The Economist:
Another fine mess
A useful debate has begun about America’s
biggest domestic challenge, but it is comically
shallow
Jul 28th 2012 | from the print edition
*As no author is listed, I will use the male pronoun, as it is simpler to
stick with one; no offense meant to female reporters. This would not
be an issue if we designated gender-neutral pronouns for people.
AMID all the name-calling in America’s presidential campaign, a serious subject has begun
to emerge: what role should government play? Earlier this month Barack Obama caused a
stir when he said that entrepreneurs were not solely responsible for their success, but relied
on the roads, bridges and other infrastructure which society constructs and which make
commerce possible: “If you’ve got a business…you didn’t build that.” Meanwhile, Mitt
Romney has told voters looking for state handouts to vote for the other guy.
Both men’s positions have been contorted by each other’s attack ads. But there is a real
left-right division, personified by the two candidates. Mr. Obama, who has spent most of his
life in the public sector, academia or community work, plainly thinks the state has a bigger
role to play—in galvanising the economy when demand collapses (as in 2008) and in
moderating inequality. By contrast, Mr. Romney, who made $200m or so in private equity,
believes that the best thing that government can do is to get out of the way—by cutting
taxes, reducing regulations and leaving people to build their businesses.
Good. America needs a serious debate both about the size and scope of government, and
how to pay for it. The winner of the November election will immediately be faced with the
problem of the “fiscal cliff”—a preset $400 billion tax increase, with the expiry of various tax
cuts, and a $100-billion-a-year cut in spending—which could push the economy back into
recession. Looming over that is the gaping deficit. And over that, America’s schizophrenia: it
taxes itself like a small-government country, but spends like a big-government one.
Free to choose, for better or worse
The rest of the world would gain from such a debate. America has inspired most of the
interesting thinking on the role of the state in the past 50 years, from deregulation in the
1970s to New York’s “broken windows” policing. Next week marks the centenary of the birth
of Milton Friedman (see Free Exchange). The Chicago economist did as much as anyone to
battle Leviathan: driving bureaucrats out of telephone companies and airlines, proposing
education vouchers to give parents a choice over their children’s schools and railing against
the unintended consequences of state meddling (for example, “rent control” laws that
reduce the amount of property available for rent). Friedman was a mentor to both Ronald
Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, but his ideas prompted creativity on the left too: Bill
Clinton’s New Democrats also “reinvented government”, embracing charter schools and
welfare reforms.
So it is sad to report how lacklustre the debate about government is in America. The
obvious decline is on the right. This newspaper is hardly delighted that government
spending has grown from 34% of GDP in 1980, when Friedman published “Free to Choose”,
to over 40% today; but American conservatism has grown so angry that it has become a
parody of its former self. Tax cuts are always right (even if they inflate the deficit);
government activism is always wrong (even if stimulus helped avert a depression). And the
right’s hypocrisy when it comes to spending on conservative projects (prisons, the armed
forces, subsidies to big business) is breathtaking. George W. Bush presided over a huge
growth in government.
If the Republican Party has moved to the unthinking right, the Democratic Party has moved
to the unreforming left. Mr. Obama has shown little of Mr. Clinton’s enthusiasm for
modernising government: indeed, he is unpicking welfare reform, by loosening work
requirements. He has presided over a huge expansion of legislation, much of it badly
drafted, such as the 850-page Dodd-Frank bill (see article). Worryingly in hock to the
public-sector unions, Mr Obama seems to think the public sector is inherently more moral
than the private one. Companies are at best cows to be milked, at worst prey to be hunted.
Extremism in the pursuit of liberty—and common sense
Even if clever local experiments continue (see article), Washington is gridlocked. The
bipartisan Bowles-Simpson commission produced a sensible recipe for reform: short-term
stimulus to jolt the economy, longer-term entitlement reforms to lower the debt and a
simplification of America’s crazy tax code. House Republicans rejected it and Mr. Obama
ignored it. And all this as the baby-boomers are beginning to retire and medical costs are
escalating. Sooner or later, America will have to look at rationing health care for the elderly
and reforming pensions; but each party rejects the other’s proposals.
