13 years ago, a sign hung on the wall of one prominent, presidential candidate’s headquarters. There were three lines on the sign. The first read, “Change vs. more of the same.” The last said, “Don’t forget health care.” It was the middle line which soon became the de facto slogan of Bill Clinton’s eventually successful campaign:
“The economy, stupid” … or as modified, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
The phrase was coined by Clinton’s chief strategist, James Carville. His point was that of all the issues, of all the things that concern the American people, of all things pressing on a person’s mind and thus relevant to their vote, it all comes down to how Americans are affected by the flow of money throughout society — how it affects their individual pocketbook. Carville’s colloquial cliché simplistically refined the presidential campaign. It’s so simplistic, so basic yet profound, that it uniquely mirrored a major motivation for our individual vote.
How does money flow through society? How are we affected by that?
I hear that in a lot of us. It makes sense. It affects us… how will I pay for college… how can I get ahead… how can I get a positive return on my investments… when will government quit taxing me so much… From the left and the right, even from the moderate middle, we are each concerned about the economy and how government handles our money.
As the 4th 2016 presidential debate occurred last evening — and as candidates again articulated newfound promises — the Intramuralist is keenly aware that a reasonable voting public must wrestle with the truth. The truth is that we must look at the logic behind the promises. In other words, a populist strategy — meaning basically, a person promises lots of things that lots of people like — does not make logical sense if it cannot be economically supported. It is not enough for a promise to simply sound good… regardless of how fond any of us are of the idea…
Free college. Free cell phones. Free you name it… Climate change initiatives. Corporate regulations. Even balancing the budget has some kind of cost.
So tell me, candidate: how will you pay for it? Where will you get the money? What will you cut? Or how will you generate more revenue? (And could we all quit hiding behind the cutting of some negative-sounding “loophole”? Be specific. Back it up. Make it make sense.) The promise is simply not enough.
One of the things, no less, that I respect about candidate Bernie Sanders is that he is well aware that his self-described, socialist policies cannot survive solely via promise; policies must be paid for; campaign rhetoric is insufficient, as promises can’t fund policy. Where I find equally, respectful concern is that Sanders has minimal restraint in utilizing “Peter to pay for Paul,” so-to-speak. He sees wealth as finite; he thus uses one person to pay for another — saying, in fact, that he will support a 90% top marginal tax rate… 90% (yikes). The Intramuralist believes that individuals are capable of creating wealth; we are capable of creating goods and services of value and worth to others. In other words, there is not some finite, proverbial “pie” out there that each of us is waiting to claim our rightful piece of. We can create “more pie.”
The point, no less, is that regardless of candidate, regardless of partisan side, a populist promise is not enough. It must be paid for; there are populist policies on all sides. With full acknowledgement that the word “stupid” does not resonate within Intramuralist vocabulary, the bottom line is that the economy is significant. It must make economic sense. Promises must be paid for — from whichever Democrat or Republican advocates for the cause.
Can they financially back up that for which they advocate? Is it economically feasible?
Sounding good, friends, is simply not enough.
We can’t just vote with our hearts. Our heads must also align. It is the economy… no stupid… just what’s economically sound.
Respectfully…
AR