Like many of us, I’m grappling with the appeal and limitations of each of the candidates. Presentation can matter alot, as can policy, as can demographics and the skill of their campaigns. I have my favorite, but this isn’t a fairytale and I’ll fight for my kids’ future with the candidate we end up with.
But I would like to know what Pete supporters make of a comment like this:
“Yes, we must deliver big ideas and yes, taxes on wealthy individuals and on corporations are going to have to go up. We can also be smart about the promises we’re making, make sure they’re promises that we can keep without the kind of taxation that economists tell us could hurt the economy.”
A couple possibilities:
1) Pete believes those economists who state that proposed large taxes on the wealthy will hurt the economy. I think it’s bad math but it’s not an inconceivable theory with the right assumptions.
2) Pete understands that taxing the rich and redistributing it to the non-wealthy would represent a net stimulus, but he’s taking advantage of false narratives and voter ignorance to serve as cover for not proposing taxation that might face pushback politically and from the media.
3) Pete is skirting the edge of truth by not defining specifically what kinds of taxation he thinks might actually hurt the economy, and not actually referring to specific proposals by other candidates — i.e. debating a straw man.
I guess the most charitable interpretation is #3, with some of #2. He’s making a straw man argument (i.e. there are *some* taxes one could propose that would hurt the economy) and encouraging them to assume the media is correct when they harp about progressive taxation in general hurting the economy.
#1 to me would be the most troubling — he actually instinctively believes right wing media and economists and has never seriously looked into this himself.
In the end, then, is the promise of Pete that he has the instincts to know which zombie lies are simply too big to counter and thus have to be incorporated into our arguments and policies to some extent if we are to win elections?
I mean, don’t get me wrong I think progressives have their own theories and arguments that gloss over inconvenient facts from time to time. And some combinations of taxes on the wealthy that are large enough might have perverse effects, particularly if you don’t think through them carefully or insert loopholes that sabotage the intent.
But I come back to my puzzlement with Pete’s pitch. He’s not just telling us “these policies are unlikely to get through an imperfect congress” or “this is a hard sell to the american people” or “let’s not break what’s not broken” — he’s actively arguing the case that major increases in wealth taxes are bad policy. So what do supporters of Pete think he really believes? Is he clueless or do you just think we need someone who embraces the suck and makes centrist-sounding arguments even if occasionally they are in bad faith, in order to get a broadly progressive agenda passed? Play dumb and the common man will agree with you? It’s worked before I guess.