Liberals Arguing Tax Policies based on a MATERIAL Argument, rather than on the Basis of EMPATHY

[FrenchieCat]

George Lakoff: Untellable Truths

The differences between Democratic progressives and the president over the tax deal the president has made with Republicans is being argued from a materialist perspective. That perspective is real. It matters who gets how much money and how our money is spent.

The progressives' economic policy arguments are sound: continuing reduced tax payments for the wealthy will not work as a serious economic stimulus and will greatly increase the deficit and make the economic picture worse. From a progressive moral perspective, it isn't fair; it increases an economic disparity that is already much too large.

The president's pragmatic incrementalist arguments seem reasonable from his perspective: He got more immediate money for the poor and middle class than he gave to the rich, and the poor and middle class need as much as possible now (pragmatism) and further incremental steps can be taken later (incrementalism).

Those are the materialist arguments among Democrats. I want to shift the frame to the major causal factor that is being ignored on both sides: the role of communication in shaping what Americans understand.
snip
Democrats need to unite behind a simple set of moral principles and to create an effective language to express them.

President Obama in his campaign expressed those principles simply,
as the basis of American democracy.
(1) Empathy -- Americans care about each other.
(2) Responsibility, both personal and social. We have to act on that care.
(3) The ethic of excellence. We have to make ourselves better so we can make our families, our communities, our country and the world better. Government has special missions: to protect and empower our citizens to have at least the necessities.

I don't know any Democrats who don't believe in these principles.
They need to be said out loud and repeated over and over.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-lakoff/untellable-truths_b_794832.html

[FrenchieCat]

1. Guess there is a reason the article is called "Untellable Truths"...

as it seems like folks don't want to comment on the fact that it appears that most liberals care more about the 2% than anyone else. Sad commentary that the GOP have been able to get us to think about the money more than the people. Guess they have poison the water, and then we drank it.

[Hello_Kitty]

2. And the official argument for the lowest wage workers getting an increase next year is:

"It would be WORSE for them if they expire!!"

Empathy Fail. :thumbsdown:

[FrenchieCat]

6. The increase you are talking about is quite smaller than what it will be with no deal...

This was a compromise; i.e., you don't get it exactly as you'd like it.

Some people know that, and some people don't care.

I would think that "using" lowest wage workers
in order to say that since the deal doesn't give them exactly
what you believe they should have gotten,
then, them getting even less ain't your problem.

Yep....empathy is a virtue, and not everyone has it,
even those who want to think they do.

Now, go ahead and keep being that much more concerned about what the 2% might get,
and pretend that's empathy, and not simply a material objection.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. I AM one of those lowest wage workers, Frenchie.

I made about 10 grand doing odd jobs here and there and next year looks to be the same. This deal increases my taxes while everyone else maintains their cuts. But who cares, amirite? Someone has to sacrifice to help offset the cost of this and it might as well be the poor who don't matter.

Now I await your accusation that I'm selfish. 1...2...3...

[Aramchek]

3. some people are willing to sacrifice the Middle Class to take a shot at the Rich

They prefer revenge over empathy.

[niceypoo]

5. So, ending Bushes disastrous economic policies is 'revenge', against the GOP?

You are running out of ideas.

[FrenchieCat]

9. No. Acting like the only thing that counts is what the 2% will get

while not giving a shit about the 98%....
well, no.....that isn't empathy at all.

Running out of ideas wasn't the concern of the poster,
understanding who will be most hurt though was, and I'll tell you,
it ain't the rich that will suffer, no matter how long you are pissed.

[niceypoo]

13. The problem is the policy

Not who gets what in the policy. The policy caused the problem and the problem will not go away until the policy goes away.

[FrenchieCat]

17. Right. I understand you clearly. The problem with you has nothing to do with people.

just the policy....even if the policy ends up affecting 98% at this time in our economy
negatively, that's not your problem. I think you have made it clear at this point.

[niceypoo]

24. The problem isnt me, the problem is Bush supply side economics

Supply side economics drive wages down and unemployment up.

Attacking me does not change this fact. The recession wont end until the Bush tax policies end.

