Sure, but the objection is not that line 1 is wrong, just that it's incomplete in a way that's misleading. If you come at me with an axe and I punch you, saying "he punched me" is technically true, but doesn't give an accurate accounting of the situation. "Cut taxes for the rich" can be technically true, but still a misrepresentation of the policy if the policy is "everyone gets a tax cut."
I agree, but I also think that it's not incomplete for some people. I think that it is, but I also think that some of them aren't being dishonest, some of them actually only care as far as that.
Also, I sorta wanted to balance out the criticism, without resorting to whataboutism (the hot re-brand of "tu quoque"); so acknowledge that it's a failure but ask for acknowledgement the other direction.
I probably would have made that more clear by saying, yes, that's a rhetorical failing. But also when we justify tax cuts for the wealthy as "stimulating the economy" there has to be a follow up argument that we're not just stimulating the rich (or god forbid, the rich stimulating themselves) and the high tide is actually coming for all boats.
It flows into another issue of mine; that the common understanding of the economy is a "cycle" but we absolutely don't treat it that way in our arguments.
Here's (a generalized version) of what I mean:
- GOP X says tax cuts raises the profits of business, businesses increase investments, which increase wages to workers, which the workers put into the economy, which gives money to businesses, which repeats the cycle.
- DEM Y says redistribution raises workers wages, workers purchase goods and services, which gives money to businesses, which leads to businesses increasing investments, which raises worker wages, which repeats the cycle.
If the economy
actually resembled this cycle, then we could either give a TON of money to workers or a TON of money to businesses and the result 10 years down the line is the same. We wouldn't need to fight about it.
But, that's because the economy
does not work like this cycle. We do argue because there's not this even give and take between workers and businesses. Funds
can be spent more or less productively than other funds, we
do care about where the money starts because it will drastically change where it ends.
But for some reason, a ton of people still argue that there's this perfect give and take between businesses and workers, but then intensely care about which side goes first? I think they need to check their model then.
It's always struck me as dishonest that some on opposite sides will basically have the same model of the flow of money in an economy, where business and workers give and take, but then declare it's incredibly important their side starts (even though it wouldn't matter to them in a year). If that were true, then the arguments would resemble two people evenly balanced on a see-saw yelling that it's drastically important that the other push first
. Which is what some people see, and then they think that it's just politicians being petty (and they appear that way, when they use bad arguments).
(Sorry for the tangent)
Always frustrating to hear someone say something that is phrased like an argument when it's really a base-directed appeal. Good arguments involved shared premises, so if a Democrat says "fair share" and a Republican says "they earned it," that may be true or false, but it isn't coming from a shared premise, and therefore it is disingenuous to phrase it as an argument, because it's really a statement.
Agree with this without reservation or qualification.
People would intuitively recognize this if someone said there was two sides to the abortion "Pro-Choice or Anti-Choice" or they said "Pro-Life or Anti-Life", but when it comes to less 'branded' arguments somehow equivocating on this stuff gets a pass?
Closed Thread
