Religion is the cause of our debt limit problem

The more it looks like the United States is heading for a political and financial train wreck over raising the federal debt limit, which has to be done pronto to avoid a massive panic in the stock and bond markets, not to mention drastically increasing the government's future borrowing costs, the more I put the blame for this fiasco on religion.

Why?

Because Congressional Republicans who are "negotiating" with President Obama and Democratic leaders are acting like thou shalt not raise taxes is a divine decree rather than a ridiculous pledge cleverly engineered and promoted by Grover Norquist, a decidedly ungodly guy.

Of the 435 House members, 236 have signed the pledge; of the 100 Senate members, 41 have signed the pledge. Only two are Democrats, showing that this isn't a bipartisan movement. It's Republican political fundamentalism.
Download Federal Pledge Signers

So an effective majority of both the House and Senate (since 41 is more than enough to sustain a filibuster in the Senate) have vowed to never, ever raise taxes even if there is a national emergency.

Can the language of the Pledge be altered to allow exceptions?

No.  There are no exceptions to the Pledge. Tax-and-spend politicians often use “emergencies” to justify increasing taxes. In the unfortunate event of a real crisis or natural disaster, the President should propose spending cuts in other areas to finance the emergency response.   

This is why Republicans aren't really negotiating with Obama. In a negotiation, there's give and take. But in the talks about raising the debt limit, the Republicans can't give an inch on increasing federal revenues, even when the Democrats are willing to offer half a foot in spending cuts.

I'm convinced that religion is the reason we're in this unholy mess. Most Republicans these days either are genuinely devoted to a rigid form of Christianity, or pretend that they are in order to get evangelical votes.

Yesterday, on my other blog, I wrote about David Chapman's intelligent take on how to live a meaningful life, non-dogmatic Buddhism, and other interesting topics. He sees "eternalism" as one extreme on the meaning-of-life front, with "nihilism" being the other extreme.

The strategy of eternalism is to deny the ambiguity. Despite appearances, it says, everything does have a clear and definite meaning, which is not merely subjective. We might not perceive it, or we might mistake it, but it exists.

The appeal of eternalism is that questions of life-purpose and ethics have clear, simple answers. If you act in accordance with this Cosmic Plan, you are guaranteed a good outcome. You can be assured that seeming chaos and senseless misery are all orderly parts of the will of an all-good principle.

Most Congressional Republicans are faith-based eternalists in regard to taxes. They believe, without any evidence, that it is never, ever justified to increase federal revenue by raising taxes on anybody -- even on the super rich, the undeserving, or to close absurd loopholes.

How is it possible for Obama and his fellow Democrats to sit in a room at the White House and negotiate with people who hold such a indefensible, rigid, fundamentalist political position?

Plenty of economists, plus the leaders of the Deficit Commission, agree that cutting spending and increasing revenues are both necessary to address our budget problems. But these rational, sensible, fact-based policy experts aren't hamstrung by Grover Norquist's commandment from on high, thou shalt not raise taxes.

I'm not a believer in religious commandments. Morality should spring from a sensitive attunement to the circumstances of a situation, not an abstract concept which has little or no relevance to what's really happening here and now.

I also don't believe in eternalism, though I can understand why people are attracted to the notion that something is unchanging, perfect, and unfailingly trustworthy. If such a thing exists, and I doubt that it does, it wouldn't be a No Tax Increases! pledge.

Yet Republicans are acting as if their salvation depends on following the gospel of Grover Norquist. That's insane. If they don't come to their senses, soon, the United States is in big trouble.

Comments

[DJ]

Brian, by Chapman’s definition above an eternalist is *precisely* what you are.

You “deny” the political “ambiguity” (at times compromise, at other times stalemate) that is the essence of two party politics – and in this case you do so by assigning religion as the black-and-white cause of the debt limit problem. By making religion the cause you create for yourself a “clear and definite meaning” – a "Cosmic Plan" that replaces “senseless chaos” with order in your otherwise frustrated mind. By Chapman's definition you've created a “clear and simple answer” that justifies a conclusion you had already come to – that Republicans are the problem.

Which begs another question. Governing a nation is a complex process never to be perfected. Why are you trying to take a complex process with 311 million stakeholders and explain it in such black and white terms? Isn’t that the domain of fearful conservatives with their overly large amygdalas?
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2011/06/conservative-brains-are-more-fearful.html

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, to say that the Republican party holds rigid, fundamentalist, faith-based political views isn't an "eternalist" position. It's a fact. Just like gravity, evolution, and global warming are facts.

Good try. Word play like you've attempted is fun, but it is superficial. It's like I remember on the elementary school bus: "You're one!" No, you're one too!"

The Dems and Obama are willing to take a balanced, compromising, fact-based approach to the debt limit negotiations. Cut spending and raise revenues. That's a fact. The Republicans are the "eternalists" with their No Increased Revenues, Ever! ridiculousness.

[DJ]

OK. So gravity, evolution and climate change are facts. That proves what exactly?? Saying something is a black and white fact (there you go again) doesn’t make it a supporting argument for whatever it is you just so happen to believe. Gravity (a fact) doesn’t cause the sky to fall. Evolution (a fact) doesn’t deny creation. Climate change (a fact) didn’t start 100 years ago.

If anything, your response makes you look even more so like an eternalist. It’s a simplistic black and white view that attempts to refute that you presented a simplistic black and white view.
Politics: Republican bad, Democrat good.
Global climate: CO2 bad, O2 good.
Baking: Fire bad, Bread good. SNL Frankenstein… that’s the depth of the thinking we have going on here.

