IT’S THE ECONOMY…
Having listened to two national conventions
in so many weeks, you’d think that these two characters, Obama and Romney, were
demons from a bygone era. Not only are they probably nice people you’d like to
have dinner with, they probably don’t mean most of what they say, and don’t say
what they really mean.
We forget sometimes that they can’t help
themselves, being as they are politicians first and decent people second. Since
decency and civic discourse isn’t possible in the era of sound-bites and 24/7
sensational reporting/blogging, perhaps we should discount everything we hear
and search for the meaning behind their appearances.
But let’s not make the mistake of the ancient
Greek philosopher Thales who was looking at the sky and fell inadvertently in a
well, or the silly one who looked for his lost car-keys under the street-lamp
because there is where he could see best.
Instead, we should ask serious questions not
only about the facts of the matter, but also about the framing of these facts.
As any trial lawyer will remind you, framing the facts ultimately influences
how they are judged.
Starting with frames, which frames matter
more than others? Three frameworks weigh heavily on the American mind: the
economy, national security, and religion—and not necessarily in any particular
order.
The religious framework is front and back in
every discussion, from one’s character, trustworthiness and faith, to one’s
personal choices, primarily about marriage and sex.
For secularists and those believing in the
separation of state and church, there is an important lesson to be learned
about the character argument: if one believes in God and afterlife, one is more
likely to be moral and fearful of one’s ultimate judgment.
As for personal choices driven by religious
belief, there are many arguments about following the Bible as God’s laws of
human behavior as opposed to those humans have voted on over the years.
Sometimes these arguments are focused on the wrong issues, such as abortion (as
a form of murder) rather than on the antecedent conditions that bring about
such choices (abstinence, safe sex, loving marriage, financial basis for
child-bearing, and pre-natal care).
Is either of these demons, Obama and Romney,
religious enough to be moral? Have they both been role models to others? Will
their faith fill them with humility? Will their faith ensure that love is the
most important factor in their decision-making process? The jury is out on both
of them, since love isn’t foregrounded in their rhetorical outbursts.
The second framework is national security.
Most would argue that this means military might and international presence,
which translate in our case to close to 24% of the federal budget of $3.8
trillion in 2012 (close to 5% of our GNP). Outside of Saudi Arabia (10% of
GNP), the US spends twice as much as any other country (as percentage of GNP, not
to mention in real dollars), and accounts for 41% of the global military
expenditure.
Neither presidential candidate offers any
ideas on how to spend less on a smart military force which would be more
effective. When it comes to national security, it’s an article of faith that
more is better.
Why not transform the debate about national
security and include in it education? Why not include in it sustainable energy
sources? Or, water in the drought age? Perhaps include health care
provision?
The third framework is the economy—Adam Smith
looked at it, so did Karl Marx. John Keynes had some ideas, so did Milton
Friedman. They all agreed that it was fundamental in human affairs and deserves
inquiry. What ideas do the candidates have?
According to the NYT, “Since bottoming out a year after
Mr. Obama took office, private-sector employment has
risen by 4.6 million; but government employment, which normally
rises more or less in line with population growth, has instead fallen by
571,000.” How should we frame this?
Republicans should delight that government jobs have
decreased, as they want small government; instead, they count all jobs and
decry Obama’s failure. Democrats are delighted having done something to reverse
job-loss trends of the Great Recession. But with high unemployment
rates—official and unofficial—there is nothing to crow about.
Religious faith and defense spending, the two other
frameworks, depend on the economy being vibrant. You can have all the right
religious beliefs (Carter) and still fail economically; you can end the Cold
War (Reagan) but increase government jobs by 238,000. Or you can be morally
corrupt (Clinton) and leave a huge government surplus.
I predict that economic data reports will be splendid for
the next two months, especially in light of the Federal Reserve Bank’s latest
commitment for long-term intervention—anyone surprised?
Raphael
Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See
previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com
