A standard complaint by the MAL in our political system is that conservatives won’t agree to dealing with deficits by raising taxes along with cutting spending. This has always been a transparently disingenuous argument since spending rarely, if ever, gets cut while taxes are always raised in such deals.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is bringing that home by first claiming last year’s Budget Control Act prohibits from bringing a budget resolution to the floor of the Senate. After the Senate parlimentarian he appointed refused to be endorse that, Reid simply abandoned the Budget Control Act entirely. The head of the Democratic National Committee refuses to discuss why the Senate won’t provide a budget because that’s just process.
That’s why I and many others who actually care about deficits and spending won’t endorse tax increases until after we see real budget cuts because every other time those cuts get lost, just like this. I also mean budget cuts, that is spending less money year over year. Spending more money is not a “cut” regardless of what our political class claims.
But remember kids, NPR says a slow growing economy could be good for us just like they noted back when George Bush was President.
What strikes me over and over is how parochial and incapable of self awareness the Modern American Left is. It’s not just that they can’t imagine the rule applying to them, but that the rules even could apply to them. They lack the imagination to see the world as others might see it. A few examples —
Exit question via the Washington Free Beacon’s Andrew Stiles: When O says “I assume that people meant what they said when they said it,” does that also apply to the various nonsense he spouted on the trail in 2008? Opposing the mandate, ridding his administration of lobbyists, civilian trials for terrorists, etc etc. Back before he tore up the War Powers Act, he was a pretty peace-minded guy, you know. See Peter Kirsanow’s post at the Corner for more examples. [source]
Attacking Mitt Romney because his ancestor was bigamous when Obama’s father is.
The entire “dog eating” brou-haha.
Elizabeth Warren’s magical minority status
That’s enough for now. Without regard to the validity of any of these, the common theme is that they are all politically stupid because they provide an easy way for opponents to hoist one on one’s own petard. It only makes sense if it never occurs to you that the rules you have for others can be applied to you as well. To me that captures much of the essence of MAList thought that only others may be judged, but never oneself.
I suspect this is why MALists are so uninterested in any assessments of the results of their policies. It’s not so much that they fear the policies will be undermined by evidence of the utter ineffectiveness but that it simply doesn’t occur to them that they should be subjected to such judgement. Their hearts are pure and so they are immune to the dreary reality of results.
We know who the actually violent thugs are, despite the constant attempts to declare it otherwise.
P.S. If only academia would study the Occupy movement as it deserves to be studied.
P.P.S. Meanwhile President Obama is calling out donors to his opponent by name — not that any should consider such a thing from “I’m all that stands between your and the pitchforks” Obama as in any way intimidation. But don’t be surprised if the IRS calls you up later with a few document requests.