“I don’t believe this election is about details. It just isn’t.” That, ladies and gentlemen, is a statement from Ron Johnson, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate.
This apparently doesn’t matter, but here’s one detail that might interest you: Ron Johnson gave that statement when asked what we should do about the nation’s 107,000 homeless veterans.
Here are a few more useless details: Ron Johnson does not believe in global warming. He also supports tax cuts for the richest Americans and opposes extended unemployment benefits for those most hurt by the recession.
When asked about his stance on global warming, Johnson replied, “I absolutely do not believe in the science of man-caused climate change…. It’s far more likely that it’s just sunspot activity or just something in the geologic eons of time,” he said. It would just be silly to enact legislation to lower carbon emissions based on this (frivolous) scientific theory.
This theory, of course, ignores the wealth of scientific data and a consensus among scientists that, in fact, human behavior is undoubtedly contributing to climate change. But those are just details.
Johnson disagrees with his competitor Russ Feingold on whether to extend the Bush-era tax cuts or unemployment benefits. Johnson supports the tax cuts for the wealthy, and opposes unemployment benefits. The last thing you want to do in a recession is tax the business-leaders, he believes, and unemployment benefits merely give people incentives to stay unemployed.
That argument makes sense, right? The people running businesses create jobs. If we increase their wealth, they will reinvest it in new jobs, ending the need for the government to provide a free ride for those unemployed cheapskates sucking up tax money.
Except that’s not how it actually works.
The people at the top are well off enough that in tough economic times, they can afford to save their money. The people on the bottom spend out of necessity. The government-sponsored money they receive goes towards groceries, utility bills and other essentials. Unemployed citizens have no choice but to pump that cash right back into the economy.
This is the most obvious example of the fact that wealth rarely trickles down – it trickles up.
Statistics show that unemployment benefits yield an overwhelmingly larger economic return than do tax-cuts. If Johnson is serious about reducing the federal deficit, the easiest way to do so is by letting the Bush tax-cuts expire. But, again, these are just details.
If Johnson wins, then one thing is clear: This election really wasn’t about details. The position he’s running for, however, is about little else!
Being a senator requires, at its most basic level, the ability to assess a situation and come up with a pragmatic, fact-based solution. Johnson has muddled his way out of most questions on actual policy, and the stances that he has taken are based largely on intentional disregard for detail.
A candidate who cannot come up with hypothetical solutions in an election cannot be expected to come up with actual solutions once in office. Without creativity, a senator can only toe the line of the powers that be – whether they be their political party or corporate lobbyists.
Johnson’s favorite critique of Feingold is that he voted for the stimulus package as well as the health care bill, and as a result has contributed to the nation’s skyrocketing debt. The fact is, though, Feingold assessed the details of these situations and made the right call.
Yes, the stimulus package was rushed. Yes, somewhere in the $787 billion there is probably some wasteful spending. But it is important to remember that without this legislation, there was a near-consensus among economists that the United States would be heading into a second depression. On the whole, this bill did a hell of a lot more good than bad.
As for health care reform, conservatives have somehow managed to demonize this piece of legislation that, according to the nonpartisan (that’s the important part) Congressional Budget Office will reduce the federal deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years, and over $1 trillion in the second 10.
Idealism can be misleading. Details matter. Feingold takes them into account and makes rational decisions. Johnson, decidedly, does not. When you vote this Tuesday, prove that this election is still about details.
Joel Meyerson ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science and communication arts.