[FrenchieCat]

31. The issue is a material one in your view.

[niceypoo]

48. And you are pushing a RW meme, that ending the BUSH tax cuts is punishment

Tell me how two extra years of joblessness = empathy?

[Go2Peace]

40. It's about more than that. It's about REINFORCING Republican ideology

This entire thread is a testamony to how this tax compromises has shifted DEMOCRATIC IDEALS. That is the REAL fight, both in terms of the political, but in terms of suffering as well.

As a result of this compromise, we see Democrats moving further to the right in their ideology. The discussion has centered around the absolute NEED for middle class tax cuts. And traditional liberal values, which would seen this method of tax cuts as an innefficient, if not destructive, mechanism in making for a bright future, is completely lost.

In the past this argument would have been about relief for the poor and jobs. We are reduced instead to making the arguments for temporary measures based on Republican Ideology. Ones that 15 years ago we would have laughed at.

This is how the "frog boils" politically. We keep compromising our principles and message in order to survive another day. Most of us are old enough to understand that small compromises for the present often come back and cause our own suffering in the future. And that is EXACTLY the path we are on.

I may need those unemployment benefits soon, but I would rather suffer and even lose my house compromise and end up with a "Republican" austerity for the long term (which is where we are heading). I have had similar things happen before. The future is what is really important. If we lose the future we exchange a few years for decades of suffering.

[Aramchek]

12. against Bush and everything he stands for

I admit, just squashing his policy in toto would feel great.

But soon enough we would see the pain it was causing.

In order to avoid hurting people we care about, we have to let the rich have their cuts a bit longer.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?

[niceypoo]

15. So, it is only revenge?

It has nothing to do with ending the mess?

How does extending the problem help the victims of the problem?

[Aramchek]

20. No, it is not only revenge. But that is what would push one to go so far as hurting friends,

just to get back at enemies.

Extending all tax cuts, gets us the Middle Class Cuts for one.
It gets us over a year of Unemployment Insurance, too. And don't think we won't have to fight this out every month for the next year and still probably get no UI, if we this let this deal fail.

I must repeat. I think the tax cuts for the wealthy should end. They have no point, and are untenable.
But, we aren't in a position to end them without ending things that matter to us in the long run.

[niceypoo]

21. The recession wont end until the Bush policies end

And if Obama gets his way, they wont end in this term.

Change YOU can believe in.

[Aramchek]

25. the Tax Cuts are not the root cause of the Recession.

They are part of it. But there was so much more.

The Financial Collapse did not happen because of Tax Cuts.

Obama has done alot of things to bring us out of the Recession. Bringing back some kind of Financial Regulation is a big step in the right direction.

[niceypoo]

29. LOL, yeah right

Supply side economics has nothing to do with the economy collapsing, you got me there!

You have been assimilated, resistance is futile

[Aramchek]

32. we were talking about Tax Cuts. now you've expanded it to all of supply-side economics

It's easier for you to simply discount anyone who begins to unravel your line of thought.

I say again the Tax Cuts by themselves are not the Recession.
You talk as if a temporary extension means the Great Depression.

[niceypoo]

35. I have been talking about supply side economics all along

They have destroyed this country's economy. I don't buy into the RW meme that says tax cuts are the cure for everything. The CBO says that tax cuts are the LEAST stimulative thing that can be done.

Supply side drives wages down and unemployment up. If you want two more years of continued unemployment, extend the Bush tax cuts. If you want it to end two years sooner, end the tax cuts.


Either you want it to end or you dont. I am willing to do without the ruinous Bush tax cuts. I did just fine before Reaganomics, and I will do just as fine after they end.

[shellgame26]

38. "Either you want to end it or you don't"

Really? It's as easy as that? We had a choice: 1) Extend the tax cuts for 2 more years 2) The repubs make it PERMANENT when they take over in January.

[niceypoo]

45. Yes, it's that easy

The CBO report that came out in September stated that ending all of the Bush tax cuts will balance the budget by 2014.

[shellgame26]

53. Nobody here is disputing that

But you seem to gloss over the fact that the republicans won the house. They would have made the tax cuts PERMANENT in January.

