Why Progressives Should Own the Family Budget Metaphor

One of the things that's particularly interesting about the debt ceiling debacle is that it cuts to the core of the philosophical differences between conservatives and progressives. The key questions that divide the two are deeply implicated here: What is the role of government? Can and should the government do something to help those left behind by "free market" monopoly capitalism run amok? No more proxy fights about marriage equality, environmental protection, or judicial activism. Not that those issues aren't important; it's just that those debates usually involve talking around the core philosophical differences without addressing them head on. Here, we have both parties on record, taking stands in defense of their respective visions of government.

And, as usual, the outcome will reflect the conservative position rather than the progressive one. It's already a matter of Washington consensus that budget deficits must be addressed with draconian cuts to social services, and few, if any revenue increases, or cuts to defense spending. Conservatives have been winning this debate through the constant use of the family budget metaphor: the notion that since your family must tighten its belt and cut frivolous spending during difficult times, the nation as whole must do the same.

Never mind the fact, as Keynesians point out, that the federal budget and your family's budget are nothing alike. It makes sense for YOU to cut back on spending during hard times, but when the government does so, the result is an accelerating spiral of economic destruction with no end in sight. And of course, the result of doing so now would all but ensure GOP electoral victory next November, as the public tends to blame the incumbent President for the nation's economic situation. If this seems like a cynical read of Republican priorities, note Mitch McConnell's recent reiteration that making Obama a one-term President is his number one priority. Note also that the rest of the Republican caucus threw him to the snakes for being too willing compromise with Obama. And then you'll have a good idea of how collegial this whole debate is.

The problem with the Keynesian response isn't that it's not true. It's that you have to be paying close attention to politics and have some grasp of economics to get it. That is, it doesn't work rhetorically. Instead of pointing out the obvious flaws of the family budget metaphor, progressives should embrace it. They should say: If you were going into debt, which would you cut first, spending on groceries or spending on that out-of-date security system that doesn't work and is designed to protect you from neighbors who have no intention to attack you? Spending on life-saving medicine, or spending on the generous allowance you give to your rich, no good uncle who never lifts a finger for you? Spending on your kids' education, or spending on the contractors you hired a few years ago who keep losing all the money you give them and show no real results for all that you've paid them?

When you actually take the time to explore the family budget metaphor, it becomes clear that family budgeting priorities are primarily progressive priorities. Yet, it's incredibly rare to hear anyone call out conservatives who use it to imply that spending on social services is wasteful, luxurious spending in a time that calls for thrift. Instead of trying fruitlessly to explain why the metaphor doesn't apply, progressives should turn it around to demonstrate that family values actually dictate a very different set of priorities. And when the conservatives inevitably balk at cutting defensive spending, corporate welfare, and tax breaks for the rich, their feigned concern for the federal deficit will be exposed for the fraud that it is.

Welcome!

Finally taking the plunge. For as long as I can remember, I've been a political junkie. I spend most of my free time trying to figure out how U.S. politics have gotten so broken. There's a lot of explanations: media consolidation, the politicization of religion, corporate money in politics, polarization of the public into "information silos," and the rise in power of special interest groups that threaten primary challenges against any public official who veers even the slightest bit from ideological orthodoxy, to name just a few. 

I also happen to study some of these issues academically. As a PhD student, I study rhetorical theory, which can be applied to virtually any social phenomena, so I naturally focus on political rhetoric. My dissertation, in fact, is on the rhetorical appeal of libertarianism, which I believe serves as a continual source of energy and renewal behind the conservative movement. 

Incidentally, there is a great deal of current interest in academics taking their work public. So even though I'm a bit late to whole world of blogging and tweeting, I figured this would be a good time to get started. Better late than never, right?

My hope is that this blog will serve as a kind of bridge between the separate, parallel worlds of academic and political blogging. On the one hand, I'm aware that the odds are stacked against me. Political bloggers generally don't care for academic prose, and the conservative witch hunt against progressivism in academia makes many intellectuals averse to stating their politics in a public forum. On the other hand, nothing worth accomplishing has ever been easy, has it? There's much to be gained both intellectually and politically from the engagement of rhetorical theory with current affairs, and I hope this experiment can contribute to both of these projects. 

Thanks for reading, and see you in the comments.