Pointing out a problem isn’t ‘politicizing’ it

Megyn “Benghazi!” Kelly, of Fox “Benghazi!” “news” would like you to know that people who “politicize” the Amtrak crash in Philadelphia are “despicable.” By which she means those who’ve pointed out the disasters waiting to happen as our infrastructure putresces from years of neglect. By which I mean the suicidal Republican obsession with budget cuts in order to pay for tax breaks for their wealthy benefactors. Oops. Did I politicize?

Crazy times. You can’t discuss obvious racial disparities without being accused of “playing the race card” or being “divisive.” You can’t react to the latest (nearly daily) incidence of a child finding an unattended gun and shooting someone without being characterized as a gun-confiscator. (Can we stop calling those events accidents, by the way?) And now you can’t point to the irrational path down which Republican economic policies are dragging us without being tagged as a despicable politicizer.

Question: How do you discuss the results of political policy without “politicization?”

In an earlier column I mentioned poverty, listing some approaches I consider doomed to failure. Because I’m not brilliant enough to have ideas of my own, I didn’t propose any. Yet I heard from people who reFoxively accused me of tax-and-spend liberalism, despite the fact that I’d mentioned nothing of the sort. Because considering problems government ought to address implies money might need to be spent, programmed outrage results as if by a rubber hammer on the patellar tendon. Question the carefully maintained construct that we can get along just fine by ignoring all problems that require monetary outlay, and expect responses on a par with that which results from pointing out the science behind anthropogenic climate change, or the real age of the earth: changing the subject, obfuscation, or “la la la, I can’t hear you.”

It began with Ronald Reagan, of course: the idea that government is the problem, that tax cuts magically solve everything, that we can have what we need without paying for it, that privatizing everything but the use of our pudenda is the path to paradise. It’s not. (See tinyurl.com/psxuu94) Or, in the case of infrastructure, that we can just pretend it away. It’s the perfect message for a nation given to rationalizing hard stuff out of existence, banning expert testimony, even, as per the governor of Florida, disallowing the use of certain sciencey words. Who wouldn’t want to believe that by paying less in taxes there would be nights of prosperity and days of jubilee? Show me where and when, and I’m on my way.

By definition, government budgets are political documents. Read the one just passed, without a single Democratic vote, by Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives, and ask yourself if it isn’t wholly about priorities of that party. (See tinyurl.com/kejxfse) Tax cuts for the wealthy, spending cuts for the poor, spending increases (not paid for!) for defense, drastic reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. Of course it’s political. Of course it’s impossible to discuss the impact without mentioning the politics of those who wrote it. What’s despicable, I guess, to people like Megyn Kelly, is pointing to predictable — or, in the case of Kansas, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Amtrak, actual — consequences. It’s factually indefensible, not to mention patriotically irresponsible, to perpetuate the mythology of Reaganomics.

Today’s Republican leaders like to suggest that governments ought to budget the way families do. OK, consider homeowners with punctured pipes and rotting roofs. Let’s wonder whether, especially with current interest rates, a responsible family wouldn’t do needed repairs even if it required borrowing money; and let’s imagine the consequences of ignoring the problems. Then let’s agree that it would be inexplicable and self-destructive were that family to gather the money together only to donate it to the owner of a gated mansion down the road. To say that reflects the Republican budget is not to stretch the analogy. Marco Rubio, considered by some to be the brightest and most promising among the R presidential contenders, recently suggested that even if manmade climate change is real, it’d cost too much money to do anything about it. (See tinyurl.com/o8uvtpb)

That’s the current Republican path to our future, folks. If this is Yogi’s fork in the road, I’m not taking it.

Sid Schwab is a surgeon and Everett resident. His email address is columnsid@gmail.com.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Jack Ohman, Sacramento Bee
Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, Oct. 19

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Voting thing
Editorial: Gregerson for Mukilteo; Redmon for Snohomish

Mukilteo voters should return Gregerson as mayor. Redmon should be promoted from the council.

Everett Council, Dist. 1: Fosse offers fresh perspective

I support Mary Fosse for Everett City Council, District 1 and I… Continue reading

Everett Council, Dist. 4: Vogeli a great community leader

As an immigrant and single mom, I am a proud supporter of… Continue reading

Comment: ‘Supreme Court’s most momentous term’; aren’t they all?

There are often landmark cases, but sometimes the hyperbole gets ahead of the day’s commentators.

Comment: Rolling Stone takes another shot at relevance

The venerable magazine had a history of hard-hitting journalism; now that’s trained on celebrities.

Comment: Black Friday deals may be stuck in the Pacific

As supply chain problems continue, expect retailers to pull back on their blowout deals this season.

Editorial cartoons for Monday, Oct. 18

A sketchy look at the news of the day.… Continue reading

Mayor Cassie Franklin delivered her 2022 budget address at Wednesday's virtual city council meeting. (City of Everett)
Editorial: Franklin merits second term as Everett mayor

In her first term, she made difficult cuts but kept essential services going during the pandemic.

Most Read