What to do when you’re losing the argument?
It may be that a majority of the public, having heard both sides of the argument, believes that upper-income people are under-taxed. If that’s the case, it would be a significant error for conservatives to assume we simply need to make the same arguments, only louder, with more passion, and with more charts and graphs. It may be that we have to reframe the issue. Or it may be that we have to accept that waging the fight on this ground is injurious to the larger conservative cause. This is a discussion conservatives need to have in a calm, empirical way, resisting the impulse (on all sides) to either purge or impugn motivations — and to bear in mind that if conservatives give in to Obama’s demands, it may be a mistake but it wouldn’t be a violation of a high principle. Deciding on whether the top tax rate should be 35 percent or 39.6 percent, or somewhere in between, is a prudential, not quasi-theological, argument.
A final, related point: Conservatives have to be alert to shifting circumstances. Today we face challenges – including wage stagnation, lack of social mobility, globalization, income inequality, fracturing families, and an entitlement crisis — that are in some respects quite different, or at least more acute, than the ones we faced in 1980, when the threats we faced included soaring interest rates, high inflation, and a top marginal rate of 70 percent. This doesn’t mean that the arguments about tax rates and the size of government are passé. But it does mean conservatism has to take into account a realistic assessment of the sentiments of the public – not in order to bow before them, but to be better able to shape them.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Shout “racist”.
forest on December 11, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Punch Steven Crowder?
rbj on December 11, 2012 at 4:52 PM
Tear down a tent?
JimLennon on December 11, 2012 at 4:57 PM
We’re not losing the argument so much as not making it.
John_Locke on December 11, 2012 at 4:59 PM
Post on HotAir condoning someone punching Stephen Crowder.
CurtZHP on December 11, 2012 at 5:02 PM
Blame Bush?
portlandon on December 11, 2012 at 5:05 PM
Say “let it burn” then pout more?
Mmm...Burritos on December 11, 2012 at 5:11 PM
Wait, wait…in the final tally, didn’t he win the popular by, like, 50.8%? It’s a loss — and a painful one — but it’s hardly a wakeup call.
S. Weasel on December 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM
I was smiling when I said it.
CurtZHP on December 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Filibuster your own bill!
Mmm...Burritos on December 11, 2012 at 5:15 PM
Call someone “racist”, “uneducated” and “ignorant”.
The Notorious G.O.P on December 11, 2012 at 5:22 PM
1. The majority of Americans most certainly haven’t heard both sides of the argument. I’ll read the rest of your article after they have.
2. If the media was as biased in favor of fiscal conservatism as it is for socialism, then spending would have been cut a long time ago. Our problem is most certainly rhetorical.
blink on December 11, 2012 at 5:41 PM
Because of my business travels this year, I had the opportunity to talk to a lot of people prior to the election in some of the “battleground states”. I think the author has a point – a lot of people who were trying to make ends meet had concluded that they were victims of “trickle down” economics. To change that perception, we need more than just scream “no socialism” from rooftops – instead, we must have a cogent fact and figure based argument on what it means to increase taxes on the wealth creators. Just trying to impose a belief system without supporting data points will not work.
peter_griffin on December 11, 2012 at 6:16 PM