Brian, I’m not the one trying to add two plus too in the back of the bus. I’m taking Chapman’s definition verbatim as stated. If you want to pervert it to wiggle out of being the eternalist he describes then let the painful contortions continue. In the mean time, you might want to have that amygdala checked.

[Willie R]

The trouble with "debt limit negotiations" is that fiscal indebtedness itself is theoretical. It does not exist in Reality. In physical Reality, deficits are inexorably dealt with via structural disintegration.

We are all waiting for things to fall apart. Not to worry - they will.

Nihilism in action!

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, I think you're misinterpreting what Chapman is saying about eternalism. I've copied in some passages from his Eternalism and Nihilism page below.
http://meaningness.com/preview-eternalism-and-nihilism

I'm definitely not an eternalist. However, I agree with Chapman that the universe does possess order and patterns, which seemingly even a nihilist would agree with (without the order of our bodies, we wouldn't be alive to argue about this stuff).

I don't believe in absolutes or fixed meanings, though. The many Republicans who signed Grover Norquist's No Tax Increases pledge do. They are absolutists, so I'm justified in giving them the "eternalist" name.

Norquist's pledge says that never, ever should taxes/revenue be increased by the federal government. I never say "never." I'm very much open to new possibilities, altered conditions, situational ethics.

Saying that something is true doesn't make me an eternalist. It makes me a human being. We all seek meanings and truth in life. What's dangerous is when those meanings and truths are considered to be fixed, divine, absolute, non-negotiable. This is the danger of today's Republican party: it is so extreme, it is way outside of what the majority of Americans believe.

Here's a great analysis of the debt limit issue that proves what I'm saying:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/house-republicans-no-tax-stance-far-outside-political-mainstream/?hp

And here's the Chapman quotes:

----------------------

"The strategy of eternalism is to deny the ambiguity. Despite appearances, it says, everything does have a clear and definite meaning, which is not merely subjective. We might not perceive it, or we might mistake it, but it exists.

If meanings are objective, not human creations, it may seem they must come from some ultimate, transcendant source. In many systems, that is a God. In others, it is an abstraction, like Fate or Reason or the Absolute. These are supposed to provide the sole source of meaning, purpose, value, and ethics. I refer to any such source as an eternal ordering principle or Cosmic Plan.

Luckily, there is no eternal ordering principle, so eternalism is false as a fact-claim."

[DJ]

Brian, even the additional passages from Chapman describe you as an eternalist. In your case, the “ultimate source” that you derive meaning from to remove ambiguity is “the Absolute.”

It may very well be true that you’re careful not to say or even think obvious absolutes like “never” or “always.” But did you realize a tiny word like “the” can create a fixed absolute as well?…as in, “RELIGION IS *THE* CAUSE OF OUR DEBT LIMIT PROBLEM.”

To you religion is not “a” cause, it’s not “one of” the causes, nor is it a “contributing factor.” To you religion is *THE* cause, thus absolving or dismissing any other party or dynamic in this protracted debt limit debate from being examined, considered or discussed.

Religion is *THE* cause. Republican bad. Democrat good. Ambiguity resolved. Progressive order restored.

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, you're mistaking language for reality. "Eternalism" is a stance, an approach toward how to live life, a habitual way of making decisions. It isn't the same as saying, "There's a coffee cup on the table," or "Religion is the cause of our debt limit problem."

Heck, you made apparently absolutist statements in your comment above. But I don't take that as a sign that you're eternalist about them. Using the word "is" isn't a problem; being rigid, uncompromising, and fundamentalist is the problem with eternalism.

I haven't made a promise, as so many Republicans have with the Grover Norquist pledge, to always hold to a certain stance on debt, taxes, and the deficit. I change my mind all the time. I don't believe in absolutist commandments from on high. Or from Grover Norquist.

It's increasingly clear, from reading recent news reports, that my analysis of the debt limit negotiations is correct. The Republicans have put themselves into a box with their ridiculous "eternalist" pledges to never, ever increase federal revenues, even in the event of a national emergency. Which we're facing now

Lesson: we all need to be flexible, willing to admit "I could be wrong," open to compromise and finding the balance between two extremes.

[DJ]

Brian, interesting conversation and I do love busting your chops. But I’m not one to just take the other side of the debate for debate’s sake alone. For example, notice that I haven’t really expressed an opinion on the debt limit negotiations themselves. Fact is, we might not be far enough apart for that to be any fun.

Have I made absolutist statements? If not here then surely elsewhere I have. I bet I’m an unaware eternalist with regard to some things. I’m a work in progress and the first to admit it.

You really don’t see the difference between making an observation about a coffee cup on the table – and declaring a debatable cause-effect relationship as an absolute?? Let me spell it out.
1) The reality of the coffee cup wasn’t created when you observed and thought about or commented on it. It was already there, no one was going to interpret it in any other way.
2) The reality “RELIGION IS *THE* CAUSE OF OUR DEBT LIMIT PROBLEM” is created when someone buys into or believes it – simply because doing so eliminates all other possibilities for the believer.

I agree, words are not reality in and of themselves. But they do have the power to create a reality that goes unspoken. One who believes the debatable pronouncement “RELIGION IS *THE* CAUSE OF OUR DEBT LIMIT PROBLEM” has created a reality for himself in which he will *NEVER* consider the cause-effect of another dynamic in the debt limit debate. After all, what would be the point?

You see how the reality of *NEVER* crept in without even using the word? That’s your unconscious reality talking – the eternalist within. As you yourself said, *NEVER* closes one off to “new possibilities, altered conditions, situational ethics.” And that, my friend, is the difference between words and reality.

I’ll give you the last word if you want it, I’ve overstayed my welcome on this one.