(A guest post by my husband, er, Mike the Actuary)
We hear it every day: The American people are fed up with politics; they don’t feel properly represented by politicians.
There are many reasons provided to explain this phenomenon. For me, the main issue is that neither party’s agenda lines ups very well with my own personal belief system. More precisely, I feel that the straight line classification, left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative, Democrat vs. Republican, just doesn’t work for me. There are way too many factors in play and reducing it to a single dimension isn’t doing the trick for me. I wonder if I’m alone, or if that’s part of a broader problem.
Let me explain.
First, on fiscal matters. I would happily label myself a “fiscal conservative” in the sense that I strongly believe in maintaining tight controls over government spending. Mainly that’s because I strongly believe that maintaining the long-term fiscal health of a country directly impacts its ability to act and ultimately its relevance. The federal budget deficit is way too high, as is the federal debt. And of course that doesn’t even reflect all the deficits and debt at the state and local level.
I am appalled when politicians—left or right—spend money as if it grows on trees. I don’t care if excessive spending occurs on social programs, on “entitlements” or on some fancy high-tech defense system. At the same time, I am equally appalled by Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge that pretends that taxes are always too high, no matter what, and which limits (or even impedes) the ability to reach important compromises.
I don’t mind if high earners pay high taxes, for as long as the money is truly needed in the sense that the money collected is used in a responsible manner. At the same time, I also believe that spending doesn’t always have to go up. There are times when spending has to come down, and there shouldn’t be any budget items that are declared to be off limits on ideological or populist grounds.
So where does that put me? I don’t know.
Next, on social matters. Again, I mostly think of myself as “conservative”. I liked the term “compassionate conservative” (although I don’t know if that’s been hijacked in some fashion). I’m pro-life, but that includes all life, i.e., encompasses an anti-death-penalty stance. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but support gay and lesbian rights. We definitely need to do a lot of work to improve race relationships, but I oppose notions of “white privilege”. And while certain types of support for the African American community are in order, I see the decline of family values, and specifically the decline of traditional families, to be a significant contributor to the challenges in those communities. But those aren’t symptoms, those are causes, and we should not hesitate to point that out.
How about some other policy issues? I’ve generally been supportive of Obamacare, or at least of some form of universal health care. I find it to be mostly a sign of the dysfunction of the current American political climate that so much effort is spent on trying to dismantle Obamacare rather than on improving it.
Social Security, or pension systems more generally, need to be sustainable. Again, we don’t have the luxury to declare them to be sacrosanct. Better to make tough choices (up to and including cuts) now than to risk apocalypse later.
Education is a tough one. It’s too easy to constantly advocate “more investment in education” but I don’t have a good position here. I do know, however, that the trajectory of college cost is not sustainable. I have grave reservations when I see tuition outpace inflation year after year even if financial aid seems to be expanding at the same time.
Lastly, on foreign policy. Mostly, what I’ve been missing is a position that advocates America consistently occupying the moral high ground. If America wants to be seen as the beacon for Freedom all around the world, then it must act the part. That doesn’t mean going around apologizing which all too often just comes across as a weak plea to “please love me.” Make no mistake, we should act from a position of strength. It’s just that we should marry our undeniable strength with a lot of compassion. It means having a clear sense of what’s good and right and then implementing a consistent foreign policy that follows that line—even if it means accepting some disadvantages. It means that we need to be very careful before involving our milliary, and that once involved, our military should act with restraint. It also means that we should treat even our enemies with some respect. No water boarding or other “enhanced interrogation techniques”. Ever. It also means that we need to be careful what regimes to support, and how we interact with and talk about regimes that are clearly not aligned with our moral belief system. A perspective of “my enemy’s enemy is my friends” doesn’t qualify, nor does easy access to oil. Lastly, it means that peaceful measures of foreign aid should be emphasized. Wouldn’t it be great if America was known around the world more for the Peace Corps than the Marine Corps?
I hope I’ve made my point. Do you see my dilemma? What’s your perspective?
Jane here. If you want to talk about Americans’ disengagement from politics, consider that you’re generally stuck with few choices — and the more that Social Issues, well, are issues (who would have considered gay marriage an issue a generation ago, or assisted suicide?), the more difficult this becomes. The bottom line: politics isn’t a straight line. If you expect everyone to just find our spots on this line, no wonder we’re not cooperating.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In