As one CNN commentator just said, Bunning’s choice to stand on the ground of unemployment payments to demand that the U.S. government pays for what it spends is on the surface a strange one. In holding up unemployment benefits with the statement,
“If we can’t find ten billion dollars for something we all support, we will never pay for anything on the floor of this U.S. senate”,
he is knowingly leaving himself very open to accusations of meanness, and he is standing on ground that would be politically suicidal were he not about to retire.
However, his point about spending is probably correct, and his assertion is certainly supported by most of the proceedings of the U.S. House over decades.
But this episode points something even more fundamental – the nature of the divide between economic Liberalism and Conservatism in the U.S.
Many Liberals identify as such because of their political intentions, whereas conservatives (the old-fashioned ones – not the religious right or neo-cons) identify as such because of their understanding of the practical results of government policy.
From within the Liberal paradigm, conservatives’ tendency to deny the social and economic benefits that many government programs are claimed to deliver, seems to be mean. From within the conservative paradigm, the belief that government programs do in fact deliver social and economic justice in the long run, seems to be naive. In this particular respect, most of the data (from all over the world, back to the beginning of the twentieth century) favor the old-fashioned conservatives. Any fundamental political coming together in this country (which may of course be just fantasy) will require a psychological acceptance of the other side. Liberals must accept that conservatives are not meaner people, but have a different understanding about what brings about economic fairness and well-being. Conservatives must accept that Liberals do not have a fundamental instinct to dictate to others, but in many instances have not been exposed to relevant historical data.
Not that anyone cares, but Bunning’s stand speaks to this. Unfunded government welfare programs do make the poor poorer in the long run (mostly through inflation and dependency). If we really care about economic justice, we have to swallow this fact, and recognize that sometimes our preferred means do not deliver our preferred ends. Then, we need to pay for our choices. There is nothing right-wing or mean about that. In fact, the opposite. It is merely to be sensitive long-term to the well-being of people in a highly complex system.
Bunning has said he supports welfare for job-seekers. He says, “let’s pay for it”. If the government does pay for it (rather than borrow or debase the currency by inflation for it), it will be serving those who need help not just in the short run, but also in the long-run. And before the Keynesians sharpen their knives, remember that even Keynes did not support the running of structural deficits in the good years – which is what has left us now with no dry powder.
Reid’s question as to where Bunning was when he was supporting Bush in spending on wars and all the rest of it, is a perfectly good one, and deserves an answer. But that doesn’t mean that was Bunning right when he was supporting unfunded spending under Bush and wrong now.
Bunning has made himself an easy target, and many commentators are firing at him today in a rather snide way. However, not only must his point be taken eventually because the survival of these United States depend on it, but also Bunning’s decision to make this stand on this ground should motivate introspection about what divides the American Left from the American Right.
Robin Koerner is a British-born citizen of the USA, who currently serves as Academic Dean of the John Locke Institute. He holds graduate degrees in both Physics and the Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge (U.K.). He is also the founder of WatchingAmerica.com, an organization of over 100 volunteers that translates and posts in English views about the USA from all over the world.
Robin may be best known for having coined the term “Blue Republican” to refer to liberals and independents who joined the GOP to support Ron Paul’s bid for the presidency in 2012 (and, in so doing, launching the largest coalition that existed for that candidate).
Robin’s current work as a trainer and a consultant, and his book If You Can Keep It , focus on overcoming distrust and bridging ideological division to improve politics and lives. His current project, Humilitarian, promotes humility and civility as a basis for improved political discourse and outcomes.