no limit to your hypocrisies?
- Noga
October 13, 2012 at 6:31pm
"Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!" I don't think that anyone who dropped a steaming word-pile such as the one you did above should be impugning anyone's intelligence.
- bunthorne
October 13, 2012 at 6:46pm
I grasped your point, Noga, until you accused me of hypocrisy (in the plural no less). So let me rephrase your question to Sophia and ask you if holding a contrary opinion to you on the qualities of different political figures counts as hypocritical, and in what rational sense? And if I just said for the sake of it that I agreed with you on X or Y, that would be honesty in your book?
- ironyroad
October 13, 2012 at 6:54pm
Ok Bunthorne let's deal with that steaming word pile. Make the case against what I said, calmly, logically and disinterestedly. Go right ahead.
- basman
October 13, 2012 at 7:11pm
I call it hypocrisy when you put a moral tag on Romney's political prevarications while doing everything in your power to justify Obama when he does the exact same thing. Here is what you said of Romney; "He is, however, someone who will jettison his own acheivements and embrace ugly positions that he thinks will get him somewhere on his quest even if the end effect is negative for him, revealing someone who has no central beliefs or ideas at all. And he will turn on a dime without embarrassment as he did ten days ago." "ugly positions"? Didn't you go out of your way to exonerate Obama when he put the Holocaust and Palestinian refugees on the same footing in his Cairo speech? Or more recently, when you insisted that when he said "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." he actually meant something else altogether? I don't remember characterizing Obama's positions ever as "ugly". But the adjective seems to fall very easily from your lips when applied to Romney. Tell me what is hypocrisy; perhaps it doesn't mean to apply two different measures to similar kinds of transgression (at the very least).
- Noga
October 13, 2012 at 7:25pm
Bunthorne, please, put your arguments where your mouth is!
- basman
October 13, 2012 at 9:40pm
Noga, I simply mean that one can point to the military and intelligence cooperation with Israel this moment as being as substantial as from any US administration in the past and certainly more substantial than some. I don't see that Obama has done anything to warrant the accusation of . . . well, whatever it is you're accusing him of. It's not quite clear. I apply the same standard to Romney as I do to Obama, and Obama is the one who comes up with comparatively a lot of honesty in relation to his past. I reject the accusation of hypocrisy as being unjust and unfounded. I have always supported Obama in a general sense -- while being critical of specific actions -- and I have never hidden that from anyone.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 12:27am
Being critical is being critical. It doesn't involve a moral judgment of the type you (or Sophia and others) indulge in (Romney is "evil" or a "sociopath" or has "ugly" positions). That's what I pointed to as an example of hypocrisy. When Obama holds an unlikable position he is forced by circumstances. When Romney does he is being immoral in a fundamental way. Please ironyroad, I will much appreciate it if you made the effort to actually pay attention to the point I'm making.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 5:37am
Noga Reverend Wright? Rhashid Khalidi? You complain that President Obama has not explained these relationships. I look at why Romney is advocating tax cuts at the top and repealing the estate tax when no evidence suggests that it will help the economy (but will most certainly help Romney to the tune of millions and millions of dollars). And, of course, what will it do to increase the debt (which Romney adamantly will not answer)? I'm interested in why Romney thinks being the world's bully will help us get the cooperation we need in other countries to go after terrorism. You can dwell on Obama 's friendships if you want, but what if his policies for the country are better?
- Nusholtz
October 14, 2012 at 9:42am
Sorry nutsholtz you and I are not really interested in the same issue so your comment as far as it purports to answer my problem with a double standard/hypocrisy is simply irrelevant. But just as a matter of curiosity, I'm wondering about this: "(but will most certainly help Romney to the tune of millions and millions of dollars)." Do you in good faith believe that Romney will enact certain policies that will make Americans poor while he will get richer from them? Is that his purpose in getting elected president? Just asking.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 11:43am
Why need I remind people Romney said this to a group of rich Republicans behind closed doors, and he said it quite fluently: There are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47% who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax…[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. I simply do not understand how a man who could say such a vile thing, get caught, and still be in the running for President. Fuck Mitt Romney. He holds half of America in contempt. His is an elitist, arrogant asshole. Part of me wants him to win so that slowly the majority of Americans will understand just how much of an asshole he is. It will be 4 years of surreality. Or maybe Americans are as effing stupid as I am starting to think they are.
