One interesting sideshow of the current debt limit crisis for me has been the references to Mr. Grover "Drown Government in a Bathtub" Norquist. The Washington Post did an interesting article on him this week, Grover Norquist, the anti-tax enforcer behind the scenes of the debt debate (I definitely recommend that you read this story), which explains well why Republicans are in such lockstep on the no new taxes issue: his organization, "Americans for Tax Reform" has candidates sign a no-tax pledge (which he keeps in a fireproof safe), and any politician who threatens to break that pledge finds themselves on the wrong side of a lot of angry citizens, directed by Americans for Tax Reform to voice their displeasure.
Norquist apparently takes credit for Herbert being a one-term president, which is an interesting stance for a conservative. When President Bush the 1st raised taxes, Norquist apparently had him removed, clearing the way for Clinton. And Herbert is now the shining example of why no Republican ever dares to cross Norquist, or vote to raise taxes. Clinton was a disaster until an R congress was voted in to save America, and everything was going great under W until Obama showed up and messed everything up. Also, Reagan is a god and should be on Mt. Rushmore.
But honestly I'm trying not to learn too much about Norquist. I did scan his wiki entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/..., which had a lot of interesting stuff in it. And I failed to find his net worth on google. I'd rather focus on more positive things, than spend a lot of time on the guy. But I am writing this diary, because I found a non-comment by Norquist in a Washington Post chat today revealing:
Online chats are a pretty cushy way to get some press - you choose which questions from the public you answer, and there's no room for follow-up questions. A great place to deek and dodge, while getting your message out there. I don't really expect much from them, but there is often some insightful perspective to be gained, from reading the
1-raw questions from the public
2-filtered by the preferences of the guest
3-and their responses.
In this chat, Grover was scoring a lot of cheap, easy shots. The man's very glib, has his routine worked out, has lots of good one-liners, but I feel that he was mostly lazy in this chat. "Semantic resistance", or the act of avoiding/deflecting the intended meaning of someone's attempts at communication, is a pretty standard political ploy. Effective, if you're looking to score points. Not so much, if you're actually trying to engage others in a constructive and meaningful interaction, working towards mutual understanding. Yah, I'm still naive like that.
So I was getting annoyed while reading the chat, both because the questions allowed for easy deflections/redirects, and because Norquist wasn't really engaging in meaningful discussion. If there is a coherent moral underpinning to his ideology, it doesn't show in that chat. But then that's a lot to expect, from a man who came up with his Great Idea About Taxes and Government in high school. Really. America is on the brink of a default because a bunch of Republicans in Congress have pledged themselves to something a 14-year old thought up.
But then this question slipped through:
http://live.washingtonpost.com/...
Q. INCOME INEQUALITY
Thank you for taking some time to chat with readers today. I find a lot of your writing very interesting even though I disagree with much of it. I am curious, though, about how you think about income inequality in terms of the America you wish to bring about. A country with no mechanism to redistribute some of the income that amasses among top earners to people who are simply born into difficult economic circumstances will quickly become a nation starkly divided between a small, very rich population, and a vast, extremely poor one. I'd like to hear your argument about why this sketch of a low-tax society is wrong. Many kind thanks.
– July 13, 2011 11:49 AM
A.
GROVER NORQUIST :
– July 13, 2011 1:00 PM
Maybe Grover would like to argue that he accidentally hit "enter" before posting his comment. In which case, I'd still like to hear his response. But I'm pretty sure that this is what he meant to say - nothing. He has no objections to America becoming "a nation starkly divided between a small, very rich population, and a vast, extremely poor one". And I'm pretty sure he plans to be part of the rich crowd - that's what he was born into, and that's where he feels he belongs.
Maybe it seems contrived to build a diary around a non-response, but I do see this as a core issue. I believe that there is an important role for government in ensuring liberty and justice for all, and that there is a significant social cost to reducing government funding. Social Darwinists, who believe that everyone should just fight it out, would feel differently. It's easy to rail against government waste, but when you come up against tangibles like the question of whether children in low-income families should have adequate support, in the form of education, nutrition, and health care, it's hard for me to believe that many people could look a child in the eye and tell them that tax cuts are more important.
Keeping the debt limit/tax cut debate abstract, by not connecting it with the real impacts on Americans, allows people like Norquist to keep doing what they do. Which is why I found Norquist's non-response on this question so insightful. He doesn't care if 90%, or 95%, or 99% of the population is desperately poor. Because he's got his. He might live simply, there may be issues that I agree with him on, but his ideological worldview is based on a core inability for him to empathize with people who are poor, disadvantaged, or struggling. As long as the rich can afford security and tall fences, things are going to work out fine, for him and his, which is what counts.
There's a lot wrong with Grover's ideology, and it's pretty scary that he's been so successful at imposing on politicians and the public his simplistic thinking, where
Big Government=bad
and
Taxes=theft
, and the only way to improve things is to reduce revenue by cutting taxes leaves little room to discuss appropriate government expenditures, like health care, education, R&D, the environment, and so on. These are all investments in the future - a healthy, educated population is America's best asset. Of the people, by the people, for the people. That's democracy.
In a plutocracy, the rich have power, because they're rich. America fought to be free of the British monarchy, and then fought for equality - women, blacks, gays and so on. They're still fighting - America marches on. There's always been resistance. There were Americans who lynched other Americans for being uppity, used dogs and guns and jail and courts and violence and rape and humiliation and shame and outrage and inflammatory rhetoric against other Americans because they liked the way things were, and they didn't want things to change.
They preferred it when women couldn't vote, when black people couldn't vote, and so on. They had theirs and they wanted to keep it. They were rich and didn't want to share it. They had power over other Americans, they could vote others couldn't, they had more justice and security than other Americans, they had more political influence than other Americans. That's Grover Norquist's vision for America - a wealthy elite protected from the poor majority. That's what keeps gardeners and maids affordable for the worthy. And keeps power concentrated in the responsible hands of the deserving elite - the rich and their descendants.
Grover has every right to make this argument, and I am impressed by how effectively he has committed his life to this particular campaign. I think his ideology is symptomatic of either a deeply-engrained self-delusion, a profoundly cynical Randian/Darwinian/Free Market perspective on reality which trusts in an Invisible Hand to choose what's right (abdicating any personal responsibility), a traumatic childhood that left deep scars on a vulnerable youth who found affirmation and consolation in triumphs in the political arena, or sociopathic tendencies that blind him to the real suffering his work has caused to millions of Americans, by threatening, blocking, and cutting government programs that work for justice and equality, for freedom of opportunity.
Grover doesn't care about justice or equality or democracy. He's a plutocrat.. He believes that the rich deserve more - better eduation, better security, better health, better political representation, than the poor. He sees nothing wrong with
"a nation starkly divided between a small, very rich population, and a vast, extremely poor one"
. That's what he's working for.
I doubt he's the only one. I think this is a question we need to be asking a lot more.