Republican Opposition to the Stimulus: Wrong, But Not Treason
May 5, 2009
by Jeff Alson
One of my best friends and favorite writers, Robert Letcher, has accused those Republicans who oppose President Obama’s stimulus program of “treason by a thousand cuts” (Republicans Giving Civic Lessons?!!!??, We! Magazine, February 14, 2009). I strongly disagree.
Even more important than the formal definition that Bob cites, I believe treason has a clear and powerful “public meaning” of disloyalty to one’s country. Accordingly, unlike words that lack such a universal public meaning, I believe words like treason should only be used when we really (really!) mean it. Otherwise, they lose their powerful public meaning. I personally believe that the stimulus program was a very good idea, to try to jump-start our economy and help millions of families survive. But, I don’t think opposition to the stimulus program in general, or to the process that was used by the Administration and Congress to pass it quickly, comes even close to justifying the use of the word treason, whether by one or a thousand or a million cuts.
I think treason should be reserved for those issues with immediate consequences related to fundamental constitutional principles and which do not involve a “thousand degrees of grayness.” And nothing involves so many degrees of grayness than a giant stimulus bill put together in a few weeks. Would a stimulus bill 10 percent smaller or a debate a week or two longer so more members (and the public) could read and digest it, really be the difference between treason and non-treason? Or, was Obama’s willingness to compromise to get three Republican Senate votes equal to one-thousandth of treason? Or, was his unwillingness to support a bill 10 percent larger (or much larger as economists like Paul Krugman and Dean Baker have advocated?) treason-like? I think these questions point out the folly of bringing treason into the debate over an economic stimulus program.
Further, I believe flippant charges of treason undermine the democratic project. In this regard, as much as I disagree with it, I see the Republican opposition to the stimulus as a healthy part of our democratic dialog and debate. Since polls have shown strong public support for Obama’s economic program in general, and for the stimulus bill in particular, most Republicans were not motivated by near-term political gain. Sure, some Republican clowns like Limbaugh will portray any stimulus, other than full repeal of all income taxes, as socialism, but many Republicans had more principled reasons for their opposition to the specific stimulus program: passed too quickly, too much debt, too few tax cuts, inclusion of programs that were not near-term stimulus and should have been debated separately. But, principled opposition is the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy, and isn’t this exactly what anti-war progressives wanted from the Democratic leadership in the run-up to the war? Moreover, from a partisan perspective, since “our side” won this time, I even see the opposition as helpful as it gives the public a better understanding of what the Republican Party really stands for and, if the stimulus is successful, could lead the way toward a more fundamental and permanent political transformation.
Finally, remember that I remember all too well, a few days after my young daughter and I marched in downtown Ann Arbor against the war in the winter of 2003, reading a letter to the editor in the local paper, calling us “traitors” for not falling in line behind President Bush. I then responded with my own letter, also published, that mirrored Twain’s philosophy of “loving one’s country, not one’s government” and citing Teddy Roosevelt’s famous quote supporting one’s right to criticize the President. I then used the two letters as a history and civics lesson for my daughter about the responsibility of citizens to dissent in a democracy. I feel just as passionately about the anti-democratic nature of using the “treason card” now that my side is winning. Democracy demands dissent and dialog, not conformity and bullying-by-words like treason.
Casual use of those few words, like treason, that still have a powerful public meaning only weakens our public discourse and democracy. Both are on shaky ground as it is.
————————————————————-
Jeff Alson is an engineer and environmentalist who lives with his family in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Comments
2 Comments »
-
Bob's Bail Out Plan by bobl-tlm
-
How Do You Like Deregulation Now? graphic politics by Dicky Neely
“Treason” is rhetorical overkill, but so is “democracy” and “war” against (fill in the blank).
It’s hilarious that people could be so blindly loyal to any political party to act this way.
We came to this crisis through 7 years of continuous insane monetary policy by the fed coupled with irresponsible fiscal stimulus (deficit spending), and we try and recover how? by even more monetary shenanigans by the fed and even more deficit spending.
The Bush/Greenspan policies were bad enough, but the Obama Bernanke policies are actually even worse. The deficit under Obama is not only larger (2-3x as big as Bush’s), but proportionately less of it is paid for by real money. This is because the Chinese and other bond-buyers are starting to realize that not only will they not be paid back, but even if they do, it will be in devalued currency (made that way by inflation).
Whatever budget deficit that is not borrowed is paid for by the Federal Reserve, who is buying these bonds with printed money. This is inflation, and it’s happening faster than ever.
This is just the fiscal printing! Even without the budget shortfall being paid for with imaginary money, Bernanke has put Fed interest rates to the lowest they’ve ever been. The money they’re loaning out is printed as well, and they’ve printed TRILLIONS in the past few months.
The poor and the middle class, who tend to deal in the most cash and who are most susceptible to cost of living increases are effected most by inflation. Therefore, Obama’s policies are actually even more regressive than Bush’s. Even if Obama doubled his ‘progressive’ tax policy, it doesn’t come close to the regressive burden he’s putting on the bottom 50% of income earners through inflation!
Oh, and by the way: In spite of what Obama/Bernanke are saying, there are many economists far more reputable than Krugman who say the bailouts wont even work, but that’s really beside the point. The point here is that the issue is complicated, and there are strong economic arguments against this, many of which are from the standpoint of the average American.
Who could call any anti-bailout stance treasonous? If the stereotypes are true, it should be the DEMOCRATS who are on the front-lines against the bailouts, not republicans. We don’t know if the bailouts will work, but we DO know that the inflation they cause will hurt the poor. It’s a fact, there is no debate about this.
As Jeff Alson says in this article, this issue needs to be debated, not rammed through with name-calling and fear-mongering.