PrintI'm hardly naive about the willingness of politicians to twist the English language to suit their ends, so that tax hikes become "revenue enhancement" and cutting Medicare turns into "preserve, protect, and improve." But the thoroughly relativistic approach to truth employed by Frank Luntz never fails to take my breath away.
Luntz's latest memo advising Republicans on how to fight financial reform, obtained by Sam Stein, is a classic of the genre. The unstated argument of the memo is that, being determined to oppose legislation that most Americans support, Republicans should simply pretend they are arguing against something completely different. Luntz makes it clear that the public demands reform. "You must be on the side on change," he writes. "Always." (There is no pretense anywhere in Luntz's paper that Republicans do, or even should, have a reform plan of their own.)
He likewise insists Republicans never call the reform bill "reform": "It's not 'reform.' This is not a reform bill. It is the 'Stop the Big Bank Bailout bill." Of course, Luntz does not try to explain why the reform bill is not reform. Indeed, his paper is entitled, "The Language of Financial Reform." It calls to mind the French absurdist Rene Magritte's painting of a pipe, labeled, "This is not a pipe."
That painting, incidentally, was apparently a favorite of the postmodernist philosopher Michel Foucault, who would probably appreciate Luntz's postmodern approach to truth. Luntz's implicit advice is, if you're caught defending an unpopular position, simply pretend it's the opposite. Here is a sample of the argument Luntz urges:
Congress is preparing to enact legislation to pass a law with $4 trillion more for more bailouts. [Luntz seems to believe in the power of redundancy.] Should people who write the financial reform laws be the same ones who helped cause the crisis? Should taxpayers be punished and the big banks and credit card companies be rewarded? The time has come to take a stand. Oppose the big bank bailout bill.
The political dynamic is that the Republicans are supporting the big banks and credit card companies, who want to keep in place the laws that allowed them to get too big to fail. Opposing change, and siding with these institutions is wildly unpopular. So the approach urged by Luntz is to simple pretend that a regulatory reform bill staunchly opposed by the financial industry is instead a new bailout fund favored by the financial industry. I wonder why Democrats never thought of this approach. Instead of opposing the Bush tax cuts, why not crusade against the "Bush tax hike"? Rather than oppose Samuel Alito's Supreme Court nomination, why not just insist you oppose the nomination of Charles Manson? Everybody hates Charles Manson.
COMMENTS (6)
? It's Michel Foucault, not Focault. And what is a 'postmodern approach to truth' supposed to be?
? It's Michel Foucault, not Focault. And what is a 'postmodern approach to truth' supposed to be?
Well, I did spend the entire Bush administration trying to persuade Democrats to denounce the "Bush tax hike." Because in point of fact that's what Bush's tax "cuts" were. Every dollar the government spends must be paid for with a dollar of taxes raised. The only question is whether you raise a dollar in taxes today, or whether you borrow and thus raise a dollar plus interest in taxes tomorrow. And since government debt is sold in the free market, the interest cost of borrowing will always exceed the degree to which the borrowed dollar has depreciated due to inflation and economic growth. Thus the borrowed dollar represents an inevitable increase in taxes raised.
The only time the phrase "ta ... view full comment
Well, I did spend the entire Bush administration trying to persuade Democrats to denounce the "Bush tax hike." Because in point of fact that's what Bush's tax "cuts" were. Every dollar the government spends must be paid for with a dollar of taxes raised. The only question is whether you raise a dollar in taxes today, or whether you borrow and thus raise a dollar plus interest in taxes tomorrow. And since government debt is sold in the free market, the interest cost of borrowing will always exceed the degree to which the borrowed dollar has depreciated due to inflation and economic growth. Thus the borrowed dollar represents an inevitable increase in taxes raised.
The only time the phrase "tax cut" is not a lie is when other taxes are raised, or spending cut, by an amount equal to or larger than the amount of revenue lost. Otherwise, it's a tax increase. Democrats should have been making this point for the last 30 years.
Of course it is not a pipe. It is a picture of a pipe (and a favorite of mine, too; I have a mousepad of it). You really aren't doing Magritte and Foucault any favors by associating them with Luntz here. What Luntz is doing here is like saying "this is a cigar".
Of course it is not a pipe. It is a picture of a pipe (and a favorite of mine, too; I have a mousepad of it). You really aren't doing Magritte and Foucault any favors by associating them with Luntz here. What Luntz is doing here is like saying "this is a cigar".
Don't forget, rhubarbs, the underlying fallacy/fantasy that prevents conservatives from recognizing the lie in "tax cut". They believe that if you cut taxes, you thereby increase investment, and thereby increase revenue. If extreme examples are used to demonstrate how dubious a claim this is -- by pointing out, say, the exponential growth that would be necessary to offset a single-digit tax rate -- they typically give some response acknowledging that there is an 'optimal' rate.
And what is that 'optimal rate'? No one knows exactly, but it is always less than whatever the current one is. Convenient, huh?
Back to the issue at hand, that recent Pew Research poll reminded me of why I should ... view full comment
Don't forget, rhubarbs, the underlying fallacy/fantasy that prevents conservatives from recognizing the lie in "tax cut". They believe that if you cut taxes, you thereby increase investment, and thereby increase revenue. If extreme examples are used to demonstrate how dubious a claim this is -- by pointing out, say, the exponential growth that would be necessary to offset a single-digit tax rate -- they typically give some response acknowledging that there is an 'optimal' rate.
And what is that 'optimal rate'? No one knows exactly, but it is always less than whatever the current one is. Convenient, huh?
Back to the issue at hand, that recent Pew Research poll reminded me of why I should no longer be surprised that the stuff coming out of a public figure's mouth is so completely divorced from reality -- only a tiny fraction of the population is likely to recognize it for the bs it is. Where's the incentive for intellectual honesty? (Well, besides being able to look at yourself in the mirror. But mirrors are overrated.)
The correct term, rhubarbs, is a tax shift. It happens all the time and it's also happening with the health insurance SHIFT debate.
They ask for cake and we give them shi_t.
The correct term, rhubarbs, is a tax shift. It happens all the time and it's also happening with the health insurance SHIFT debate.
They ask for cake and we give them shi_t.
But peddler, conservative tax theory still relies on the interest cost of the loan being lower than the rates of economic growth and inflation. So the actual mechanism conservatives rely on is the government swindling private investors into loaning money that the government intends to repay with depreciated currency. It assumes that the private capital market is stupid, and that the government is better at economic forecasting than the free market. Unless the loan becomes depreciated, you'd still be better off paying the dollar in taxes today than collecting the dollar-plus-interest in taxes tomorrow, even granting all other conservative assumptions about taxation and growth.
But peddler, conservative tax theory still relies on the interest cost of the loan being lower than the rates of economic growth and inflation. So the actual mechanism conservatives rely on is the government swindling private investors into loaning money that the government intends to repay with depreciated currency. It assumes that the private capital market is stupid, and that the government is better at economic forecasting than the free market. Unless the loan becomes depreciated, you'd still be better off paying the dollar in taxes today than collecting the dollar-plus-interest in taxes tomorrow, even granting all other conservative assumptions about taxation and growth.