As always, these are real emails from real people...
****
Stephen: Matt, with tax day nearing and Obama's tax return out there... do you think there is any reason for releasing tax returns for the general public's information?Matt: YOU OPPOSE THIS? THERE IS NO HOPE. Just kidding. Maybe you don't actually oppose it. But seriously, I had never thought much about the tax return question. I guess it's just one of those things I came to take for granted about presidential campaigns. What's your objection (if you have one)?
Stephen: My objection is that they don't really mean anything (tax returns do not affect one's policies) yet the media plays them up. Instead, they are used as a distraction in order to (largely) create a disconnect between a candidate and voters (who likely don't make as much) - this is a particularly useful tactic on the left. It seems to me like it's only utility is to raise class issues. But I believe it was Jon Stewart who defended Obama's elitism by claiming (and I agree 100%) "shouldn't the president be of above average intelligence?" Well if that is true, and again I couldn't agree more, what's so crazy about the president being of above average wealth?
Matt: I see your point. Who really cares exactly how rich Mitt Romney is, since it's not like we didn't know already that he worked in private equity, where one could reasonably make the assumption that he made a lot of money. Pretty sure the awkwardness and general tone-deafness that people attribute to his well-heeled background would also have shone through regardless. On the other hand, don't we want as much information as possible to be out there on the people whom we are going to consider electing?
Stephen: But why should how wealthy he is matter anyway? Although I guess I'd be slightly biased to the other side. The more successful he is the better he understands business. But I actually can figure that our by just listening. As for knowing everything, did we need George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy, FDR or JFK's tax returns?( btw the last two make this list just for you).
Matt: These days, every presidential candidate is a millionaire, so it's not like that's the only thing. I think Romney's wealth troubles people not because it exists, but because he actually seems to fulfill a certain caricature. The $10,000 bet, the picture with the creepy smile on his face and the dollar bills oozing out of his business suit... it's more about how out of touch he seems than anything else. As Mike Huckabee famously said in 2008, “I want to be a president who reminds you of the guy you work with, not the guy who laid you off."
Stephen: Did McCain remind you of a rich d-bag or goofy grandpa? They played the same card against him with his houses. Also - tell me this how does one appear to have dollar bills oozing out his suit? Also, you see that I see hard work. The man got a JD and MBA from Harvard at the same time. Why can't his hard work be rewarded with wealth?
Matt: Goofy grandpa, for sure. I recall us having a conversation sometime in the fall of sophomore year about whether it mattered that he couldn't use the internet. As for Romney, for some reason I really liked the word ooze there. Look up that picture and tell me oozing doesn't come to mind. Here's my point though: I don't think people who are turned off by Romney begrudge hard work, otherwise his wealth wouldn't have been such an issue with GOP primary voters. It's that he's out of touch. He doesn't understand the problems of average people because he never had them.
Stephen: Exactly so he did seem like a rich douche but still became a victim of class warfare. And right, Obama who never worked in the private sector understands their problems? This is really the problem with democracy, it's supposed to be about issues and policies but it ends up who you'd rather drink a beer with and that's how we get a GW Bush.
Matt: Populism giveth and populism taketh away, Stephen. But I think you're underestimating the legitimate importance of empathy. Bill Clinton had it. Obama, albeit to a lesser extent, has it. It's about understanding common problems. How can you appreciate the importance of a Pell Grant, or a small business loan, if you never even had to imagine needing one? This isn't a partisan issue, either. The graveyard of Democratic presidential candidates who couldn't relate to average people is extensive (see John Kerry, Al Gore, Mike Dukakis, etc.)
Stephen: Yep. I'm not a fan or populism at all though (why I'll side with you mostly against the tea party). But you raise an important issue that is central to your thinking: empathy over reason. I don't need to empathize with a Pell grantee, I'm just looking for results. How can Obama understand the small business owner (or even private sector employee) if he could never imagine working as one? No for him government or academia would always support.
Matt: That's a good argument. But I think I mischaracterized my own argument by connecting empathy with direct experience. It's less about firsthand perspective than it is about the ability to convey your understanding of other people's experiences. What troubles people about a politician like Romney is that he doesn't seem to "get it" on a gut level. I guess that's the same objection that some business folks have with Obama, though I would argue of course that the latter perception is less justified.
Stephen: Very fair. I would agree, it's less about first hand experience and more about understanding the fundamentals/situation. Now, we obviously disagree about who does this better.
Matt: Indeed. Here's another argument for releasing tax returns though: don't we want to make sure that our candidates have been paying their taxes in the first place? Remember this was a problem with a couple Obama cabinet appointees. Shouldn't we make sure that Romney or anyone else isn't using offshore tax shelters?
Stephen: Yes that is a good reason for this. But couldn't the IRS just verify that they're up to date on tax payments and we move on? Other than that, we found out that Biden is kind of a jerk. He's making the secret service pay him rent. He also only gave 1.5% to charity. Jerk! But then again he probably doesn't think he's that we'll off, the Bidens only made $379k.
Matt: Another good argument - probably the most sympathetic to any of your positions I've been, even if I would still take the opposing view that it's best to have that information out there and allow people to draw their own conclusions. I mean hey, at least Biden didn't hire illegal immigrants to mow his lawn, right?
Stephen: I'm really not opposed to the idea in principle. I'm opposed to its application in ad hominem attacks. They are counter productive and cheapen democracy. I'm just asking for a honest debate on the issues. Let's allow the American people decide which view of government and society they like best and not get distracted by personality. Remember, we're a nation of ADD.
Matt: Steve, I'm not used to you going all idealistic on me, but I like it. Let's move on to something more contentious.
Should presidential candidates be required to release their tax returns? Sound off in the comments...
No comments:
Post a Comment