I don't have much illusion that anything I write makes much of a difference in national politics, but occasionally I try to come up with better ways of expressing progressive and populist values when I don't think the message is getting through. I'm having a hard time doing that with the debt ceiling, or at least making a sound bite. Here's my best effort so far:
"Tea Partiers are offering a choice between crashing the U.S. recovery or crashing the world economy, and we know there's a better way: restoring the tax rate on those least affected by the recession to the rates they were in the time of the greatest prosperity."
It's not bad, but it could be better. More after the jump...
- Any good message or sound bite must be short, and this really isn't that short. The first sentence is good but it just leaves you wondering what the third choice is.
- I hesitate to say "GOP" or "Republicans" because blue dogs may play this game as well, but they're not "Tea Partiers" either. And the few sane conservatives left who haven't been driven away from that label do not support these debt ceiling hijinks. A good message must not trigger an immediate "Hey, I can prove that wrong with a counterexample!" reaction, so "conservatives" seems too broad.
But at the same time, adding "radical" or "far-right" probably makes people tired with politics tune out.
- I never have liked the (admittedly accurate) phrase "eliminate the Bush tax cuts" because it's got two negatives, and a negative in front of what most people see as a positive phrase ("tax cuts"). This is why I think "tax cuts for the rich" doesn't work as well as it should—the lizard part of the human brain, the part that takes quick linguistic shortcuts in all of us, sees "tax cuts" and then is thinking "good!" before it gets to the qualifier.
So I was thinking of "restoring prosperity-level taxes" as a way of saying restoring the taxes on people who earn over $250,000 per year (the upper whatever-percent) to January 2001 levels. We all know the original package passed in 2001 was supposed to do that anyway, but that's not suitable for a sound bite.
"Restoring prosperity-level taxes on the prosperous would eliminate any need to cut any non-entitlement spending" is not bad, but while I'm OK with "prosperity-level," I think repeating "prosperous" over and over just sounds pompous. Changing it to "on the wealthy/rich" triggers the class warfare, rather than emphasizing we're all in this together. (I feel the same way about "upper class.") I reject the term "on the most successful" because they're not necessarily successful in any meaningful way—they're just wealthy.
It's not that any of these terms are wrong, it's just that I don't think they get the message through as clearly as does leaving them out.
- Saying "in the time of the greatest prosperity" opens the door to an attack that since the economy is currently in the cellar, it's ridiculous to change tax rates (not "raise"—lizard brain words again) to what they were in those times. I think there's room here for language about how the people affected by these tax brackets are doing even better than in 2001, so making them pay 2001 tax rates is still a big break for them compared to what should be happening. (Some part of me thinks that just talking about eliminating the Bush tax cuts as the opening position is pre-negotiating to the compromise position, something many Kossacks lamented happening during the health care debate. Me included.)
So…what do you think? How can this be improved? Don't be shocked if you make suggestions and I reject them, because while this is the extent of my political activity, I'm genuinely interested in crafting what I think is the best message possible. Similarly, if I don't like one of your suggestions, forget about me—you use whatever words you like, these or others, to make your arguments with anyone you like. Adopt this message, don't adopt it, refine it—it's all collaborative.
I think it can be improved, but the tea partiers really are pretending that the only choice on the debt ceiling is massive and unnecessary spending cuts (tanking the U.S. recovery) or they'll let the U.S. reach the debt ceiling and stop (taking the world economy). People at least have to know this is a false choice.
Your thoughts?Updated by mdeatherage at Mon Apr 11, 2011 at 02:38 PM CDT
Thanks so much for the recommendations and the many many thoughtful comments! I've posted a bunch myself, replying in the comment stream to specific language I like or don't like and trying to express why I think what I think.
An overall point I come back to is that I think opening the argument by blaming the other side is a losing strategy: that just makes non-wonks think it's "politics as usual" and tune out the debate. We can get into how we got here as the debate goes on, but the opening message has to be simple: their choice is "tank the U.S. recovery" vs. "tank the world economy," but that's a false choice. There's another option that's better for everyone.
Thanks again! I'm UID #16 and this is my best blogging experience at DK yet. (Go DK4!)