John Goodman has a nice post on political disagreement. The key line for certain intellectuals is this:
For example, a conservative’s support for pro-growth tax cuts becomes “tax cuts for the rich” to a liberal opponent. A liberal’s case for investing in people becomes “wasteful, big-government spending” to a conservative.
I once viewed these word twists as a mere debater’s ploy. But then I came to realize much more is involved. There are quite a few liberals who actually believe their opponents want nothing more than to cut taxes for the rich. There are more than a few conservatives who really believe that liberals favor wasteful government spending as such.
Just as partisans can get trapped into seeing the world only through there eyes, many intellectuals can fall into the trap of not realizing the extent of partisanship. Surely – you say – people don’t actually believe what they are saying. Surely this is all propaganda.
But, it is not. People genuinely believe what they are saying. They do suspect that the other side grows horns at night only to have them fall off in the morning.
The fact that we have descended into identifying US political factions by color only makes the comparison with earlier bought of tribal obsession more stark. From Wikipedia on Byzantine Chariot Clubs
Chariot racing in the Byzantine Empire also included the Roman racing clubs, which continued to play a prominent role in these public exhibitions. By this time, the Blues (Vénetoi) and the Greens (Prásinoi) had come to overshadow the other two factions of the Whites (Leukoí) and Reds (Roúsioi), while still maintaining the paired alliances, although these were now fixed as Blue and White vs. Green and Red.[59] The Emperor himself belonged to one of the four factions, and supported the interests of either the Blues or the Greens.[60]
The Blues and the Greens were now more than simply sports teams. They gained influence in military, political,[61] and theological matters, although the hypothesis that the Greens tended towards Monophysitism and the Blues represented Orthodoxy is disputed. It is now widely believed that neither of the factions had any consistent religious bias or allegiance, in spite of the fact that they operated in an environment fraught with religious controversy.[62] According to some scholars, the Blue-Green rivalry contributed to the conditions that underlay the rise of Islam, while factional enmities were exploited by the Sassanid Empire in its conflicts with the Byzantines during the century preceding Islam’s advent.[63]
The Blue-Green rivalry often erupted into gang warfare, and street violence had been on the rise in the reign of Justin I, who took measures to restore order, when the gangs murdered a citizen in the Hagia Sophia.[64] Riots culminated in the Nika riots of 532 AD during the reign of Justinian, which began when the two main factions united and attempted unsuccessfully to overthrow the emperor
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Thursday ~ August 4th, 2011 at 11:31 am
Wonks Anonymous
I have a problem with such use of the term “investment”. In standard investments you expect to make back the money you put in plus some extra to compensate your risk and foregoing of other options. There are occasional things like the Australian tuition subsidy which required the recipient to pay a larger portion of the future earnings, but more often public “investments” do not result in any additional claim on future revenue. They are simply things deemed worthwhile to be done by the government. There are lots of things we do privately that are worthwhile but we would not refer to as “investments”.
The tax cuts for the rich would be less of an issue if we taxed consumption instead.
Thursday ~ August 4th, 2011 at 11:41 am
Paul
This is a false equivalence. Liberals have a much more compelling argument that conservatives are primarily interested in tax cuts for the rich. The rich benefit disproportionately from the Bush tax cuts (a conservative initiative) and conservatives are unwilling to accept an agreement where only the “middle class” (frankly I think calling them middle class is a misnomer but whatever) tax cuts are extended. During the debt ceiling negotiations they refused to close any loopholes including breaks for things that only benefit rich people like the carried interest or corporate jet loopholes. Furthermore under Bush they cut capital gains taxes (which again affect primarily rich people) and the estate tax (which again affects primarily rich people). Some of them want to get rid of the corporate income tax altogether. Look at the Ryan budget and how it changes the tax brackets. The big reduction in rates disproportionately affects rich people. Ironically the extension of the one tax cut that is mildly progressive, the payroll tax cut (which I happen to disagree with but whatever) is being opposed by conservatives in congress. There is an abundance of evidence that conservatives care more about tax cuts for rich people than tax cuts in general. All conservatives can do is scream about Obamacare and the EPA when it comes to “wasteful spending” while conveniently ignoring that the largest sources of spending in the federal government are defense (which they don’t want to cut) and “entitlements” which even tea partiers don’t want to change (according to most polls). I don’t disagree that there is wasteful spending in the government, but the share that is in the piece of the budget that conservatives are so eager to cut (non-defense discretionary) is peanuts compared to the overall budget.
Thursday ~ August 4th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Wonks Anonymous
I favor abolishing capital gains taxes, estate taxes (I’m mostly indifferent, but according to Mankiw it’s easily gamed and results in little revenue but lots of deadweight loss), and the corporate income tax. Just tax consumption. Consumer goods are rivalrous, so cutting someone’s consumption means more for others. Reducing someone’s income does nobody any good.
Thursday ~ August 4th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
So who’s the Modern Equivalent? | Random Nuclear Strikes
[...] has an intriguing post comparing our current red/blue political polarization to the Byzantine Roman Chariot Racing Clubs, [...]
Thursday ~ August 4th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Blues and Greens; Red State, Blue State « Feeds « Theology of Ministry
[...] from Icerocket blogs: Blues and Greens; Red State, Blue State Tags: capital-gains, emperor, islam, markets, modern, orthodoxy, politics, science, [...]
Thursday ~ August 4th, 2011 at 11:21 pm
Khal Mojo
But it’s true. Republicans do grow horns at night. As I said on Twitter: “Republicans complain half of Americans don’t pay federal income tax, proving they only like rich portion of Bush tax cuts.”
They don’t like the EITC much and only cared about extension of the wealthy portion of the Bush tax cuts. How are liberals wrong to think “a conservative’s support for pro-growth tax cuts” isn’t actually “tax cuts for the rich?”