While browsing through The Economist a while ago, my attention was grabbed by two articles speaking against big government, published more or less as the publication's official viewpoint.
The first article was a picture of a disgusting, obese, barely-human blob, dropping what looks like a businessman into its mouth. The other featured multiple cartoons depicting government as Godzilla, terrorizing banks, hospitals, and other valued symbols of civil infrastructure. To add to the image, the article continuously refers to the rise of government as the rise of Leviathan, a biblical beast that basically no one likes.
Powerful imagery in a double attack; a giant scary monster to frighten, and a biblical reference to link the opposite stance to Satan himself. Clever, really. And it fits in with a growing theme and pattern of political media over the last year that shows alarming congruency: A message of fear and warning supported by half-truths.
Each article cites impressive sounding facts about money spending, GDPs, etc. etc., each showing how much money the government is spending. Yet not a single mention is made to what this money has done, or why it had to be spent in the first place. The Economist doesn't care what was bought, but the fact that something was bought at all is apparently bad.
Like the arch-typical businessman who loses his soul in his quest for money, America seems obsessed with only one thing: the bottom line. The point behind the spending is forgotten as if it were an unimportant factoid below notice. Why is that I wonder? If the money were being spent in wasteful places, I would expect to see calls for investigation from political opponents on both sides. But instead, silence.
Its as if the very IDEA of spending is the problem.
In most basic sentences, you need a noun, a verb. Something merely needs to do something. The dog ran; the boy sat; etc. etc. Or in the case of political media:
The government spends.
Strangely enough, this most basic of sentences represents the entire conservative argument. Each new article, each new soundbite, is utterly devoted to saying that sentence as negatively as possible.
Students who make it to the second-half of 1st grade add a new level of complexity to their sentences; mostly without being aware of it. They add the direct object, or rather, a noun upon which the action of the verb is influencing.
The boy kicks a ball.
The cat eats the food.
This adds a new complexity to communication. Yes, the boy is kicking, but whether or not that boy is kicking a ball or a baby is an important distinction. Strangely, the media doesn't seem too interested in this part of syntax.
The government spends!
vs.
The government spends on welfare, infrastructure, wars, employees, etc. etc.
Where is the money that the government is spending going? It is something I need to know, or I begin to get the impression that someone is trying to manipulate me rather than legitimately try and provide me the facts I need to make an informed decision.
I have noticed that many have made strong stances in their opposition to spending on health care. Apparently, spending is SO bad, that paying for the medical bills of poor Americans doesn't quite make up for it. So what should the government spend money on, then? Poor cancer patients and Americans who are currently bleeding are not worth spending money on, so what then is more important?
Government's reason for existence is to provide safety, stability, and quality of life for its members, yet for some reason, the only tool the government has for doing that, money, is currently off-limits. Why is money so important that the only true virtue is to not spend it?
Money is merely a tool of trade. In itself, its useless; a green piece of paper with vaguely recognizable symbolism related to the nation that uses it. It was designed so that people who had, say a ton of corn, could trade goods with people who had, say, a ton of barrels. The guy with corn wants some barrels, and he can't steal them, so what can he do? Trade, of course! But since he doesn't have money, all he can offer the barrel guy is a bunch of corn, and since the barrel guy doesn't happen to like, want, or need corn... well, corn guy is out of luck in the barrel department.
Luckily, someone invented money. A universally valued item that basically acts like the "x" in an algebra problem. Money is a variable, a simple "x" that can be offered for anything from corn to barrels. People are willing to accept this "x", because they know they can turn around and use it for some other "y" like say cheese, or curling irons.
The point of money is to spend it. The only reason to save money is to ensure that you have money to spend LATER. Yet for some reason, spending is BAD, especially if the time to spend money happens to be in the present.
So tell me how many billions of dollars our government spends on its social programs- THEN try and convince me how that is a waste of money. In all likelihood, I'll just respond by pointing out all the different ways you are making economics more important than the Four Freedoms. But there is always that chance you might actually have a point worth listening to, but I'll never KNOW if you don't provide the information!
No comments:
Post a Comment