My Own Personal Fantasy Political League
By P.J. O'Rourke
As I've mentioned about 100 times before, I'm very unhappy with this election. And I can't do anything to fix it. So I'm going to give up and retreat into fantasy.
No matter how bad reality is, you can always use your imagination. Wish upon a star for hope and change. (Or did somebody try that already?)
Anyway, come with me to the Land of Make Believe.
Let's pretend that a good, respectable, intelligent, decent, honest, and reasonable Democrat is running for president against a good, respectable, intelligent, decent, honest, and responsible Republican.
Quit laughing! We're trying to have a daydream here.
As long as we're dreaming, let's make the Democrat a working-class guy from the Rust Belt, a skilled machinist for instance, who runs a small business, has to make payroll, and feels the full effect of OSHA, EPA, EEOC, Obamacare, and every other government regulatory burden.
And – since we're talking unicorns, flying ponies, and candy-flavored rainbows – let's make the Republican a minority woman from a disadvantaged background.
I have nothing against GOP presidential candidates being random old white men. I'm one of them myself. But it's about time Republicans heard from somebody – other than a brain surgeon or a governor of Alaska – who knows what it feels like to be an outsider.
The way America's identity politics, partisan animosities, and factionalized society are going, everybody is going to be feeling like an outsider soon. The GOP should get ahead of the curve.
But I'm talking about reality again, and I promised not to do that. Let's get back to our castle in the sky.
Suppose these two ideal candidates debate each other. Do you think their debate would sound anything like the ones we've heard this year? That wouldn't be a dream. That would be a nightmare.
In our imaginary perfect world, we wouldn't even need a moderator. (As far as I can tell, the only reason we had moderators in the real-world 2016 debates was to bring the average IQ on stage up to three figures.)
Our ideal candidates flip a coin to see who goes first. They speak briefly with opening remarks, listen to what the other candidate says without interrupting, and then respond.
Our Republican wins the toss. She begins...
Good Republican: The most important issues facing our nation are the federal debt and deficit. When you find yourself down in a hole, quit digging. If we don't get government overspending under control, we will end up with the soaring consumer price index and plunging economy last seen during the "stagflation" era of the 1970s and – heaven forbid – disco might make a comeback.
Good Democrat: I agree with my esteemed opponent about the dangers of the debt and deficit – and disco. But America has been down in this debt-and-deficit hole before, after World War II and the Civil War. In both cases, rapid economic growth was our ladder out.
I believe the most important issue facing our nation is economic growth. I believe government has a role to play in stimulating growth through wise spending on much-needed infrastructure. And I mean wise spending – not sticking Solyndra solar panels where the sun never shines or building a light rail to get stoned millennials back to their shared housing in downtown Portland.
GR: Yes, fixing the debt and deficit without economic growth would be like trout fishing in Death Valley. I'd stimulate the economy by cutting taxes and reduce the deficit by cutting spending. We know cutting taxes stimulates the economy. It's so obvious, even a Death Valley dead trout would understand – having more money makes you richer.
As for spending, the U.S. gross domestic product is about $18 trillion. Combined U.S. federal, state, and local government spending is about $6.5 trillion. That's more than a third of GDP. Oughta be enough! If you were sending a check for a third of your income every month to your stoned millennial kid in Portland, he could use Uber.
GD: Fortunately, my millennial kid works in the family machine shop back in Cleveland and limits himself to a couple of beers on the weekend. However, I take your point.
Unfortunately, about two-thirds of the federal budget goes to entitlement programs. And politicians from both parties have been about as willing and able as your dead trout to tackle entitlement cuts. I'd be a big liar if I said I had a quick fix for entitlement spending, even if I had majority support in the House and Senate.
Also, let us not forget that while entitlements can be – and are – abused, they also provide a lot of help to people who would be helpless without them. For example, Social Security, for all its problems, virtually eliminated severe poverty among the elderly in America. Let's be honest here, do you really want your mother-in-law living in your spare bedroom until she's 103?
GR: You met my mother-in-law when our families went to church together. No, I don't.
GD: I also take your point about taxes, they are too high for some people. But then again, for some other people, maybe they're not high enough. While we're being honest, let me point out that I'm a Democrat. I will raise taxes on very rich people. Even Adam Smith, of whom you Republicans are so fond, had something to say in favor of a graduated income tax.
Smith pointed out that one of the principle duties of government is to protect property. People with a lot of property should pay a higher rate of taxation because they get a higher rate of protection. Paying taxes is like paying for a guard dog. But if you don't have anything to guard, all you're paying for is a stray pit bull.
GR: We'll have to agree to disagree about rates of taxation. But you must admit our tax system is a mess. The U.S. tax code is now 4 million words long. If you printed that out and dropped it on a taxpayer, it would squash him flat.
GD: Yeah, he'd be roadkill. You could peel him off the highway and sail him like a frisbee.
GR: We have to do something about that.
GD: We sure do. I have some specific ideas about how to do it.
GR: So do I. Let's discuss them...
And the debate would continue in such a manner – substantive, but good-natured – for exactly one hour. Because, no matter how good presidential candidates are, an hour of listening to them is all we can stand, even in our dreams.
At the end of the debate, the Good Republican would say to the Good Democrat, "You obviously care about people. If I'm elected, I'm going to appoint you Secretary of Health and Human Services – and of Education, too, because, to save money, I'm going to eliminate that Cabinet post and put it back into the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare."
The Good Democrat would say to the Good Republican, "You're obviously sharp about fiscal and monetary policy. If I'm elected, I'm going to appoint you Secretary of the Treasury."
And then they'd hug.
Now I'll wake up and wipe the drool off my face.
Regards,
P.J. O'Rourke