- blackton
October 14, 2012 at 1:31pm
Noga, I am paying attention but I'm not 100% sure what point you are making. When I say that Romney has abandoned the broad approach he showed over a decade ago as governor and embraced ugly positions, I mean political positions that I personally regard as ugly, on repealing the ACA, immigration reform, the whole Obama "apologizing" mythology, and the like. Maybe he doesn't believe all that and it was just for the GOP base, but the effect of this is at the very least to make one unsure which Romney is going to show up for work any given morning. With respect to Obama's "unlikeable" positions, I'm an Obama supporter so I obviously believe that his positions are in general acceptable (I emphasize "in general"). I don't have any special insight into the future, but for the usual mixture of subjective and objective reasons I would rather Obama get a second term than Romney gets the White House. I'm sorry but that doesn't seem abnormal or hypocritial to me. Romney's wild leaps from one ideological location to another are fairly well documented -- it's not like people are inventing this stuff. And it's so obviously opportunistic -- that happens in politics, agreed (and Obama has done it too) but with Romney it seems as if the phoniness takes over the picture. Again, fwiw, I emphasize that I don't believe Romney himself is extreme (as noted above) but I'm almost more worried by someone who has shown himself willing to spin like top to please the extreme edge of his party.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 2:03pm
If I may, Romney would enact certain policies that will make Americans poor while he will get richer from them because he really believes that's what's best for America. It's all about consequences, not motives.
- Robert Powell
October 14, 2012 at 2:06pm
"With respect to Obama's "unlikeable" positions," Why the scare quotes? Are you implying I misspelled the word "unlikable"? As for the issue itself: ironyroad, I already stated it as clearly as I can within the limitations of my language use. When Romney is perceived as flip flopping or expounding on certain issues, he is characterized as "evil" or "sociopath" or possessing of "ugly" positions. When Obama flip flops he is just doing his job, what else can he do, he needs to say things in order to get elected. Understanding and even admiring nods from the fawning crowd. No moral judgment, no hanging on to principle whatsoever. Hey, that's politics. When you describe positions "unaceptable" to you as "ugly" while you shrug away positions just as unacceptable to others as business as usual, you are dealing in double standards, which is one branch of hypocrisy. And that's what the issue is for me in this thread. You cannot even bring yourself to agree with my initial comment that Biden's response to Ryan citing JFK was not at all to the point, was irrelevant, misleading, a red herring, and insulting, and the fact is that too many Democrats (at least the well educated who post on these pages) delight in such perversions of discourse as if they were clever and triumphant. Let me remind you of Obama's own ethics of engagement, which apparently Ryan has internalized: "The antonym of respect is disdain or (better) contempt; the antonym of charity is selfishness or (better) stinginess. It is much worse to be disrespectful than to be uncharitable. Politicians who show respect--Senator McCain is a good example--tend not to attack the competence, the motivations, or the defining commitments of those who disagree with him. Politicians who show charity as well as respect--Senator Obama is a rare example--tend to put opposing arguments in the best possible form, to praise the motivations of those who offer such arguments, and to seek proposals that specifically accept the defining commitments of all sides." (Cass Sunstein)
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 2:30pm
Noga "your comment as far as it purports to answer my problem with a double standard/hypocrisy is simply irrelevant." You agree then, I presume, that your emphasis on people the President has known is kind of silly and does not really merit discussion? Romney wants to lower the top rate (a gift to himself), eliminate taxes on Capital gains, interest and dividends on AGI up to $200,000.00 (a gift to his trust fund supported grandchildren), and repeal the estate tax (a gift to his kids) at a time when these will do nothing for the economy but will increase the debt. Why is he doing it?
