Recently I took issue with what I saw as a mindset on the left portrayed in a piece written over at the Mahablog. Maha has responded and I find in that response a very worthy discussion idea.To catch you up, Maha stated the belief that "large parts of the people opposed to raising the debt ceiling have no idea what the debt ceiling is."
I responded with my belief that the argument used by the left when the majority opinion differs from the left is generally that the majority are too stupid to understand what the left understands.
Today Maha expresses the opinion that "most Americans can make sensible decisions about issues when the facts are clearly presented to them. However, that hardly ever happens any more. I blame news media for that."
Fair enough. Not having read Mahablog often, I take Maha at face value here and believe readily that it is an opinion Maha has expressed before as stated.
Maha quotes me from my previous post:
I completely disagree with that. I believe the American public is watching the issue closely, they understand the ceiling is going to be raised but want to make sure the endless merry-go-round of borrowing, spending and being forced to borrow more because Washington overspends, ends.
Maha believes that is a dishonest argument:
Dishonest argument. Knowing “the ceiling is going to be raised” but wanting it tied to spending cuts, is not the same thing as being opposed to raising the debt ceiling.
The people responding to the Gallup poll were not asked if they preferred certain conditions to be met before the debt ceiling is raised. They were asked if it should be raised, period. It’s not at all clear from other news stories I have seen that the hard-core teabaggers will be placated by spending cuts if the debt ceiling is raised.
Emphasis mine.
My argument stems from two points, first the portion that is emphasized above, polling organizations are not asking the full question, they are not using the caveat, so the only results available are an all-or-nothing answers.
The second point is that I do regularly communicate with Tea Party supporters, conservatives and frequent their blogs and comment sections.
Therefore my conclusion when I say "they understand the ceiling is going to be raised but want to make sure the endless merry-go-round of borrowing, spending and being forced to borrow more because Washington overspends, ends," stems from those communications.
Maha concludes:
But if Duclos is correct, and and a whopping majority of Republicans understand the debt ceiling issue, then they must understand that not raising the debt ceiling could be an economic catastrophe. Yet they oppose raising it. Apparently, they favor deliberately trashing our economy. Why do they hate America?
I would call that the dishonest argument although I can appreciate the snark, I like snark even while I disagree with the conclusion Maha comes to.
Maha seems to have been around long enough to know how political negotiating works and how the media is used by supporters on both sides of the aisle to get the message across to politicians in Washington.
The Right's argument: The left want to spend, spend, spend money we do not have and they want to keep raising the debt limit with no conditions attached that would prevent the overspending and be fiscally responsible. Why do they want to trash the economy? Why do they want to see America fail?
The Left's argument, as evidenced by Maha: Republicans understand the debt ceiling issue, then they must understand that not raising the debt ceiling could be an economic catastrophe. Yet they oppose raising it. Apparently, they favor deliberately trashing our economy. Why do they hate America?
The Left's public hard line position: Raise the debt ceiling, no conditions, or let it default and blame Republicans.
The Right's public hard line position: No raising the debt ceiling at all.
The reality: Talk tough (points to the two links above). Negotiate, negotiate some more, make deals, publicly stick to the hard line so supporters don't freak out (both sides), throw in some phrases like "hostage takers (again both sides), fight to the bitter end, then end up raising the limit with conditions, the right saying "we didn't get all we insisted on but hell we only control one branch and they control two" and the left saying "we didn't get a clean bill but we fought hard against the right's extremes."
Then on to the next highly publicized battle (insert issue here)
We have all seen this movie before, we know how it is going to end.
That is politics, right or wrong, that is how it works.
We have a two party system, both with an agenda completely opposite of one another. Both with ideas and beliefs that they are right and the other is wrong. The media allows both to use them shamelessly to further their own agenda.
In a perfect world I would tell Maha, I know the debt ceiling has got to be raised and from my private communications with conservatives and Tea Party members they do as well, but it is useless unless we stop spending like drunken sailors and we are going to take the hard line and say no increase at all, so our GOP politicians won't fold and raise the limit without showing supporters some kind of fiscal plan for the future.
In a perfect world Maha would tell me, I know we spend too much and it needs to be addressed but we are going to take the hard line and insist on a totally clean bill so our Democratic politicians won't fold and allow the GOP to take a machete to the budget instead of a scalpel.
The political posturing game has been going on far longer than Maha or I have been writing about it and when a person joins a game mid-season, so to speak, they play by the rules already established.
So, back to my above comment about a worthy discussion- Changing the rules would probably be beneficial to the country as a whole.
There I go again, wishing for that perfect world.
Until then, I tip my hat to Maha, smile at a worthy opponent and wait in my corner for the referee to say "Let's get ready to rummmmmmmmmmmmmmble!!!!
PS- This is not to say that there are not hard liners on both sides that would rather see the country totally default rather than give an inch, but I consider them the minority, not the majority.
(Corrections and additions have been made to this post)
.
