NOT THAT YOU ASKED
They say that with age comes wisdom, and since I have just begun my sixth decade, I'm beginning to believe that. For instance, I've come to believe that there are two universal truths about politics. One is that the arguments in Washington never change. They're either about the economy or who we should be picking a fight with. The other is that while the arguments never change, which side either party is on in the argument does.
I've believed in these truths for some time, but after reading a massive biography of Woodrow Wilson, I'm sure of it. If you are as interested in Presidential history as I am, I highly recommend it. If you aren't then don't go near it.
When Wilson was President he wanted to raise income taxes on the wealthiest citizens, and increase wages for workers and improve their working conditions. Then as now Republicans became absolutely apoplectic at such ideas. Guess what their argument was? They said that the best way to stimulate the economy was to cut taxes on the wealthy. They said that raising worker's wages was socialistic and a redistribution of wealth. They said that improving working conditions would cause too much government regulation, and cut profits. Several times I had to remind myself that I was reading history and not the morning paper.
Likewise, Wilson's efforts to get the treaty ending World War I ratified by the Senate reminded me of the current debate over the possible nuclear deal with Iran. Before the treaty was even written Senate Republicans had decided not to ratify it. They didn't have Tom Cotton around to write a letter to the German Kiaser, but they did pretty well without him.
In public they blamed the League of Nations for their opposition to the treaty. They argued that if the United States joined the League we would be turning our foreign policy over to other members. Republicans today say the same thing about the United Nations.
In private, their real reason for opposing the treaty was that they wanted to deny Wilson the political victory the treaty would give him. At the end of the war Wilson was very popular at home and in Europe. Republicans feared that if the treaty were ratified, the Democrats would keep the White House in the 1920 election. To be fair to the Republicans, it was a bad treaty, but it would have been much worse if Wilson hadn't been in on the negotiations. Still, opposing the treaty purely on political grounds was pretty disgusting.
As for the universal truth that the arguments don't change but the sides the parties take in those arguments do just look at the current debate on the economy. By every indicator we use to measure the economy, it is doing well. Unemployment is down, jobs are being created, and the deficit is shrinking. Democrats of course are bragging about the economy, and giving the credit to themselves and the President. Republicans keep reminding us that unemployment is actually higher than the government number because it only reflects the people collecting unemployment, and doesn't count those whose unemployment has run out and those who have simply stopped looking for work. They are even complaining about the wealth gap, which never bothered them before.
There's some truth to both arguments, but if Mitt Romney were President, and had this economy, the people making those arguments would be reversed. Republicans would be raving about the robust economy and giving themselves and Romney the credit for it. They would probably be calling it, "Mitt's Miracle". Democrats, on the other hand would be pointing out the discrepancies in the unemployment rate, and raving about the wealth gap.
What this proves is that the old saying that, "The more things change, the more they stay the same" isn't just folk wisdom, it's the truth.
Posting a comment requires free registration:
- If you already have an account, follow this link to login
- Otherwise, follow this link to register