- Nusholtz
October 14, 2012 at 2:34pm
I would be terribly curious to learn how Obama viewed his VP's clownish performance. One of the most endearing moments I recall about Obama was his elegant and unobtrusive but nonetheless firm rebuke to Biden, when, soon after the inauguration, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for stumbling upon some wording of the oath. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JubjVCwr_PU
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 2:42pm
"You agree then, I presume, that your emphasis on people the President has known is kind of silly and does not really merit discussion?" Of course I don't agree. Why would you even presume such a thing? These are not just "people the President has known". These people were his close friends and teachers for a long time.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 2:48pm
Not scare quotes. Just quotes. I do that sometimes if I want to make clear what's my language and what comes from the other party. I was also trying to probe a bit as I wasn't sure whether you meant positions of Obama's that you personally don't like or positions that I was meant not to like if I was being non-hypocritical. But this: "When you describe positions 'unaceptable' to you as 'ugly' while you shrug away positions just as unacceptable to others as business as usual, you are dealing in double standards, which is one branch of hypocrisy." Noga, that sentence makes zero sense. How is it hypocritical or even applying double standards to reject positions that I regard as unacceptable while not presuming to judge what is acceptable or unacceptable to others whose opinions are their own? I just don't get the logic here. I mean, I'm not in the slightest denying the right of others to find position X of politician Y unacceptable (but if I find it acceptable then obviously I'll argue that in a public forum like TNR). More broadly, it seems to me that applying your rules there could be no political disagreement at all because with enough analysis and balanced evaluation everyone comes out as equally compromised. In a way, you're right that I think that Obama's shifts and fudges aren't as egregious as Romneys, but imo democracy can only exist if we don't confuse philosophical investigation with battles of rhetoric in which political authority is being contested. A rational perception of the world is important but emotional loyalty has its place too. I guess if you want to call it double standards, then go ahead, but I can't see where it gets you.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 2:52pm
My point was simple, ironyroad. If you referred to Romney's positions as "unacceptable" I wouldn't quarrel with you over moral judgment or hypocrisy. What I find upsetting is the resort to such heavily incriminating, emotionally-loaded-with-loathing adjectives as "ugly". That pushes the argument into a different realm altogether, that place where "evil" and "sociopath". I understand from your last paragraph that you think it is fine to indulge in this type of demonization and debased discourse.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 3:24pm
PS just saw Argo last night, and apart from a silly chase scene at the very end it is a tense and powerful film as well as being very funny in parts (esp. the Hollywood section with John Goodman and Alan Arkin). As Ben Affleck said in an interview, if it wasn't true the premise would sound like a bad idea for a movie. Also the Canadian ambassador in Teheran and his wife are two of the heroes of the story.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 3:26pm
noga "Of course I don't agree." I pointed out the frivolousness of your post about not knowing why the President associated with a Reverend Wright or a Professor Rhashid Khalidi. You first responded that such frivolousness is irrelevant and now claim that the president's association with a reverend and a professor do matter. But this assumes the answer to the question intitially raised. Why would it matter why President Obama has known said reverend and said professor, if Romney's proposals are bad for the country and Obama's policies are good for the country?
- Nusholtz
October 14, 2012 at 3:26pm
ironyroad I saw it two nights ago and can confirm your review.
- Nusholtz
October 14, 2012 at 3:52pm
I think ugly is strong (although I said the positions were so, rather than Romney himself) but falls notably short of demonization. In any case, the participants on TNR are, for an unmoderated board, suprisingly self-controlled and civil given the often fraught grounds we tread upon.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 3:56pm
"In any case, the participants on TNR are, for an unmoderated board, suprisingly self-controlled and civil" Really? Perhaps you missed the many comments by roidubouloi and one or two or three others directed at yours truly. "Self controlled"??? "I think ugly is strong (although I said the positions were so, rather than Romney himself) " I made sure to state that you were speaking about "positions" so your comment is completely redundant and somewhat misleading. People may assume I characterized them that way when I deliberately did not. You can be such a sanctimonious smuggaroo, ironyroad. I'm going to Chapters to imbibe coffee and read about crowds and power, from Elias Cannetti. Very pertinent. I hope you have a good time schmoozing with nutsholts here who thinks that saying something is silly actually makes that something silly, and the case is made, tout suite.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 4:12pm
"nutsholts here who thinks that saying something is silly actually makes that something silly, and the case is made, tout suite." This comment seems ironic because when I asked why a relationship with a reverend and a college professor would be determinative of whether Romney would make a worse president than President Obama, you had only answered with an empty: "These people were his close friends and teachers for a long time." I won't bother to mention that infantile name calling ("nutsholts") is usually associated with children and the mentally challenged because I feel that public insults are always inappropriate.
