9.20.2009

Common sense, Tea Parties, and Taxes

There’s a photo series running around on Facebook right now, and presumably elsewhere on the ‘net, “Morons holding signs.” It shows hand-made signs with things like “Obama half-breed muslin,” “No Amensty,” and “Descent: the highest form of Patriotic.” As a former grader of student papers, I like my correct spelling and grammar as much or more than most folks I know, but there’s a certain amount of point-missing going on here.

Instead of looking at the substance of the complaints, the comments and forwarding focuses on the fact that some people can’t spell (although it is hard to argue with the slams on the dude holding the sign that says “Get a brain! Morans”). Laughing at someone for calling Obama a half-breed muslin (what’s the other half – tweed?) ignores the birther angle. Maybe that deserves ignoring, but ignore it for what it is, not for n over m. Don't be distracted. Don't be arrogant - it's too easy. It's the wrong argument. It wins you no friends.

So today, Frank Rich wrote a thoughtful and not GOP-bashing piece in the New York Times (I know, no way). He’s talking about Glenn Beck, the 9/12 Project, and the general populist rage going on. Fair enough. Glenn Beck rails against corporate corruption (even though many call him a corporate stooge), against government corruption (even though his fans want to draft him into government), and against wasteful spending. The thing that I really liked about reading this piece by Rich was getting a broader sense of Beck without having to suffer through him personally.

Incidentally, Beck is trying to position himself as a latter day Thomas Paine, with his own version of Common Sense (two links here, by the way). Boy, those old-timers really had an angle on good behavior, didn’t they?

What’s been nagging at me for a couple of days is the combination of left and right wing anger.

Last autumn, I had the pleasure and good fortune to meet Jonathan Tasini, former head of the National Writer’s Union, blogger, state senate candidate (vote!), and all-around tilter-at-windmills with whom I do not always agree. Jonathan thinks everyone should be in a union. He thinks so because he believes in the power of collective bargaining, and he believes that corporations need a counterweight. He’s a got a minutely detailed argument about how U.S. worker productivity has been rising consistently (if not steadily) since at least the 1970s, while wages have remained stagnant (it might be in this book, but I’m not sure).

One of the arguments against the teabaggers’ railing “no more taxes” is that a) we’re paying less taxes now than we were under Reagan. Lots less. And b) more than 90% of us got a tax cut under Obama’s stimulus plan (as represented in less money being taken out of our paychecks). But they’re REALLY angry about something.

What if those arguments were both right? Less taxes but less income? Our paychecks don’t go as far not because the government is taking out more, but because we’re still arguing about the negative effect of, say, raising the minimum wage?

Is this just misplaced anger? Why is it so much more palatable to hate the government than to hate the corporations? What if it wasn't just the government that was the problem?

No comments:

Post a Comment