Friday, September 19, 2008

The Masculinity of Taxes

Although it is only seldom explicitly mentioned by conservatives, it does seem to be a pretty well-established theme on the right -- call it a broad-based subconscious belief -- that liberals are effeminate and weak. From Schwarzenegger's "girlie-men" quip to the neocons' relentless warrior-worship, the unstated message of the right's rhetoric seems to be: real men are conservatives, and liberals are a bunch of pussies.

At the same time, by far the most popular plank of the Republican party is a call for minimal taxation. Liberals often get so caught up in the debate over social issues that they forget that 50% of Republicans have no particular ideology or belief system at all, other than "I don't like taxes."

Granted, taxes are a pain. In the financial world, taxes are pain. In terms of this metaphor, 50% of Republicans have dedicated their lives to the avoidance of pain.

Imagine a person whose only concern in life was the avoidance of physical pain. At best, this would create a very stressful, brittle way of living; at worst, it would be a form of retardation. Such fear of the inevitable, such a desperate unwillingness to reconcile oneself with the existence of a such a simple, albeit admittedly unpleasant, fact of life, is the ultimate in abject weakness.

Pain can be good. It plays a vital role in maintaining our health. You can feel pain even when doing things that are good for you, like growing or exercising. Pain is a reliable indicator that something noteworthy is happening.

If such paralyzing fear of the slightest pain weren't a pathological condition, a form of OCD, then I would be uncharitable enough to say: those people are the ones who really sound like a bunch of pussies to me.

So, die-hard fiscal conservatives, it's time to man up. We obviously can't leave control of the markets to a bunch of girlie-men like you.

8 comments:

Right'sRight said...

I disagree with everything you have said in this blog. Republicans have no particular ideology? How about personal responsibility, small government, strong defense. Don't like taxes? That's because our government squanders our money every time. Conservatives like value. 28 of the 29 most generous charity giving states are red states. Conservatives are 18% more likely to donate blood. Conservatives are more likely to belong to an organized religion and these people give 4 times as much as non-religious people. No, Republicans give more than Democrats; they just don't ascribe to the notion that throwing money at problems and building these huge beaucracies that don't improve the problem they are suppose to fix and usually make them worse. How about the war on poverty that began in the 60's that tore apart the Black family with 70% born out of wedlock, 50% high school drop out rate, blacks and hispanics make up 62% of the incarcerated population even though they are only 25% of the general population. Schools with smaller budgets consistenly out-perform schools with large budgets. I've never heard that "the right's rhetoric is that real men are conservatives". Although I have heard that if you're under 30 and not a liberal, you have no heart, but if you're over 30 and not a conservative, you have no brain. As adults, we see that socialism leads to communism, and these ideologies break the human spirit. How'd the plan to force lending institutions to loan poor people money to buy homes that they couldn't afford just so Clinton could brag that minority homeownership went up under his leadership work out for anyone, except Raines, Jones, and Gorelick (all working on Obama's campaign so I assume Democrats. You say Imagine a person whose only concern in life was the avoidance of physical pain. Well, we currently have a presidential candidate, that I'm sure you're not supporting, who has met and surpassed this challenge. Society is like a large family. We wouldn't raise our kids to be dependent on us as parents because they'd never be able to do for themselves. We're all better off with lower taxes. Pain is good and the more people experience it, the better equipped they are to avoid it - and happier as a result.

Owen T. Cunningham said...

Hi there! Looks like I've finally found "Mr. Right."

I'm not saying that the Republican party has no particular ideology -- it obviously does, and there are indeed good things to say about it. My point is simply that not all individual members of that party care equally strongly about all aspects of that ideology. I think that is true on both sides. For instance, I am a Democrat, but I agree that environmentalists can't have their cake and eat it too by urging us to embrace non-carbon-based fuels, and then in the same breath railing against nuclear power, which is by far the most mature, efficient, and environmentally friendly alternative energy there is at present, as John McCain has pointed out. That is just one small example of the individual aspects of the Democratic Party ideology that I, despite being one of its members, dissent from.

Hasn't it also been your experience that not all Republicans (or conservative-leaning members of other parties) that you've known and talked politics with in the past have had certain ideological points that they cared more strongly about than others, and some points they didn't really care much about at all? The above post was targeted at that subset of Republican party members who care far more about low taxes than any other aspect of their party ideology. I agree there are valid reasons why high taxes are bad, and I'm not saying that I enjoy paying them, or want them to go higher. But there are ideologues in the Republican ranks who harbor not only the same rational dislike of taxes that I share, but also a deep-seated, visceral loathing of taxes that is quite emotional. Considering that this is also the party that so often claims to be logical and level-headed in the face of hysterical liberal venting, I find this funny.