[Aramchek]

41. this deal Obama proposed is not a referendum on supply-side economics

It is about Tax Cuts and Unemployment Insurance

[niceypoo]

47. The economic situation is

And all Obama is doing is prolonging the economic situation by prolonging the policy that caused it. Supply side economics.

I am not a supply sider
I do not believe that even more tax cuts will solve anything other than driving wages down and halting job growth

[FrenchieCat]

26. So you are saying folks just have to suffer......

Cause the deficit and rich people is what's important to you.

You've said the same thing in so many different ways,
I'm not sure why you keep going.

Sure the Haves and the Have more don't need our help. We got that.
It's the Have nots, that the "so what, I can't care" folks like you
are blowing off.

[niceypoo]

33. You want to extend that suffering by two years

By extending the problem that caused it for two more years.

That is the GOP argument: Ending Bush tax cuts is punishment.

[Union Scribe]

8. Ah those "some people"

Who are "some people"? The same ones Fox News cites?

Because I haven't seen any critic of the tax deal say, or even imply, that they want anyone in a bracket south of 250K to be "sacrificed" out of "revenge".

[FrenchieCat]

11. Get your red hot revenge while you can!

It doesn't matter what one "wants" it to imply,
it only matters what actually happens to those who
will see a big bite taken out of their budget
just so materially, we can feel confident that the rich
didn't get what they got last year....cause obviously,
that is the real crime!

[Aramchek]

16. have you not seen those crowing about letting all the cuts expire?

they are basically saying, let the middle class sacrifice so we can punish the rich.

I must stress that I despise tax cuts for the wealthy as much as anyone here.
However, I can also see the Big Picture repercussions of allowing all cuts to expire along with Unemployment Insurance.

[Union Scribe]

19. "they are basically saying"

except they aren't. They want tax cuts for people who aren't filthy rich to go through and for UI to be extended. You can call that impossible to accomplish, but you can't say they want to "sacrifice" those in lower brackets because that isn't what's been said, at all.

[Aramchek]

22. but they never say how, do they? they just shout " Get 'er done!"

It doesn't matter if their intention isn't to sacrifice the Middle Class.

That will be the result.

It doesn't matter how golden their intention is.
We know what the result will be, so they cannot ignore this in their calculation.

So either willfully or ignorantly, they would sacrifice friends to attack enemies.

[Union Scribe]

23. The subthread is about their supposed "willingness"

So yeah, that kind of is the issue. That's what you started off on.

[Aramchek]

28. some do it willingly, some pretend it won't hurt anybody. the fact is that it will.

ignorance is of the results of your actions is no excuse.

[niceypoo]

4. How does extending the problem help anyone?

Empathy for who? The super rich? They are the ones who make out like bandits in this deal.

[dave29]

7. By putting food on their table.

For starters. Some people don't have a million bucks OR anyone watching out for them.

[Go2Peace]

30. The trouble is that we SACRIFICE the FUTURE

by doing this the way we are the President is legitimizing Republican ideology.

Surely, in times like these the President must compromise (though he hasn't need to compromise as much as he has), but where he makes a grave error is he needs to have a strong message along with these kinds of compromises, otherwise it is a strong statement of support for the Republican worldview, and it damages the Party in the prospect.

I understand the need for an extension of unemployment benefits. I am in danger myself of being laid off, and being over 40 I understand that could mean years without a job. But it is not doing me any good if I get a break for a few years but ultimately I end up struggling until I die because the Republicans and/or their ideology has been further EMPOWERED in the process.

[dave29]

34. he said they took the unemployed hostage.

It was quite the call-out, ignored completely here, unless used to frame Obama as weak for "caving to hostage takers"

Looking at it fairly, I'm not sure what more strong of a message you could ask for, it just upset folks here that he called some on the left out as well for putting ideology over progress.

[Go2Peace]

36. Consistancy is missing,

His rhetoric is watered down when in the same Press conference he makes a statement like that, but also makes other statements that reinforce Republican dogma. Which he did in that press conference and does constantly.

Just the act of negotiating it behind the scenes deals a blow.

