Osler's Razor

Very nice piece. I would suggest that in the context of the current fiscal cliff negotiations, Democrats' faith is not in ideology, but in math. You can't get anywhere close to a trillion in new revenue (which both sides acknowledge that we need) without raising rates. And the idea that we'll do it by closing loopholes is pure fantasy. The charities, churches, mortgage brokers, realtors, and banks (among others) will see to it that we don't see significant limits on deductions.
 

I believe in the political theology of Abraham Lincoln (condensed version):

"Both [sides] read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes.
 

A Waco Farmer: I love the speech you referenced. Of course, Lincoln was talking about the Civil War. The stakes here (3% on marginal interests rates over $250,000) are a tad lower.
 

In re Texpat's math: the ugly truth in all this is that neither side is actually conversant with "the Math." The President has now won two elections promising to lower taxes for 98 percent of us while promising more government services for all.

We are going in the wrong direction to the tune of 1.1 Trillion dollars per year. The President's proposal to raise revenue by taxing the rich more (under the most optimistic projections) promises to raise 80 Billion dollars year. Or, to look at it in a different way, the tax increase on the wealthy OVER TEN YEARS will actually pay approx. 75 percent of our current deficit (or ONE YEAR shortfall).

Let's be careful NOT to oversimplify this with left-over rhetoric from the campaign, Texpat. In re revenue and the looming fiscal crisis (not to be confused with the fiscal cliff), we really need an adult conversation.
 

A Waco Farmer: I was just talking about the current negotiations, which is all about marginal income tax rates (not interest rates as I mistakenly said). In terms of the big picture, I wholeheartedly agree. I can think of only one elected official in Washington -- Republican Tom Coburn -- who has publicly embraced the sort of reforms that we need. Dems are in a fantasyland if they think we won't have to make major changes to Medicare and Social Security. The current path, whether we adopted Obama's or Paul Ryan's budget, is fiscal ruin.
 

@Texpat. Thank you for clarifying your point. I am on a hair trigger in re my frustration over the silly conversation going on right now about 3 percent for the 2 percent. It is a "pernicious abstraction" (staying with my Impending Crisis theme).

And, yes, God Bless Tom Coburn (who, ironically, is leaving the Senate in just a few weeks).

However, on the up side, there are a lot of serious conversations going on right now. There are actually answers out there (hard but doable). I think we should use all our influence to tone down the silliness and focus on the real issues.
 

Waco Farmer: Wait, are you making news here? Thought Coburn was leaving in 2016.

I'm glad you believe there are hard but doable answers out there. I personally think that the next few years may put the concept of modern democracy to the test.
 

Thanks for the good news, Texpat. I had this in my mind that he was done--and I have been mourning it for months.
 

And another thing: I am sorry to hijack this thread. Mark--I like what you wrote for CNN. I have a few quibbles I might flesh out with you at some point in re some of your assertions--but I appreciate your thoughtfulness and sincerity. Well done.
 

Prof:

It's December and I'm in law school so naturally I am wallowing in a Tantalian pool of abject cynicism. As a result, I will suggest that the more salient religious influence upon many of our policy makers is not to be found in the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Qur'an, the Vedas, or even the L. Ron Hubbard Book of Spells (foreword by Tom Cruise), but rather in the ballot box. That's right, I'm talking about the religion of Reelection.

To that end, it's is neither ironic nor surprising that a retiring Sen. like Tom Coburn would offer one of the few practical, principled approaches to our problems (too much alliteration?). He no longer has to fear the likes of Grover Norquist, and has, as a result, been freed from that pernicious opiate of the mast-less. Now he can sail wherever his true religious compass, personal pelorus, and policy astrolabe guide him.

I recognize that my argument is an oversimplification (like most of the arguments that have pushed us to the brink of Waco Farmer's fiscal crisis). This isn't even an endorsement for strict term limits. An immediate counter point, for example, is the fact that President Obama will never stand for re-election, yet remains committed to an impractical, impracticable solution. Still, politicians have a tendency to elevate party politics above the needs of the country. It's always safer for the next election cycle to kick the can rather than to fix the problem (recycle the can? throw it away? add it to your can collection?).

