Fuzzy Thoughts Part One
Back in 2000 Bush, who at the time I supported and voted for, had a rhetorical phrase that really needs to be brought back today and expanded upon. His phrase was, “Fuzzy Math.” He accused Al Gore of using Fuzzy Math during a debate. Note that I am note referring here to Fuzzy Math as a rhetorical way of saying that the reasoning is off. Bush was not specific about how the reasoning was off, he just used rhetoric. Bush of course is not a mathematician… not even close. After all, math is part of the Socialist, Elitist, Left Wing Agenda! But let’s bring back the rhetoric of Fuzzy Math, but now let’s call it Fuzzy Thought. Below I will compile a list of some Fuzzy Thought that deserves attention. It of course is not a comprehensive list.
1. Fuzzy Mandates: The year was 2004. George W. Bush had won the election– by actually getting more votes than the other guy this time– with 50.7% of the vote. The Right was celebratory and the Left was aghast. This was the highest percentage that a President had won by since W’s dad won in 1988. Bush himself had received less than 48% of the vote in 2000 (Gore had slightly more than 48%). When Bush won with less than 48% of the vote, he rammed deficit causing tax cuts through the Congress. So what would he do with an actually majority of votes? For that answer, see bush’s second term. The important thing to note, however, is that following the 2004 election, moderation was not on his or his Conservative allies’ minds. In fact, Bush said, “”I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now, I intend to spend it. It is my style.” Well, that’s a reasonable argument, right?
Fast Forward to 2010. Obama has now completed a year of fighting for Health Care reform with nothing but resistance from the Right. Each time the Right puts out a plan, it falls apart under closer scrutiny, such as their Red Herring of Tort Reform. But in all of this, the Conservatives had propagated the notion that Obama is a radical and he wasn’t elected to change the policies of the country. Or to quote one website: “he only won by 53%”. Are you confused by the fuzziness of that argument? Don’t be, it’s a political hack argument. Obama got 52.9% of the vote in 2008. That is higher than Bush ever got, but the Conservative don’t think that he has the same “political capital” that Bush had, which is why they have fought him every step of the way.
2. Fuzzy Filibusters: Democrats really need to pull their heads out of their rectums the next time they don’t control Congress. Back when Bush’s party had control of both the White House and the Congress, they complained that removing the filibuster would go against the idea of checks and balances, but now that they have both, they want to get rid of it. You can’t have it both ways! And, yes, the GOP does the exact same thing when they have control versus when they do not, but one of you has to be the more mature party and we sure as hell know that the GOP thinks maturity is an “elitist” flaw.
3. Fuzzy Senate Appointments: Again, Democrats, you need to stick to a principled argument. This hackery is why so many of us refuse to join a political party. IN 2004 when you feared that the White House going to Kerry might mean that the GOP Governor, Mitt Romney, may be able to appoint a Republican to the Senate in his place, you changed the rule to prevent him from being able to do so. Then when Ted Kennedy died– a man who, incidentally, was immediately vilified by the Conservative who danced on his grave– you changed the rule back because a Democrat was your governor. Make up your freakin’ mind! Don’t be such political hacks. It’s fodder! I don’t care what your “reasoning” was, it was completely illogical, save for power purposes.
4. Fuzzy Talk: This is actually referring to a couple– just a couple, though so many more could be addressed– statements by politicians that are actually completely logical and accurate, but which were publicly derided as stupid. I am still amazed at how a majority of people will jump on these as illogical when in fact it is the opposite that is true. I even used one of these quotes in a play, knowing full well that it would be misunderstood, but that it could be understood otherwise.
Quote 1: Donald Rumsfeld:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. These are things we do not know we don’t know.
Rumsfeld was mocked for this statement by the Left and yet the Left (such a useless sweeping generalization, just like when I say “the Right”) has seldom “unpacked” this statement. Take some time to do so yourself, and you will discover that it is a very coherent statement that makes complete sense. Also, check out the Wikipedia entry on “unknown unknown” and read the book The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb.
Quote 2: Joe Biden:
John McCain’s making fun of the fact that I said paying taxes is patriotic. What I said was when a woman asked me, what do I tell people making over $250,000 a year that their taxes are going to go back to where they were with Reagan, which is a lot lower – lower than they were at Reagan, what do I tell them? I said tell them it’s time to be patriotic.
The problem with Biden’s quote is his lack of articulation. What he is referring to are two different points in Reagan’s presidency. If you look at the end of Reagan’s term in office, taxes were much lower than they were in the first half. Reagan initially reduced the top bracket from 70% to 50% and then in 1986 it was lowered to 28%, which was higher than the next highest bracket, and he raised taxes on the lower class, hence why so many poor people thought he was an awful president. Biden’s inarticulation brings into sharp focus the two terms of Reagan. The first term was the 50% term and the second was the 28% term. Of course Biden also misspeaks about this, because Obama never claimed he was going to bring the tax up to 50% for the top bracket.
And I tell you all of the above as context, but that is not what the Right (as a sweeping generalization) complained about. It was the complaint that taxes might be a patriotic duty. They are! And paying higher taxes by the rich is also a patriotic duty. Think about this. If taxes are not a patriotic duty: if we have no taxes, there will be no military to defend the country. I think the Right would agreed that we need a strong military and therefore we need to have taxes to cover the cost of the military, therefore taxes are inherently patriotic on these terms. The problem that the Right actually has is not on whether or not taxes are patriotic, it is on what the money is used for. If the money is used to provide health care for all, they think it is socialist and unpatriotic, but if it is used to build bombs and bail out corporations, then it is somehow patriotic. So to mock Biden is a simpleminded response that plays on the rhetoric of the Right, but does not actually address the issue of patriotism and taxes. I would go so far as to say that it is patriotic for the wealthiest to pay 50% in income tax, though I would not claim it to be inherently so. Once we start to speak of specifics, we find the nuance. Taxes are in and of themselves “patriotic” only in the sense of an on/off switch. Once you get into the questions of how much and where the money goes, then there is much greater variations. The Left and Right will not agree on what is patriotic about taxes, but pushed far enough both must agree on the patriotic nature of taxes if government is to exist and function in any way whatsoever. Otherwise, we are referring to anarchy (lack of government) or a Communist like system in which the government doesn’t need to tax, because the government owns the businesses, etc. and thus receives capital from sales and the lot.
Quote 3: George W. Bush:
This is perhaps my favorite Bush quote, and one that I consider to actually be quite accurate, though the Left will cringe at having to accept the idea:
A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there’s no question about it.
Governing in a dictatorship would always be easier, except for having to look behind you every five steps to make sure some other would-be dictator doesn’t have his knife out.
This is all I have time for at the moment– don’t even have time to proof read this post– but I think there will be another post on this subject and it will deal with the mathematic behind the “tax cuts increase revenues” claim.
