By Donald Kirk
WASHINGTON ― They never had a debate like this in the National Assembly in Seoul. Yes, assembly members have pushed and shoved, thrown chairs, punched one another, slammed doors and generally made scenes suitable for prime time TV. But did they ever go for days and days, in the midst of one of the hottest summers in years, totally stymied on a budget that’s gone out of control by any reasonable standards?
That’s what’s happening here in the capital of the free and democratic world. Members of the U.S. Congress are totally fanatic about opposing views on what to do about the trillions of dollars it takes to run the government while the country goes trillions upon trillions in debt. Hour upon hour, the great debate goes on, topping the news except when horror news elsewhere interrupts the proceedings. The slaughter in Norway took the top spot for a day or two, but the impasse over the federal budget has by now moved back into first place again.
What’s one to make of the inability of members of Congress to come to terms? The first instinct is that George W. Bush as president got the whole system in trouble in the first place when he reduced taxes on the rich or merely the well-to-do. Was he thinking that everyone making $200,000 a year selling used cars or writing advertising copy or shilling for special interests or selling widgets at the corner store really needed a tax cut in order to have enough incentive to go out and make more money?
That’s one of the prime arguments of the ingrates in the American Congress who are fighting tooth and nail against President Obama’s insistence that somebody, somewhere, somehow has got to start paying more taxes, and it might as well be those with more than enough to do so. Never mind, of course, that the federal government bailed out the highest flyers in the financial world when their firms started tanking during the 2008 global financial crisis.
While everyone else was told to make ``sacrifices” to weather the financial storm, did any of these people demonstrate such patriotism? No way. They laughed all the way to the bank, or to their second and third homes, thinking of ways to spend their bonuses, stock options and whatever other terms they’ve got for money they made but didn’t earn.
One of the arguments of those who are rich and growing richer is that the ``bloated” federal government has been wasting too much on handouts like unemployment insurance, social security and numerous other programs. They’re calling for reductions that would hit the vast majority of America’s 300 million citizens, widening a rich-poor gap that is already one of the most pronounced in the world. Let only those who can afford it pay for their own higher educations. Let only those with the money to cover skyrocketing medical costs take advantage of the skills of some of the world’s best doctors.
Aren’t education and medicine the perquisites of the rich? That’s the thinking among American rightists whose goal is to jettison policies and programs dating from the era of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the president who led the U.S. out of the Great Depression of the 1930s and then through World War II.
The reversal of what was known as ``The New Deal” has implications for U.S. foreign policy that are not understood. Korean conservatives, advocates of a system in which the wealthiest interests also are widening the rich-poor gap, would be mistaken in thinking these American rightists would want to defend South Korea in the dreaded event of a second Korean War.
A strong streak of isolationism permeates the outlook of American conservatives. Many of them would rather keep hands-off conflict overseas. A fact of American history over the past century is that Democratic governments have been in power at the outset of every major conflict from World War I through World War II to Korea and Vietnam. Conservative think tankers may talk big in conferences in Seoul, urging a hard line against North Korea, but the depth of their dedication is far from certain.
The debate in Washington, though, does have a bright side. It’s possible to see what’s happening as an exercise in democracy in action in which eventually all sides come up with a plan that is less than ideal but represents as broad a spectrum as possible. It’s hard, however, considering the enormity of the American debt, and the yawning budget and trade deficits, to imagine a truly happy ending. The debate also carries the seeds of bitter disappointment and worsening problems for the foreseeable future.
The standoff, though, does differ from rancorous shouting matches in Korea in one respect. We’ve not only not seen members of the American congress coming to physical blows, we have yet to see thousands taking to the streets in demonstrations that would surely be rocking Seoul in a similar ruckus.
Not that Americans aren’t capable of enormous outbursts. Anyone who remembers some of the protests against U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War or during the civil right struggle knows the potential for violent displays of discontent here. Right now the prevailing sense is that of disgust with legislators who lack the guts, and the common sense, to place the interests of the majority above the demands of those with enough left-over funds to finance their petty politicking and reelection campaigns.
Donald Kirk, columnist, journalist and author of half a dozen books, divides his time between Seoul and Washington.