This middle religion--or so I am calling it--seems to distort to true religious sentiments of both parties, replacing them with exactly the sort of myopic ideas that George Washington warned against in his famous farewell address (eschewing political parties).

Thoughts?
 

CTL-- I tend to accept people's statement of principle at face value, so I buy that religious precepts do at least shape the way many of these people look at the world. That said... I do wonder if sometimes what they are doing is playing to the perceived religious groundings of their own political base.
 

You say:

"For many (though certainly not all) Republicans, the root of knowledge is a bedrock certainty about the inerrancy of a literal reading of the Bible."

Leaving alone the idea that "many" Republicans believe in a strict, literal reading of the bible and what that is based on for now, you use that foundation to state that:

"This provides them with clear, absolute answers"

You point out gay marriage and our continued assault on astrophysics as examples of this ideological rigidity on the part of Republicans. Then you go on to say this about:

"[in the New Testament], we see a Jesus who is anything but a capitalist. Instead, he urges others to give away all that they have to the poor, and often disparages the wealthy.

To the rich young ruler who has followed all the commandments, Jesus instructs that he must also sell everything he has and give the money to the poor, without regard to the people he will have to fire and the resulting poverty of his own family"

You go on from this point to argue that "some" Democrats (again, leaving this quantification issue alone) rely on this as the underpinning of their outlook on social programs and entitlements and progressive taxation.

Here is my question, if your initial premise is correct, and "most" Republicans adhere to a strict, literal reading of the bible that informs their political beliefs to such an extent that anyone who disagrees with them is "evil," then why isn't the Republican party going around telling everyone to give everything away and give all their money to the poor? That is in the bible as much as, in fact much more so than, Jesus' instruction to hate science and homosexuality. Under the logic of your argument in the article, shouldn't that New Testament statement of charity inform everything Republicans do given their static, unwavering, and narrow-minded willingness to do whatever the Bible says and allow it to inform all of their decisions? Thus, should Republicans view anyone that doesn't give all their money away to help the poor as "evil," as you put it?


 

First off, I said "many" Republicans, not "most," and that is important.

Second, the strain of Christianity that informs that group has a heavy dose of post-millenial dispensationalism, which is the belief that we don't really have to help the poor, because Jesus is about to reappear, making evangelism the primary imperative and feeding people, etc. secondary.
 

@Mark. I have already been wrong on the facts on the Razor once today, so maybe this is twice. But don't you have your post- / pre-millennialisms mixed up. Aren't the postmillennialists the ones that are intent on bringing about the millennium through amelioration and random acts of kindness while it is the pre-milliennalists who anticipate the coming of Christ and the subjugation of Satan followed by a millennium? Or do I just have that all screwed up?
 

I quoted you correctly the first time and incorrectly the second time, which is my bad. Though I think the question remains, which is what is the basis for the claim that "many" republicans have these beliefs, other than just anecdotal evidence?

As to your second point I think we agree. To the extent that there are Republicans in Congress that subscribe to the strain of Christianity you describe in your article they are evangelical in nature. But that is a religious belief that is largely devoid of opinions about economic issues, i.e. poverty. Wouldn't that mean that to the extent we are talking about the "fiscal cliff" (boy I hate that term) that their ideology can't be driven by dogma? Wouldn't they, if they were behaving in the way you predict they should, be saying, "none of this matters, Jesus is coming and all of this doesn't matter. Repent and accept Jesus!" They aren't doing that, which is indicative of the fact that there are in fact major portions of the Republican/conservative ideology that is completely disconnected from their view of Christianity and is more driven by their view of government, isn't it?

by the way, I enjoyed the article. Just can't stop myself from being contrarian.
 

WF... hmmm.... we'll have to have Lynn Tatum or somebody clear that up, because I may well be wrong. You would be surprised how rarely these things come up in Minnesota! But it was at the root of some serious disagreements in the Baptist and evangelical worlds.