It is those particular anti-tax-only people, and only those particular people, that this post is meant to ridicule.

You touch on a lot of other issues in your comment, though.

One thing that caught my interest was that you've never heard that the right's rhetoric is that "real men are conservatives." Really? I agree this isn't the kind of thing that you read about from George Will or Charles Krauthammer or David Brooks, say, but certainly the less intellectually respectable tiers of conservative punditry make reference to it often. I read a number of political blogs, both liberal and conservative, and one of the things that amuses me is the number of times that conservatives who leave comments on liberal blogs accuse the liberal bloggers of being gay. What about Ann Coulter's crack about John Edwards being a faggot? Or the thing I mentioned in the original post when Schwarzenegger attacked his Democratic opponents as "girlie-men"? Or what about Gary Hubbell, who wrote an opinion piece for the Aspen Times that was shortly made famous in conservative circles by Rush Limbaugh when he read excerpts of it on his radio show, that contained the following paragraphs about those who vote for the Republican candidate this year:

"He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.
"Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says 'Yes, sir' and 'No, ma’am.'"

You somehow missed all that? Or did you see it, and just not agree that it represents a belief that conservatives are real men and liberals are a bunch of pussies? Why not?

As for the assertion that Bill Clinton "force[d] lending institutions to loan poor people money to buy homes that they couldn't afford just so [he] could brag that minority homeownership went up under his leadership," I suggest you read http://higgsblogon.blogspot.com/2008/09/dont-just-regulate-reward-self.html. I am unaware of any specific piece of legislation or executive order through which the Clinton Administration "forced" lending institutions to loan poor people money to buy homes they couldn't afford, but maybe I'm wrong and you can point me to some, for which I would be grateful.

Finally, as for your litany of statistics detailing the conservative propensity toward charity and willingness to donate blood, that's great. It speaks well of conservatives. I don't have a problem with speaking well of conservatives.

Right'sRight said...

You did say the 50% of Republicans don't have a shared ideology other than lower taxes. You characterized this as avoidance of pain. Well, I am one of those people who considers lower taxes one of the most important items in the Republican ideology. This is not for self-serving purposes or because I'm afraid of pain. It's to strengthen our nation by reducing government corruption and people's dependence on government programs. My example about conservatives giving to charity, volunteering time, and giving blood was to show that the adversity to taxes was not selfishness. These stats came from the book "Who Really Cares".

Please, to say that Ann Coulter represents Republicans is like saying Keith Olberman represents Democrats. I could go on with many other embarrassing self-appointed Democrat spokespeople, but won't.

Schwarzenegger did not attack his Democratic opponents. He made a joke about an upcoming budget vote and challenged the California Legislature to stand up to special interests and approve it. I thought conservatives were the ones suppose to not have sense of humors.

I don't listen to Rush, but I just read the Gary Hubbell article. Loved it. I saved it too. It was about the "Angry White Man" in this election who could be either a Republican or Democrat, but both parties are after his vote. Rush might have read portions of this and wants to believe these men are Republicans, but the writer doesn't think so.

I'm sure you are unaware of the Clinton administration forcing lending institutions to provide mortgages to unqualified people, and in light of what's been happening the mainstream media will keep this well-hidden. You'll need to read overtly conservative magazines too learn about it.

The Community Reinvestment Act was made to create credit and home ownership to those underserved in low to moderate income neighborhoods. It didn't work. It created a real estate bubble that everyone knew would burst and it did. People were using the value of their home so they could keep refinancing and live off it. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac backed sub-prime mortgages to meet Congressional demand to finance affordable housing. What I said about the Cllinton administration was mostly by memory at the time, so the details are sketchy. I just googled and got some articles I could point you to. This one is from 1999 raving about the success of homeownership for low-income people and further plans to require the nation's two largest housing finance companies to buy $2.4 trillion in mortgages over the next 10 years to provide affordable housing. I assume these companies are Fannie and Freddie.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_pwwi/is_200001/ai_mark07000832

In 1999, the LA Times had an article raving about Clinton's success in increasing minority ownership and siting in 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their purchases of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.

http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

Here's an article in Investors Business Daily from last week saying that the Clinton administration was But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism and dictated where mortgage lenders could lend.

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=306370789279709

I have many many other articles if you're interested.

