Political Discourse 2009

I have a relatively small point to make tonight. The superficiality of the political discussion being broadcast in the US about their attempts to stimulate their economy with government spending is starting to get on my nerves.

President Barack Obama’s Republican rival for the White House last year hardened his opposition to the administration’s planned economic recovery package Sunday.

“I think this can only be described as generational theft. What we are doing is amassing multi-trillions of dollars,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), speaking on CBS’s “Face The Nation” with Bob Schieffer "via TheHill.com - McCain: Stimulus is 'generational theft'.

I have many times told my students that the two most important serious questions to ask are 'so what?' and 'who cares?' I remind them that these are not dismissive questions but serious ones---serious questions that often require but go without serious answers.

In the case above, McCain gives no reasoning that provides any kind support for the characterisation of deficit spending as 'generational theft' or why 'amassing multi-trillions of dollars' is a bad thing. In other words, 'so what?' I suppose by simply saying 'multi-trillions' we are supposed to take pause. But I think we need to justify any negative argumentative role it might take.

McCain goes on to say

“[i] think it's the greatest transfer of not only spending but authority and responsibility to government,” McCain said. "I think it's a massive — it's much larger than any measure that was taken during the Great Depression. I think it has policy changes in it which are fundamentally bad for America.”

However, McCain does not explain exactly these policy changes might be bad. Why is transferring authority and responsibility to the Federal Government bad? Exactly what authorities and responsibilities? Instead of answering these questions, McCain simply echoes complaints about 'the lack of bipartisanship.'

Is this really as good as the public discourse gets in the US?