Spring Break
Label makers block path to economic progress
Sanjai Tripathi
Issue date: 3/11/09 Section: Forum
The Obama administration recently released its budget plan, and it is making some noise.
The main argument against it is a holistic one; taken together, they say, it moves us too far to the left.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson describes it as "ideologically ambitious, politically ruthless and radical to its core." He also claims, "it is a weakening of the theoretical basis for capitalism," because it raises taxes a few percentage points on the top percentage of earners, to a level just under what it was under Clinton.
In a column titled "One France is Enough," The New York Times's Roger Cohen refers to the provisions in the budget to increase government funding for education and health care and writes, "the $3.6 trillion Obama budget made me a little queasy. There is a touch of France in its 'étatisme' - the state as all-embracing solution rather than problem."
Liberal. Socialist. Government-run economy. Class warfare. Nanny statism.
The epithets are flying. Many are criticizing and characterizing the Obama budget plan based on what it represents philosophically and what it means ideologically.
This is common in politics. People tend to think in terms of categorical labels, like "conservative," "liberal," "centrist," "radical," "socialist," etc. The game in politics is to use these labels to effectively tag your own policy in an advantageous way, or tag your opponents in a disadvantageous way.
The Republican strategy will be to defeat Obama's budget priorities by tagging them as radical, extreme and French. Obama counters with his own gambit by labeling his budget "transformational."
But let's not forget what the labels actually mean - not very much. They are just shortcuts to real analysis.
Government in the real world is all about policy. Outside of the philosophies, ideologies and characterizations, the actual things that do or do not get done are what truly affect our lives.
So instead of making it a debate about philosophy, why not look at the actual programs Obama is proposing? I know it's a radical idea, but it just might be crazy enough to work.
The main argument against it is a holistic one; taken together, they say, it moves us too far to the left.
The Washington Post's Michael Gerson describes it as "ideologically ambitious, politically ruthless and radical to its core." He also claims, "it is a weakening of the theoretical basis for capitalism," because it raises taxes a few percentage points on the top percentage of earners, to a level just under what it was under Clinton.
In a column titled "One France is Enough," The New York Times's Roger Cohen refers to the provisions in the budget to increase government funding for education and health care and writes, "the $3.6 trillion Obama budget made me a little queasy. There is a touch of France in its 'étatisme' - the state as all-embracing solution rather than problem."
Liberal. Socialist. Government-run economy. Class warfare. Nanny statism.
The epithets are flying. Many are criticizing and characterizing the Obama budget plan based on what it represents philosophically and what it means ideologically.
This is common in politics. People tend to think in terms of categorical labels, like "conservative," "liberal," "centrist," "radical," "socialist," etc. The game in politics is to use these labels to effectively tag your own policy in an advantageous way, or tag your opponents in a disadvantageous way.
The Republican strategy will be to defeat Obama's budget priorities by tagging them as radical, extreme and French. Obama counters with his own gambit by labeling his budget "transformational."
But let's not forget what the labels actually mean - not very much. They are just shortcuts to real analysis.
Government in the real world is all about policy. Outside of the philosophies, ideologies and characterizations, the actual things that do or do not get done are what truly affect our lives.
So instead of making it a debate about philosophy, why not look at the actual programs Obama is proposing? I know it's a radical idea, but it just might be crazy enough to work.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.