I suggest reading more of George Lakoff's works to understand why, ultimately, the President's communication style is hurting our future prospects. The Republicans are beating us up because we don't understand this stuff.

[dave29]

39. I am well aware of Lakoff

thanks for the suggestion though. On this we just disagree. It was not watered down, it was intentional. It played well in Peoria, not DU.

[FrenchieCat]

14. You are most concerned about what the 2% gets.

and don't believe that you need to concern yourself so much
about the rest.
We got it.

[ClassWarrior]

52. I, for one, am most concerned about what the 2% denies.

Which is all about "the rest."

NGU.

[wndycty]

10. K&R

:kick:

[Go2Peace]

27. "the role of communication in shaping what Americans understand"

I have been trying to get (some) folks at DU to understand this for several years. Obama has been HINDERING our prospects for the future by his constant use of Republican talking points to push "compromise".

Every time the President stand up in a Press conference and makes the mistake of using conservative language when explaining policy, which he does quite frequently, he EMPOWERS and REINFORCES Republican ideological dominance.

THAT, I believe, is what really bothers "the Left". On some level they understand that this Presidency is selling out the future of liberalism. And I believe that is actually correct.

8 more years of Republican "talking points" in use by a democratic administration, at a time when the public is already quite confused by 30 years of Republican lies, is going to deal a serious setback to efforts to get the country back to rational dialog and ultimately, policies.

[zalinda]

37. No, what is bothering me is that this bill

will hurt poor people. POOR PEOPLE!!!!! Fifty million people making $10,000 to $20,000 a year will actually have their taxes GO UP! How much more do you want to try to squeeze out of these people? These are the people who are doing the jobs that the middle class don't want to do because it is beneath them or doesn't pay them as much as unemployment does.

Then there is the slippery slope of Social Security and the payroll tax. Poor people LIVE off of Social Security payments as their only source of income in their old age. They never make enough to save ANYTHING for their retirement. For the poor Social Security IS their retirement fund.

Yes, let the tax cuts expire. Maybe if enough of the middle class see what's it's like here at the bottom, they'll stop voting for Republicans.

Don't EVER tell me that Obama is doing the best he can for this country. He's only doing what is best for those who can afford to send him money for his next campaign.

zalinda

[Go2Peace]

54. That just outlines how we have replaced our values

I agree with you. So we have a dialog by the administration (and Pres. Clinton) that pushes the point that we can't lose the middle class taxcuts because people and the economy are too vulnerable. But that is the REPUBLICAN belief system, or at least it used to be.

The Democratic party/liberal worldview used to be more concerned about the underdog and building a sustainable and fair society. The dialog we are having about this bill is about the *form* of tax cuts. The dialog about whether or not tax cuts are the most efficient way to help people is pretty much gone. We are building on Republican ideology little by little.

[Teaser]

42. By a genetic quirk, I have very little in the way of "empathy"

for other humans, yet I'm still a liberal. Go figure.

[Milo_Bloom]

43. Excuse Fail # 5782354

TEMPORARILY continuing a problem doesn't ever lead to a solution.

ESPECIALLY when your temproary fix makes solving the problem even more difficult.

[mmonk]

44. I basically argue my positions based on data and my education in economics

at a post secondary level.

[FrenchieCat]

46. well, guess that makes you smart?

:shrug:

[mmonk]

55. Makes me dumb I guess like Bernie Sanders.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Raine1967]

49. Don't call yourself a liberal if you want the poor to suffer

in order to make a politcal point. That is what the GOP does.

(as an aside -- there are a lot of people who WANT this deal to fail who are accusing Obama of being a Conservadem -- ) For these people: Principle trumps everything. That is NOT the idea of being a liberal.

That is about as Simple as I can make my opinion.

(On Edit -- this was NOT directed at YOU, Frenchie. IT was directed at the people the post talked about.)

[ClassWarrior]

50. Excellent article. It takes neither side, but offers a deeper truth.

I was about to post it. Glad someone did already.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

51. K&R for communicating our values better...

:kick:

NGU.

[FrenchieCat]

57. IT needs to be done. We have so much working against us already! n/t