- Nusholtz
October 14, 2012 at 4:45pm
OK, I'll jump in here. I assert that my attitudes are not extreme, just realistic. Romney has gone hard right in order to get elected. What his true feelings are who knows? Ted Kennedy was nailing him for hypocrisy and weather-vaning years ago. This is nothing new. However, his actions as a vulture capitalist probably do merit more examination. Since he's running on his business record; I think that speaks for itself. And, a person who lies through his teeth and changes his positions like normal people change socks is clearly lacking a core and cannot be trusted. Plus, he is bellicose. He wants OTHER PEOPLE'S KIDS to go to war. He went to Paris to be a missionary during the Vietnam era, when tens of thousands of American kids died. His own five huge sons haven't worn a uniform. I don't think a Romney has ever enlisted, but, he sure is big on "defense," his advisers got us into Iraq. Same as Bush. We need this like a hole in the head. And, he attacks poor and middle and working class Americans at the same time his company "harvests" American companies and sends their jobs to China where people are working for .99/hour. What a hypocrite. Sorry if this is an "extreme" position on my part. As for extremism, the obvious real kind of political and social extremism, I give you Paul Ryan the VP Candidate, chosen by Romney, whose budget Romney endorsed don't forget; and the Tea Party, the religious right, "Republicans" who would deny medical care to tens of millions of Americans, who would gut the Constitution so people like Ted Akin (elected officials in Paul Ryan's words!) alone would decide what women can do with our own bodies. I think it's extreme to force women to undergo ultrasound exams, it's mechanical and emotional rape. People who don't think this is extreme need their heads examined. I will get back to Noga next because I think she betrays her real problem.
- Sophia
October 14, 2012 at 5:16pm
Noga's Real Problem: Israel. She thinks Obama isn't pro-Israel enough and because he is South Side black man who went to one of the most popular churches on the South Side, with his wife, who is the daughter of a working class American black family, and because he knows some Muslim and Palestinian scholars he is clearly a bad man who can't be trusted with our 51st state. Am I right? Noga and maybe Basman, you don't give a rat's patootie about Americans, our economic issues, for that matter American diversity, let alone the fact that the GOP is hard right now and this includes Romney since he declares he is A Severe Conservative. I believe him. I agree he's probably conflicted but one has to go with what he has been saying to get the nomination and with his VP pick. That alone speaks volumes as does his pandering to the Tea Party and to the Religious Right and to the anti-environmental oil industry, the billionaires like Koch and Adelmann, etc. He is owned by them. As for women, one minute he says women have rights and the next he says we don't. Either way he betrays contempt for health care, for poor and working people, for seniors and the sick, for the environment, and for our intelligence with his waffling. But you don't have to live with this. We do. So, I think what you guys REALLY mean is, Obama is bad because he knows some Arabs and sees the Palestinian side of the Arab/Israeli conflict and also gets why Muslims would like for Americans and other European imperialists to stop bombing them. FFS. Why do you think this a bad thing? Further as to Joe Biden: a clown he is not. He is a brilliant guy and has decades of experience at the highest ranks of the Senate, and now as VP. He'd be a great president in his own right. He was absolutely correct to call Ryan on his lies and on his party's ridiculous platform, which the media should have been doing all along. He pretty much exposed Romney/Ryan for what they are: lacking in real plans, hypocrites, warmongers, and extremists on women's rights and also on the role of the Supreme Court within our 3 part governmental system, and also on the role of religion in civil life. They think it's ok to inflict their POV on everybody else. That is extreme and it's against the very foundations of this country. Since you are not Americans maybe these issues of American soldiers, American environment, American workers, the American economy, American women, the American Constitution etc don't bother you. But they bother us. They bother anybody who is awake an understands history and the pillars of American civil life. Finally, Obama is as pro-Israel as they come. He's done more in real terms to keep Israel safe than most Republican presidents who with their recklessness have exposed her to war, who in 1973 wouldn't re-supply her during the Yom Kippur War, who have often acted against Israel and in favor of the oil companies, who are foreign policy "realists" that would abandon the Israelis in heartbeat. Romney and Ryan are quite likely to precipitate a shooting war in which Israel would be a victim or maybe you haven't noticed the huge Iranian conventional military? It is way better to try and avoid that don't you think? You don't need atomic bombs to devastate a country as small as Israel. Finally, you need to think about this business of Obama and his exposure to Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims. That is a GOOD thing, it's a strength and not a weakness.