Against that background, both parties need to be far more willing to think the unthinkable.
Our prejudice is firmly in favour of a leaner state, but the Republicans need to recognise, as
their intellectual forebears did from Adam Smith to Abraham Lincoln, that government has
an important role to play in a capitalist economy, providing public goods and a safety net.
Teddy Roosevelt broke up over-mighty companies, rather than doling out tax breaks to
them. Why on earth are people who champion a small state supporting an expensive war on
drugs that has filled the prisons to bursting point without reducing the supply of narcotics?
But the Republicans’ main problem is taxes. Successful deficit-reduction plans require at
least some of the gap—perhaps around a quarter—to be closed by new revenue. If the
Republicans got rid of loopholes, they could cut all the main tax rates and still raise more
money.
The Democrats’ challenge is more on the spending side. Productivity has been flat in the
public sector at a time when it has doubled in the private sector. Mr. Obama needs to decide
whether he is on the side of taxpayers or public-sector workers (who, if they work for the
federal government, earn more than their private-sector equivalents do in wages and
benefits). He needs to get serious about cutting back regulation, rather than increasing it;
and he needs to spend more time listening to successful business leaders rather than telling
them all is fine.
America needs a man who can spell out what he thinks a modern government should do—
and then how to pay for it. With luck the debate will push either Mr. Obama or Mr. Romney
to do that. At the moment, neither seems to understand the central domestic challenge of
the next presidency.
Rhetorical Analysis Paragraph
The author of this editorial aims to convince the reader of both political parties’
incompetence in the American presidential election. The subtitle of the piece itself ridicules
the extremes of the two parties, calling it “comically shallow.” The picture provided only
serves to emphasize as much in a satirical way, showing both men with exaggerated
expressions and posing. Within the piece itself, the author starts off innocuously enough,
establishing the situation and what he finds to be positive about it. However, he quickly
shifts to a more brisk, down-to-business tone as he describes the “fiscal cliff” America is
teetering over to suit the gravity of the situation. In doing so, the audience feels the need
for action, which contrasts greatly with later points in the piece showing the inaction of the
two candidates. Moving on to his next paragraph, the author digresses into a short history
lesson on financial success in the past, as engineered by Milton Friedman. This serves as
further juxtaposition with the point he will begin to make soon about the candidates’
efficacy. By arranging these two contrasts early in his piece, the author makes his
expectations clear, and by comparison, President Obama and Candidate Romney look petty,
even to people who have been emotionally involved in one side or the other. The author
makes his audience more receptive to his message by evening out preconceptions. Now,
the author moves into his criticisms of the Republican Party, shifting his tone to a sharper,
scolding one. His arguments look less inflammatory and more sensible in conjunction with
what he has written before, even when blatantly insulting and ridiculing the extremist
stance many Republicans have taken. Transitioning from Republican faults to Democratic
ones, the author uses antithesis to show the choice Americans will be faced with this
November: “unthinking” or “unreforming”? Neither sounds appealing, adding to his
argument for a more well-developed and rational set of fiscal policies not just meant to
appeal to polarized voters. His use of the designation “Mister” signifies his contempt for
both candidates, as opposed to calling them “candidates” or “President”, in the case of
Obama. The author’s next two paragraphs call the parties, and readers, to action, detailing
the steps needed to bring America to a better place. Such criticism would be unwelcome
should it have come at the beginning of the piece. However, situated after an establishment
of rationality and the subsequent lack thereof demonstrated by either party, the call to arms
is a logical progression of thought. The author finishes his piece with a last summarizing
paragraph, restating his former ideas and looking ahead to the debate, leaving the reader
with his message as a last thought. His finisher actually winds down the piece; the climax
happens the previous two paragraphs, or even earlier with his accusations to both parties.
The energy on the last paragraph is decidedly low-key, as if the author wants to portray
himself as a moderate even in opinion, not a fire-spitting accusation-thrower.