Back in the 90s, I had an argument with my father about taxes. My dad is pretty much a consistent Republican voter, and at the time he was vociferously displeased with President Clinton. In the wake of Clinton’s tax cuts to the middle class, my dad was railing about how that was a lie, that, in fact, taxes had gone up.
“I got a tax cut,” I said.
He stopped. “Huh?”
“I said ‘I got a tax cut.’ My taxes went down.”
He had a few moments of complete cognitive dissonance. I confess I do not track politics and policy on a daily basis, and often things slip past me that I do not catch, but the fact of the matter was, at that time, my federal taxes went down. I was taking more money home weekly than before Clinton’s “nonexistent” tax cuts. My dad was startled. He couldn’t figure that one out. His taxes had gone up.
“You make a hell of a lot more than I do, dad,” I said. “You are not in the demographic those cuts were aimed at.”
Now, to be fair, we went over it later, and a majority of his tax increases were state and local and one on capital gains, which took a point or two upward tick at the time. His income from investments about equaled his paycheck income, so, yeah, his taxes went up.
I don’t now and did not then have any “investments.” When I hear the term “middle class” I think of my income bracket, which is people who rely almost entirely on their salaries for their income, might own a house, and there may possibly be a 401K somewhere. I have never made more than 28 thousand dollars a year, usually considerably less than that. That’s my income bracket, which I charitably claim as middle class. (It’s not, it’s working class, but in America we view the class divides according to what we own, not what we make—so a nice car, a home in a good neighborhood, new clothes, the ability to eat at a nice restaurant once a week or so, these things make us feel middle class, even if most of it is purchased on credit we may have trouble paying back.)
The disconnect, however, between my father and me had to do with a common American assumption that we are all the same, even when we know we are not. If you’re in my family or one of my circle of friends, the default assumption is that we are living the same level of life. So if good things happen to me, they must also happen to you; if I get what I consider an unfair deal, you must be suffering as well.
Reality is never so neat.
And the assumption blinds us to other realities that drive partisan politics into rabbit holes and blind alleys or vitriolic resentment, hyperbolic castigation, and outright untruth in the name of beating our opponent.
Check this out:
Now, I readily admit this is a collection of clips that is aimed at showing Romney in a bad light (hell, it’s a campaign video). However, Mr. Romney indulges some fairly blatant misrepresentation. You can go to recordings of his stump speeches and find it all, largely unmitigated by any “context” which might moderate the inaccuracies. And embarrassing, since it is so easy to check the facts today.
The main reason Romney can get away with this with his supporters is that people—on both sides—don’t seem to listen to anything other than their preferred sources, which usually do nothing but reinforce the misrepresentation. Repugnant as it may be, if you are going to be politically responsible, YOU HAVE TO CHECK, YOU HAVE TO GO TO YOUR OPPONENTS’ SOURCES AND HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT HAS REALLY HAPPENED.
Which many of us are no longer doing. I don’t know how many of us ever did, at least willingly. The fact is, though, that there was a time you had to make a huge effort to avoid the other side of the argument. Both views were often on news shows, certainly many papers used to have pro and con columns in their editorial sections, the kind of micro-selection of redacted rhetoric than happens today so easily was possible only with effort and by going to near hermit-level lengths to avoid hearing the Other Side.
Today, we can tailor our newsfeeds to suit our prejudices.
Which is why nonsense like the Birthers can cling to our political discourse like barnacles to a ship long after it should have died its well-deserved and ignominious death. Why allegations that Obama is a Muslim refuse to go away despite the complete lack of evidence and utter illogic of the charge—because the people clinging to those allegations won’t listen to any other point of view. And they don’t have to, because they can filter it out.
(Illogic? Certainly, on both charges. Consider: if Obama were not a citizen, does anyone honestly believe Hillary would not have mopped the stage up with him in the 2008 campaign? She wanted the presidency in the worst way and such a fact, if it were indeed a fact, would have driven him out of the race well before he was an obvious threat. Likewise with the Muslim charge: if he were, then why has every one of this year’s GOP candidates gone on record saying he is a Christian? Again, there isn’t a shred of evidence to support the charge. Some may claim conspiracy, but to what end? And how many people would have to be involved, even among those who are working ardently to unseat him this year? You would have to believe that every single politician in both parties had somewhere agreed to go along with these allegations. Which means no one is trustworthy, so who does that leave to get your vote?)
But, even as we seem to suffer from a surfeit of tunnel vision, the same resources that allow for selective reinforcement of a priori conclusions can also be used to expand our view and make the kinds of fact-checking comparisons that used to be very difficult for the average citizen. Hence, the above series of clips.
Look, I don’t care if you dislike the president. I loathed Bush. But I can find it in my conscience to credit him with things I thought he did well. I don’t need to call him names, impugn his character, or make up lies about him to find fault with his policies. And it’s the policies that matter. All this nonsense over Obama’s citizenship or religion or anything else like that are worse than libels—they’re distractions.
While some people were getting all exercised about his supposed disregard for White House staffers by spending Christmas in Hawaii, did any of them notice Attorney General Eric Holder’s calm assertion of executive authority to target and kill Americans deemed “terrorists” without judicial review? Hmm? A nasty overturning of due process, but the folks bitching about Obama’s vacation schedule didn’t seem to notice.
The fact that Obama has reauthorized the Patriot Act, including its domestic wiretapping powers, doesn’t seem to trouble very many in the “Obama’s not a real American” camp.
There are a number of campaign promises he made that have yet to be acted upon and some it would seem he has simply chosen to ignore. Now, there’s nothing unusual about that—every president is guilty of that charge, primarily because there is a difference between running for the office and actually holding it, and certainly there are things an elected president becomes privy to that a mere candidate does not know—but it would be nice if the people casting stones did so based on legitimate discrepancies and unfulfilled policy promises instead of on made-up nonsense.
But this won’t matter. Candidate Romney will continue to claim all of the above allegations and his base probably won’t care—because they won’t know. As far as they’re concerned, he’s relaying the truth, because they won’t bother to check it.
And this is one of the chief problems underlying politics. Not just today, but always. “Preaching to the choir,” “playing to his base,” “towing the party line”…nothing new.
But there was a time it was very difficult to find out the truth. That excuse doesn’t work so well anymore.
But then, it’s not about reality. Is it?
