on language

Winston Churchill, speaking of America and Great Britain, once said something to the effect that they were two nations separated by a common language.

That seems to be a model for a situation that exists today between the two major political parties (as well as a smaller subset known as the tea party) and their audience, the voting public, (notoriously addicted to television).

This has surfaced before, and is still simmering in the abortion debate.

It is at work now in the debt debate.

This is an editorial blog, the opinions presented here represent the most significant majority in the nation -- me. I hope that it sheds some light not just on my opinion, but the rationale behind it.

Either of you reading this may disagree with me, but you might consider the path to my conclusion, as well as the conclusion itself.

First, my impression is that there is very little deep conviction regarding the debt on the part of most members of the Congress, (the Tea-Partiers are an exception, and I suspect that they would waver if a choice were given between a tax cut of some variety, especially a targeted tax cut, and a definite reduction in debt).

Conclusion 1: The drama and particularly the indignation that surrounds the debt issue is a tool to smear the present administration. Debt is not bad when it is administered by the opposing party. (It would be no different if the party roles were reversed, but the tactics would be different).

The two warring parties will reach no agreement without laying out specific proposals, and outlining a specific expectation for the savings year by year for the next decade. The trouble is, the two parties both speak English, but the terms mean different things. Without a commonly agreed definition of terms, (one that the audience buys into, or at least understands -- you can't tell the players without a program...), this will go nowhere.

Conclusion 2: There is a much touted deadline of Aug 2 to reach an agreement. The 'positions' of both sides are so much political smoke to cover the backbiting and sucker-punching that takes place in the run up to any action on the part of the Congress. A default, even a symbolic one, would harm the fiefdoms of too many Congresspeople. A deal has probably been reached, and will be announced at a point very close to the deadline.

The problem that I have is that I can't fathom the position of either side of this. The terms that they use are defined only to themselves, and thus, mean nothing. The promises that they make, using those same terms, mean nothing, because they mean what the promiser says they mean and to hell with anyones interpretations or assumptions. The thing that I admire about the Tea Party faction, (and it is singular), is that the veneer over their rhetoric is fairly thin. They know that they are going to screw a lot of people and don't care if that portion of the population knows it, They see it as patriotic sacrifice. I notice that not too many of them are in that particular demographic. I want specifics. I want to see a plan from the Dem's on who, what, how much and how long new tax's will impact the economy. I want to hear how spending is to be modified by both parties, and how social programs will be changed and how individuals will e protected from catastrophic loss during and after these changes. There are "mainstream" Representatives and Senators willing to cut Social Security and Medicare out altogether. That may not be a bad idea, save for the fact that I have been social-engineered, (required), to be in the plan for the last 48 years and now when I want a little money back, they say that I am not "entitled"?

That scenario may be a little far-fetched, (or not), but like I say, I want specifics.

That also goes for a lot of other programs and initiatives that government administers. Small government may be a good thing, but not always. Too much power in the hands of business and money interests is equally, (and arguably more) detrimental.

But I will save that for another rant.