- Sophia
October 14, 2012 at 5:33pm
It's not quite true that you made it clear you were talking about positions, Noga: "What I find upsetting is the resort to such heavily incriminating, emotionally-loaded-with-loathing adjectives as 'ugly.' That pushes the argument into a different realm altogether, that place where 'evil' and 'sociopath' . . . " It seems to me you move adroitly here from talking about positions to talking about personal qualities. I never used the word evil or the word sociopath (which tend to apply far more to persons rather than positions), but anyone reading your comment would certainly take away the implication that I had in some way endorsed them. So I think I was quite right to establish what I was saying for the record. In any case, I concede the sanctimonious smuggery but I was stung to be accused of hypocrisy and double standards where I think those accusations are (a) groundless and (b) somewhat complicated anyway when it comes to politics. And demonization? No. Chapters and Cannetti sounds nice. On my side I can only report the coffee shop attached to Earth Fare supermarket and Lawrence Rothfield's The Rape of Mesopotamia: Behind the Looting of the Iraqi Museum, a book that is engaging me much more than I'd expected.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 6:46pm
I'm not at all adroit at anything ironyroad and I resent your accusation that I was trying deliberately to paint it as if you were talking about the man when I made special efforts to be accurate. And the fact remains that Romney's positions cannot be described as "ugly" just because they are more conservative than yours. Therefore, demonization. Unless of course a conservative approach to any of the state problem is as per definition an "ugly" position. BTW, to be against abortion is not an "ugly" position by any stretch of the imagination, except in the minds of those who think that abortion should be an acceptable substitute to birth control. I suspect that people from both sides who talk about abortion haven't got a clue what they are really talking about but that's just a guess.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 8:02pm
Sophia is in meltdowm mode. I have nothing to say to her. Talk about demonization! Don't you have any better way of advocating for your president but as the victim of racism and Israeli persecution?
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 8:11pm
No of course being against abortion isn't an ugly position. And people who are "for" abortion rights are not claiming that it's a leisure activity to be encouraged, either. But I have no problem describing as "ugly" a political position that clearly wants to go back to a situation where most women found themselves with a Hobson's choice between (a) being dependent upon a man's financial largesse to solve a problem or (b) finding a cheap illegal operator -- basically the state of play up to the early 1970s. And Republican pols who campaign energetically on pro-life principles but pressure their pregnant girlfriends to get terminations are imo walking examples of pure hypocrisy.
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 8:48pm
Yes but just because there are Republican hypocrites it hardly justifies Democratic hypocrites, does it? What an extraordinary response! As usual you do not even bother to read my comment carefully.
- Noga
October 14, 2012 at 9:46pm
"As usual you do not even bother to read my comment carefully." Yes, I do hate it when that happens!
- ironyroad
October 14, 2012 at 9:57pm
I am not in meltdown mode. Here, read: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/the-radical-is-romney-not-ryan.html While you're at it read Krugman's piece too: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/krugman-death-by-ideology.html?hp This is serious. This is what we're dealing with here. And yes, it is extreme. I'm not.
- Sophia
October 15, 2012 at 12:39am
And the fact remains that Romney's positions cannot be described as "ugly" just because they are more conservative than yours. I will be completely honest and say if it were John McCain and he were to win I would be disappointed but get over it. But know this from the linked article: Mr. Romney declared that nobody in America dies because he or she is uninsured: “We don’t have people that become ill, who die in their apartment because they don’t have insurance.” Two of my kids have genetic conditions that require them to take medicine and will require them to take medicine all of their life. If not for insurance at work I could not afford it, and to buy a cobra would mean no eating until another job replaced it...as this is impossible my kids could not get their medicine. No ER in the country will provide daily medicine. If it got to the point where they had to go to the hospital the damage will have already been done. And Romney flat out lies in his claims not to know this. Pitching Romneycare years ago he explicitly laid out how bad ER care is and how inefficient it is. He is an evil bastard. Hell, I would prefer a Santorum over Romney any day. Santorum is an arrogant, self righteous ahole but he has principles and if evidence came to him that children were dying for lack of insurance I have no doubt he would expand S-Chip or the like. Romney views the world in 3 ways, employers (who are the virtuous and the rightful rulers) the employed (who should be grateful to the virtuous employers) and the unemployed (who must be lazy slackers)
- blackton
October 15, 2012 at 9:24am
ironyroad: You still have not commented on my initial point in this thread.
- Noga
October 15, 2012 at 5:39pm