President Barack Obama’s September 8, 2011, speech — in which he proposed the American Jobs Act to spur employment — contained both derisive caricatures and poor reasoning. Let’s look at some quotes one by one:
“Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans — including many who sit here tonight.”
This is an argument Obama frequently makes: He’s advancing ideas that have been supported by Democrats and Republicans in the past; therefore, any opposition by Republicans is hypocritical, partisan, merely political, etc.
First of all, Obama is not consistent in applying this argument. For instance, both Democrats and Republicans have opposed raising the debt ceiling, have opposed mandating that individuals purchase health insurance, and have opposed using reconciliation to pass health care reform. In fact, in each of the cases, one of the Democrats in question was Obama himself. Is it therefore fair to say that his later reversal on each of these issues is hypocritical, partisan, merely political, etc.? Somehow I doubt Obama will characterize his own change of opinion this way. But, if he won’t describe himself as a partisan hypocrite on this basis, it’s inconsistent to describe Republicans that way.
Second, regardless of whether Obama employs a double-standard in applying this argument, the argument itself is flawed. Sometimes people switch positions on an issue — not for crass reasons — but because they realize that their previous position was mistaken. Or, someone might just have a conditional position. Somebody might think that some of the things Obama has proposed are a good idea in certain economic circumstances, but not in the current economic circumstances. Or, they might support some economic proposals depending on whether or not they’re combined with other economic proposals, because some proposals might work well together and others might work against each other. There’s nothing suspiciously partisan about that, is there?
Democrats — for example, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — have used this sort of argument previously to criticize Republican opposition to a payroll tax cut. It was bad reasoning then, and it still is.
“We need a tax code where everyone gets a fair shake, and everybody pays their fair share. And I believe the vast majority of wealthy Americans and CEOs are willing to do just that, if it helps the economy grow and gets our fiscal house in order.”
First, what constitutes a “fair share”? As I’ve discussed earlier, there are lots of different factors that enter into the concept of fairness: More compassion for those in greater need; more reward for those who work more; more punishment for those who harm more; reciprocity; equality; and perhaps more beyond these. It’s far from obvious that all these considerations point in Obama’s favor. To just assume that his positions are fair and Republicans’ are unfair is, at best, sloppy, if not just derisive.
Second — and this point has been made frequently — if wealthy people are really willing to pay more in taxes, why haven’t they already done so? There’s nothing stopping them from, say, adding 10% to their tax bill, right?
“Some of you sincerely believe that the only solution to our economic challenges is to simply cut most government spending and eliminate most government regulations.”
This is just a caricature of Republicans and conservatives (and libertarians, too, I suppose). They might believe in less spending and regulation than Obama and his party, but few (if any) of them believe in cutting the federal government in half.
The analogous straw man in the other direction (frequently invoked by Republicans) that the Democratic, liberal, progressive solution to this (and every other) economic situation is more taxes, spending, and regulation. If Obama doesn’t like being caricatured by Republicans, he shouldn’t do the same to them.
“Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world. But there has always been another thread running throughout our history — a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.”
This is a rehash of his March 2010 health care speech where he said that Democrats “are proud of our individualism, we are proud of our liberty, but we also have a sense of neighborliness and a sense of community”, implying that Republicans don’t have a sense of neighborliness or community. In other words, it’s more caricature. It’s not that Democrats believe we’re connected and should help each other while Republicans don’t; we all believe these things. But we disagree — quite reasonably — about the best way to help each other.
“President Kennedy once said, ‘Our problems are man-made — therefore they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.’”
If President John F. Kennedy said this, he was wrong. Just because somebody causes a problem doesn’t mean they can fix it. As I’ve pointed out previously, you might be able to push the boulder down the hill, but not back up it. I agree that we can fix our fiscal problems, but this is a lousy argument for that proposition.