A great comment by Disputo over at Kevin Drum's blog (in a discussion about the fact that supply-side economics are officially junk) linked together a number of issues I've written about in a single argument:
Taking the supply side approach to any problem has been thoroughly debunked by reality
Beyond the economy, he mentions immigration, terrorism, and energy as topics where the solutions might be found on the demand side, but are exclusively sought by our politicians on the supply side - and sold to the public.
From the European Tribune
IMO, the worst thing about the whole Supply Side nonsense is not that wingnuts continue to use it as an excuse to cut taxes on the rich, but that it has become the prism through which all problems are viewed.
Illicit drugs a problem? Don't do shit about the stemming the demand for drugs (by treating drug abuse as a health care issue), just attack the suppliers.
Illegal immigration a problem? Don't do shit about stemming the demand for illegal immigrant labor (by going after the businesses that employ them), just attack the suppliers of illegal labor, the immigrants themselves and the countries they come from.
Energy crisis? Don't do shit about conservation or other measures to decrease the demand for energy, just rape the environment and attack other countries in order to secure the supply side.
Terrorism a problem? Don't do shit about the demand for terrorism (by, eg, alleviating oppression), just attack the suppliers of terrorism (by, eg, increasing oppression). Of course this merely serves to increase the demand for terrorism, which is easily filled by the readily available and inexhaustable supply.
As several regulars on European Tribune are fond to remind me, facts are useless to confront such successful narratives, as politicians regularly win elections by taking the easy (usually populist) route to tackle problems by appearing tough or appealing to our sense of entitlement - or our immense capacity for denial. "The terrorists are out to get us"; "But I need my car to do my job"; Drug addicts threaten our kids and should be in jail"; "immigrants steal our jobs".
These play on the politics of fear, and of diverting our attention from actual causes of problems towards convenient scapegoats. Thus I disagree that facts do not work - they have not been tried. We the newsjunkies on the blogs know the facts, but precious few people do. How many times have you seen people go "no" when you tell them "don't you know that... [insert any damning fact about Bush or the policies of the right]? There is a real need to point out these underlying causes, and to show how the demagogues are playing the public by lying, pandering and tricking us into policies that conveniently favor a few well-lobbied industries.
The fact is, there is a need to state what appear to be controversial facts - and to stand by them undaunted while the right screams "weak", "terrorist lover", "parasite feeder", etc... Just stand back and state that, yes, you are standing by immigrants, drug prevention, diplomacy, conservation, etc... because they work. Since nobody is saying it, why should people believe it? But if a few brave souls, followed by others, start repeating it loudly enough, it may percolate through. The Right Wing Noise Machine is not called that by accident - you do get your ideas across by being louder, however ludicrous these ideas are. The retort needs to be equally loud.
And amongst the things that need to be said loudly, you have those (there's no need for each of us to shout all of them, but we should never forget to insert some of these in our discourse):
- government works for us, and it provides invaluable services. These need to be paid for, and that's why we pay taxes; government is useful, taxes are investments;
- the rich are waging class war on the rest of us, and they are winning. They are getting immensely richer, while the rest stagnates, and this is happening because they want it to, and because we let them. There is no rational reason for this to continue. Society will not be poorer ifthey are taxed fairly - only they will be, and this is as it should be if we don't want to move back to feudalism;
- immigrants work hard and create wealth for our societies. The only criminals are the bosses that hire them at below market rates because they are more vulnerable - and thus use immigrants to weaken wages for all workers. Strengthen immigrants' rights, and you'll help other workers too. The "welfare queens" are the corporations that thrive on unchecked abuse of labor rights;
- crime is to a very large extent drug-related. Making drugs legal would bring a plummeting rate in petty crime, and destroy most of the livelihood of the drug traffcikers. Drug addiction can then be treated as the health care problem it is, not as the endlessly renewed law enforcement problem;
- terrorism is the criminal symptom of a political grievance. The crimes must be dealt with by law enforcement, as other crimes. The grievances must be dealt by diplomacy, and by an acknowledgement of their reality and of the need for political solutions. War never solve conflicts, they can only bring about the political solution a bit faster in some instances, usually at a greater cost;
- and of course, energy is not cheap. We're already paying its real cost in the form of taxes to pay for the military, taxes to pay the multiple subsidies to the extractive industries, taxes or contributions to pay for emergency services, health care services and shorter life span - and taxes to cover the damage to New Orleans. And in a dysfunctional diplomacy that makes us give up our values to prop up unseemly regimes that rpovide us with our "fix". Increasing the monetary cost of energy is not increasing its cost, it's just making it more apparent - thus allowing us to use it better.
You may find some of these ideas too controversial. That's fine. This is meant to widen the Overton window and to get some concepts back into the mainstream. It won't happen overnight, but it needs to be done.