A Foolish Consistency

One of the many oddities in contemporary American politics is the notion that consistency is among the highest attributes a politician can abide. Actually changing with the times or figuring out that you were wrong just smacks of lack of character and resolve, even if the times have changed and, well, you were wrong. Mitt Romney is suffering under the very weight relative to some of his more "liberal" policies as governor of Massachusetts. And charges of flip-flopping have marred many a campaign for higher office; arguably costing John Kerry the 2004 election (along with the Swiftboat Veterans for "something that might have marginally connected at some tangential level to an ort that was sitting in relatively close proximity to an uncle who once knew the" Truth). Consistency in politics, as foolish as it may be, has apparently never heard the oft-misquoted Emerson bon mot. So as some Republicans actually contemplate the unthinkable, many others have come forward to right the ship and remind them that changing your mind is almost as bad as reaching your hand under a bathroom stall. 

The not-so-foolish consistency being debated in recent days is the three-decade long Republican stance on taxes. With the deadline looming for the substantially- slower-than-a-speeding-bullet "supercommittee" to come to a deal that cuts $1.2 trillion from the government debt, some GOP members are, gasp, actually calling for tax increases: Washington Post. The response, as one could guess, has been apoplectic. Representative Patrick McHenry from North Caroline, for example, made the following bold claim:

 “We’ve not had a conversation like this within the party in two decades." He then went on to argue that any tax increase is "irresponsible and dangerous to the health of the United States.”  

Vice President of Americans for Properity added, "“The most important part of the Republican brand is that they won’t raise taxes. Some say this is a unique situation. Well, people won’t get the nuances. They’ll just see both parties are willing to raise taxes.”

This is the position that has been relentlessly been driven home by Reagan, his many acolytes and Grover Norquist for so long that it has become orthodoxy for any serious Republican candidate. All taxes are bad and even restoring previous taxes that were supposedly cut short-term is anathema (except, of course, for taxes for the poor and working class (see previous post)). Now that it is becoming increasingly obvious that tax hikes are the only reasonable way to cut the deficit, some rational minds are actually calling for the unthinkable. Yet the party has apparently ignored the issue for two decades (since the original flip-flopper forgot to read his own lips)? One question to ask is if this is really something to be proud of? Has so little changed in two decades that the issue is beyond the fold of discussion and debate? And do we really want a party that talks about their "brand" while more and more Americans suffer every day? At the broader level is the relevant but so infrequently asked question of whether tax increases at the very top of the income and corporate ladder are really a "threat to the health of the U.S." Actually, there is little evidence to support the claim, so the GOP ignores proof and just repeats their mantra over and over again to help establish it as common sense (at least among their constituents and corporate stewards) It's sort of like saying Sadaam Hussein and 911 in consecutive sentences so often that the ADD American public only half listening starts to think it is one sentence with some meaningless words between the two. 

In any case, one wonders if the GOP has it within themselves to actually support a tax increase. In this case, the proposal is actually for a slight decrease in rates but also an elimination of some loopholes and deductions -- thus increasing the amount the government actually collects. If they do, maybe we can lay to bed one of the most absurd arguments in recent memory. Not the ridiculous one about all taxes being bad but the almost equally ridiculous one about holding steadfast to an idea whose time has passed. I, for one, would much rather have a representative that is willing to actually pay attention to what's going on around them, admit when they are wrong and, gasp, change their mind. I know this makes me a weak-minded, liberal, anti-American, flip-flopper, socialist, class-warfare bastard -- but hey, maybe that's a compliment these days ...