I just read your blog on regulation. I agree with you on so many fronts. Of course, lending to people who couldn't pay back their loans is only part of the problem. I agree with you on the CDO's. The greed on Wall Street is huge in this mess. I also agree with you on Severin. Every time I listen to him, I question myself. Although he's occasionally right. I agree that the collapse in the mortgage market is the Democrats fault (mostly),and as recently as 2007. We do need regulation and the bail out is important for our own economy. We'll discuss the war, and how right it is another time.

Owen T. Cunningham said...

I was unaware of the Community Reinvestment Act, so thanks for pointing it out to me. I just finished reading the Wikipedia article about it, as well as the LA Times and IBD articles you provided. Very informative.

I disagree that the mainstream media will deliberately bury the connection between the CRA and this meltdown, for two reasons. One, people are starved for rational explanations at a time when even the economic experts being interviewed on radio and TV are basically saying "I have no idea what's going on." The combination of CRA enforcement and CDO repackaging provides a rational explanation; if some media outlet were to start reporting it, viewers/listeners would flock to it. It would make good business sense for the media outlet to report it. Two, media outlets are corporations. Most corporate leaders are fiscal conservatives. The CRA story buttresses the arguments of fiscal conservatives and weakens the arguments of their opponents. Therefore, it would be in the long-term interests of media corporations to report it. Given these conditions, and the fact that the CRA aspect isn't getting wider coverage, it indicates to me that there must be some as-yet undiscovered piece of the puzzle.

For instance, it would be interesting to know what percentage of the defaulted mortgages that lie at the root of our current problems would not have been undertaken by the lenders had the CRA not been in effect. I'm prepared to accept that the percentage is high, but I doubt it's 100%. It may be that Clinton's revitalization of the CRA got the ball rolling on subprime mortgages, but that subsequent market forces (and I'm not even talking about CDOs here) propelled it to bubble proportions, beyond what a mere government mandate would have done.

Here's an interesting philosophical question: given that the CRA is definitely an act of market intrusion, is it an act of market regulation? I think the answer is no, but I'm curious for your take. There are those who believe that any act of regulation is an act of intrusion.

Right'sRight said...

I really don't understand most of this. I'm trusting the advice of people who do, and up until yesterday, they were all saying the bail out is important for our economy. There's beginning to be more out there today about the government getting out and rolling back the regulations that caused this financial crisis in the first place. For the most part, I think government regulations are intrusions. The only reason I have some support for them, is because it seems the government is going to bail out these fools almost every time. Why should the companies get the profits and the government get the losses? I believe in the free market. The government needs to get back to basics like defense, education, roads, limited welfare, etc. There's no reason for the government to ever mandate how a business or entire industry conducts business. I disagree with Obama and Biden that higher taxes are neighborly and patriotic (their words). I don't know what the reason for the mainstream media to be an extension of the Obama campaign, but they are. My theory is that the owners of the news agencies are all democrats. I'd like to introduce you to Newsbusters.org. They put up about 20 short articles a day which critique actual articles and televised discussions showing the distortions. What I like most is that they point to reasons why they think the reporting is biased and let you read or observe the entire report. I'm usually with them 90% of the time. Even though you and I are ideologically opposite, you seem to have an open mind so this additional information might help to continue to shape your opinions.

Owen T. Cunningham said...

Thank you for saying that I'm open-minded. I've never understood why liberals and conservatives always tend to stick with their own kind. I learn a lot more when I talk to everybody.

You said "There's no reason for the government to ever mandate how a business or entire industry conducts business." Really? No reason, ever? What about safety regulations in food and medicine? Environmental protections for manufacturing and energy? I have great faith in the power of free markets, but only to do what it was designed to do: efficiently distribute wealth. But I also believe there are problems created or exacerbated by this efficiency that still matter, and need to be dealt with. When it's possible to harness some aspect of the free market to fix some other aspect of the free market's problems, I prefer that solution over regulation; but on the other hand, there are simply some tragedy-of-the-commons-type problems for which the market isn't the best solution. But in any case, I agree the CRA was poorly thought out.

I disagree more strongly about the idea of a liberal bias in the mainstream media. Look at the corporate genealogy of broadcast and print journalism. NBC is owned by General Electric, which has numerous concerns in the defense industry. Would an alignment with leftist interests really benefit such a conglomerate in the long term? I would be more inclined to believe the liberal bias idea if the companies who owned media outlets owned only other media outlets; but they are actually vast holding companies who own aerospace, defense, manufacturing, and other industries that I would have to imagine have an anti-regulation, anti-tax, pro-free-market, pro-strong-defense stance. I'm prepared to believe in corruption in either ideological direction, but in this case I just don't see the incentive for media companies to be baised toward the left. Having said all that, I'll still start monitoring Newsbusters.org to see if that changes my mind.

