In 2010 America finds itself, as part of the wide world, in dire economic trouble. Understandably, the country is torn by different approaches to solving our problems, based on differing perceptions as to what caused the problems in the first place. Conservatives, apparently unaware how our distress came about, or believing it just happened, favor reductions of both taxes and government spending, along with looser regulations and opening of more resources to business as the best course toward renewed prosperity. Liberals, believing the downturn was a result of those same conservative solutions, advocate tighter regulations on business, increased government spending to stimulate employment, and higher taxes on corporations and millionaires to pay for it. Both sides are adamant, and neither, at this time, has the power to make things happen, one way or the other, to find out who is right. So very little gets done, while circumstances, and the voters, grow more impatient to have things actually get done.
Without casting blame, it is obvious that compromise is elusive. However, there are some issues where common ground may be closer than we think. In the field of debt reduction, which both sides would like to see, we can find a compromise both sides should be able to agree on. Ending, now and without fanfare, our two foreign wars of choice will do much to stem the flow of borrowed money, contributing to government solvency without causing pain to any Americans.
Other items on the chopping block: schools, unemployment, social security, highways, ecology...the list is long if it even has an end...all will hurt many people who have no alternatives at hand, hurt them in fundamental ways. Neither liberals nor conservatives claim to like drastic cuts to these programs, or the pain they will cause. So why not begin with major cuts in public debt where not only is no one injured, but major injuries will actually be curtailed? The conservatives are fond of allusions to family, pointing out that in tough times families must curtail their discretionary spending, in order to make ends meet.
What could be more discretionary than borrowing to finance wars of choice?
The difference between wars of necessity and wars of choice are obvious to anyone. If a nation is attacked, it must utilize all available resources to defend itself. But if a nation attacks another, for whatever good reasons, the activity is discretionary, and if it becomes unaffordable, ending it is just common sense. Americans will no longer be killed or maimed in foreign conflicts, and Americans will likewise cease inflicting death and injury on residents of those foreign lands. As a bonus, we will no longer be incurring unsustainable debts for goals that have proven either false or unattainable.
Some of the troops may feel betrayed, and we owe it to them to set things right. At any rate we can redeploy them for their true duty, which is national defense. If our national pride should suffer as a result of withdrawing from wars we do not need to fight, we might make good use of the opportunity to rethink our sense of national purpose. Nations, like individuals, can benefit from self examination and evaluation, especially when casualties are eliminated. America is a mature country, which values the opinions of its citizens. Surely we have enough self-respect to swallow some foolish pride.
Besides, in these tough times, pride is a luxury we cannot afford.
No comments:
Post a Comment