Total Pageviews

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Two To Tango

Some optimists have hailed Congressman Paul Ryan at the lower half of the challenger's presidential ticket as a harbinger of a serious policy-oriented campaign, and on the face of it the sitting president's campaign ad calling this a clear choice between stark and well defined alternatives would seem to indicate the same. But we live in a world of non-stop media - I would fain call it a news world anymore since most of the time is given to statement of opinions rather than the simple reporting news. Much as we may claim that we wold like to see a serious debate about the issues confronting us and the rival plans for tackling them, we have actually give lie to our professed wishes with the attention we lavish upon every meaningless attack ad and soundbite.

A serious debate would require recognition of nuance, of the possibility that opposing views may have merit equal to our own, or should at least be judged with that possibility. But when a leading politician of the right declares that his idea of compromise is when the other party accepts every one of his demands and gets nothing in return, the chances of civil discourse are greatly reduced. When the leader of the GOP declares that his main aim is to ensure the defeat of the president simply because he represents a different party, the chances for discussion are reduced. Certainly, Congressman Ryan has the benefit of a reputation for seriousness and a body of policy plans that set him apart from other recent candidates for that office, as well as some who sought the upper line on the ticket. But in a world where policies must be defined in a sentence and where the listeners lose attention halfway even then, it's unlikely that this debate will rise to any heights beyond what we heard two years ago when far more time was spent talking about non-existent death panels than discussing the actual provisions of the healthcare law.

There is a good chance that there are aspects of the GOP plan that I would support, and to his credit President Obama has even embraced some of those ideas. I believe the time to raise the retirement age has arrived quite some decades ago - not only has life expectancy increased greatly, but there is no doubt that most people in their mid-sixties are far fitter and more active than their parents were at the same stage of life, and it's ridiculous to cling to that age as though it were somehow sacrosanct. A modest change of just a couple of months or so every year in the retirement age would greatly improve the financial health of our safety net without changing the quality of life for the vast majority of us; for those whose life may leave them less able to work past sixty-five, exceptions are always possible where warranted. But the key to this, as with all other policy changes out there, is for an honest effort by both sides. And that effort is lacking, as evidence when one side opposes their own ideas the moment they are adopted by the other - the individual mandate at the heart of the president's health care reform was actually dreamed up by conservatives eager to provide an alternative to a publicly funded health care system, yet every major GOP member pretended to forget that and opposed health care reform en bloc. Their presumptive candidate for president actually went so far as to forget that his own initiative as a state governor was based on the same tenets - such intellectual dishonesty kills any desire to engage in meaningful debate on matters of substance.

All politicians twist the truth, but the larger number of conservatives today have reached a new level of aversion for reality and honesty. They opposed the economic stimulus proposed by the president in 2009. Now there is a place for disagreement over Keynesian theory for reviving depressed economies, but conservatives reflexively opposed a stimulus package that actually included a clear third in tax cuts - the new mantra for conservatives in the thrall of a schoolboy who seemingly hasn't grown up - and had  significantly less public spending than liberal economists desired, as a
sop to conservatives. This was not a disagreement over policy - since the stimulus package was actually crafted as a compromise - but a craven refusal to accept the right of any other party to govern, no matter the clear electoral mandate. The president, when faced with a mid-term political reversal pledged to listen to what the public had said with their votes; even if that be simply words, as his critics my scornfully say, his opponents have never even whispered the same, much less acted with humility. And can any conversation on national policy be possible without the humility to recognize that others' ideas may have merit?

Optimists may wish, and may build their castles in the air, but if the GOP is in earnest about having a serious policy debate, it's not enough to choose a vice-presidential candidate with a lengthy resume as a wonk, it's about actually engaging in the debate. And that means repudiating many policies that smack of rank partisanship. Would the Romney-Ryan ticket start by clarifying their exact opposition to the Affordable Care Act, and why it needs to be immediately repealed when it's so similar to Romney's own effort in Massachusetts? But really, if they really want this to be about substance over fluff, they could make one easy move that would show their desire to win on the strength of their ideas rather than by any dirty trick - simply call upon their surrogates in the State houses to stop trying to disenfranchise whole swaths of the populace. If they made a simple statement that they believed in the right of every person to vote, and that they were confident of winning because they had a better plan for the country, it may go far in clearing the air and setting the stage for a meaningful discussion on different visions on moving forward. But if they refuse to take that chance, we will have nothing but endless attacks on both sides, and the only voice of sanity left will be a comedian - dare I hope for Stewart/Colbert 2012?