One other point that I figured I'd mention: you listed "education" as one of the appropriate focal points of governmental energy, and I certainly agree with that. I was surprised to hear you point it out, though, since I've heard many times from other conservatives that the federal government should keep its nose out of education, and that education should be a state/local affair.

Right'sRight said...

It's great to be open-minded and share opinions with someone from the other side. Maybe someday I'll convince you how wrong you are and set you on the right path. Or...maybe you'll convince me that my logic is way off. I'm willing to entertain the dark side,

I actually agree with you on industry regulations. Of course we need our government to provide regulations for work site and product safety. I shouldn't have said there's no reason for government regulations. Although they have no business in determining pricing and marketing as long as people aren't hurt in the process. Example, government should regulate taxi cab licenses so patrons are safe when getting into the car, but mandating that that same taxi-cab driver must drive into a high crime area should be off limits. That driver should be able to charge whatever the market is willing to pay.

I read the Wikipedia piece on media ownership. I don't know what the benefit is, but I think the liberal bias is obvious. I have a real concern that 6 corporations own 90% of media holdings in the US. Am I missing something with that stat?

Look at MSNBC. The only conservates they have are Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchannon . Scarborough complained once about the the MSNBC newsroom booing throughout an entire State of the Union address. The exec he complained to acknowledge that they do this. The face of MSNBC is Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, and Abrams. They are all incapable of any unbiased reporting. Occasionally, Matthews shows some slight signs.

Katie Couric interviewed Sarah Palin yesterday. She asked if Palin was worried that we go into another Great Depression. Palin incorporated the term Great Depression in her response. Later Couric asked McCain if Palin should be using Great Depression rhetor when discussing the financial crisis. Andrea Mitchell showed a clip on the Today Show and only showed Palin's use of the term as if she initiated it.

Imagine if Sarah Palin ever said FDR had a fire side chat when the stock market crashed in 1929. (Biden did). Instead, the national media is concerned that Sarah Palin isn't completely versed on McCain's biography. She didn't have enough examples of how McCain stood up to Wall Street so when pushed she told Katie Couric she'd get more examples for her after the debate.

Again, I misspoke. By government, I mean Federal all the way down to municipal. I don't think the Federal government should be anymore involved in education in my town than in plowing my street. But a form of government is responsible for these services.

Right'sRight said...

It's great to be open-minded and share opinions with someone from the other side. Maybe someday I'll convince you how wrong you are and set you on the right path. Or...maybe you'll convince me that my logic is way off. I'm willing to entertain the dark side,

I actually agree with you on industry regulations. Of course we need our government to provide regulations for work site and product safety. I shouldn't have said there's no reason for government regulations. Although they have no business in determining pricing and marketing as long as people aren't hurt in the process. Example, government should regulate taxi cab licenses so patrons are safe when getting into the car, but mandating that that same taxi-cab driver must drive into a high crime area should be off limits. That driver should be able to charge whatever the market is willing to pay.

I read the Wikipedia piece on media ownership. I don't know what the benefit is, but I think the liberal bias is obvious. I have a real concern that 6 corporations own 90% of media holdings in the US. Am I missing something with that stat?

Look at MSNBC. The only conservates they have are Joe Scarborough and Pat Buchannon . Scarborough complained once about the the MSNBC newsroom booing throughout an entire State of the Union address. The exec he complained to acknowledge that they do this. The face of MSNBC is Olberman, Matthews, Maddow, and Abrams. They are all incapable of any unbiased reporting. Occasionally, Matthews shows some slight signs.

Katie Couric interviewed Sarah Palin yesterday. She asked if Palin was worried that we go into another Great Depression. Palin incorporated the term Great Depression in her response. Later Couric asked McCain if Palin should be using Great Depression rhetor when discussing the financial crisis. Andrea Mitchell showed a clip on the Today Show and only showed Palin's use of the term as if she initiated it.

Imagine if Sarah Palin ever said FDR had a fire side chat when the stock market crashed in 1929. (Biden did). Instead, the national media is concerned that Sarah Palin isn't completely versed on McCain's biography. She didn't have enough examples of how McCain stood up to Wall Street so when pushed she told Katie Couric she'd get more examples for her after the debate.

Again, I misspoke. By government, I mean Federal all the way down to municipal. I don't think the Federal government should be anymore involved in education in my town than in plowing my street. But a form of government is responsible for these services.