I’m A Marxist; And The 4th of July Is A Marxist Holiday

Like Groucho Marx, I wouldn’t want to belong to any club that would have me.

To me, that’s a most American statement of principle, and I think applies to most Americans. The 4th of July is Independence Day. That independence includes from most cant and credo.

Americans are essentially iconoclastic. We don’t pay obeisance to any organization’s doctrine and enjoy puncturing the pompous and self-righteous. Our views are not ideologically consistent. Polls repeatedly confound commentators to show majorities holding views that on the surface of the questions or demographics conflict or contradict imposed categorization.

Ideologues say that this demonstrates confusion, or pernicious effects of their opposition’s propaganda, and call for more intense organizing and education. But, the apparent contradictions persist.

For example, the estate tax in 2004 affected about 30,000 estates, and will drop to 5,100 in 2011 if the current House bill is enacted. Yet, the latest Pew poll has 44% of Americans opposed to the estate tax. Meanwhile, the income tax on Social Security benefits now affects 11.8 million tax returns, and the Alternative Minimum Tax affects 18.9 million tax filings. Yet, there is no serious effort in Congress to eliminate or significantly reduce these taxes’ impacts. The revenue reduction is too severe.

In all three cases, it is real that previously taxed income – often several times previously taxed – is taxed once again. In the case of Social Security benefits and AMT taxation, the impact is far wider, extending well down into the middle-class, and that impact is widening.

One can posit that Congress is unrepresentative, but that belies repeated evidence that it is at least laggingly responsive to public outcries.

Or, one can posit that Congress is largely representative of the national consensus on most of government’s spending, including the partisan positions that are blocked or compromised as neither political party has the uniformity or majority or super-majority necessary. Even if one takes the $102.1 billion that the Republican Study Committee identifies as aggressive federal budget savings for 2006 (and, that includes “pork”), that’s only about 4-5% of the federal spending budget. Even most of those cuts are unlikely.

Moving away from spending, a majority now regrets entering Iraq. Yet, a majority favor staying reasonably long enough to conclude the task. One can argue that one judgment contradicts the other, and logically or factually in part they may. Or, one can argue that reflects a pragmatic reflection, based on many disparate threads of thinking, which has a larger consistency. Wider considerations of potential impacts of precipitously exiting outweigh retrospective blame games for errors that weren’t clear at the time.

A majority favor aggressive efforts to protect national security and prevent foes from harming us. Yet, a majority favor use of our Constitutional processes to permit or monitor measures that do so. The debates over the New York Times’ revealing wiretaps or fund flows among possible terrorists are really three debates. The majority favors such measures. The majority prefers wider consultation and, as needed, authorization. The majority dislikes unilateral actions by the President or the media. The consistency is in the support for U.S. democracy as we widely know it, and even the confidence that means can be devised to further enforce security by both working together and firmer enforcement of reasonable secrecy laws.

A “safe” Congressional seat is usually measured at 55% of the vote, even after partisan gerrymandering. That still leaves 45% voting for the other candidate. Very rarely, a candidate may receive 70%, but that usually reflects long-standing harmony with a broader range of their electorate (as well as seniority power to “bring home the bacon” of pork spending in their district).

My argument is not that some serious differences do not exist between the political parties, and even wider differences between partisans. My argument is that there’s more division between partisans, not to mention ideologues, attached to each party than there is among Americans generally.

Further, my argument is that there’s more in common between apparent “liberals” and “conservatives” than may appear in our media. The dramatic presents a stronger story line. This is compounded by the filter of most mainstream and alternative reporters and commentators who themselves are strongly partisan.

Most of us come from families and belong to organizations with self-described or depicted liberals and conservatives. On any specific matter, differences can be sharp. Yet, there is at least tacit appreciation among us that we agree on wider principles of patriotism and democracy, and that ongoing unity is overriding to a current matter. Indeed, when there is civil discussion, as common, most differences on specifics disappear or are resolved.

That’s American. To me, that essential comity of speech and means is what allowing extreme partisans to define or separate us undermines. For the 4th of July, Independence Day, and everyday, let freedom of thought and the self-restraint of civil discussion rule, not cant or credo. That’s American independence.