Rhinocrisy

Oh God. I swore to myself I wouldn’t write about Social Security, and by Toutatis, I swear that I’m not - this is just a jumping-off point for another discussion!

But anyway. Brad DeLong posted a White House memo on their Social Security strategy (that is, their strategy for torpedoing Social Security). Therein is the following:

Here’s a startling fact: under current law, an average retiree in 2050 would be scheduled to receive close to 40 percent more (in real terms) in benefits than an average retiree today — and yet there are no mechanisms in place to produce the revenue to pay out those benefits. No one on this planet can tell you why a 25-year-old person today is entitled to a 40 percent increase in Social Security benefits (in real terms) compared to what a person retiring today receives.

This is indeed a startling paragraph. I think it does something positively spine-tingling; it cuts so deep it shows bone. What I mean is: so much of politics is actually a discussion of fundamental values, of the way we want the world to look. But that discussion is so wrapped up in the business end, in the nitty-gritty of how to enact our vision[s] of the world, that we never end up talking about the non-business (pleasure?) end.

Here is a case in point: I can tell you why a 25-year-old person today is entitled to a 40 percent increase in Social Security benefits (in real terms). Because the world should get better. Life should be improving - there should be progress. People shouldn’t have to keep living with the same shitty hat and coat they’ve got now.

But this is a value judgement, something that rarely comes up in such conversations. We would prefer to slap down arguments as “Marxist” or “Imperialist” or whatever, rather than answer their moral underpinnings. Why is that? Why are we so shy about letting other people see our values? That’s beautiful and enchanting, to me. I wish more of political discourse involved exposing underlying value systems - that way the ugly and the selfish couldn’t hide behind cloaks of convoluted ideas.

Some allegations of Kurdish election-rigging in Kirkuk. That city is an area of some dispute, mostly because it contains a whole ton of oil. Saddam was in the habit of moving Kurds out of it. Post-invasion, many Kurds have been moving back, probably with the idea that Kirkuk would be a good city to have in an independent Kurdistan, if it comes to that (or maybe just with the idea that they want their homes back). Meanwhile, Arab and Turkmen residents of Kirkuk have not been happy about this.

So make of this what you will: some Arabs and Turkmen in Kirkuk are saying that thousands of Kurds were trucked into the city to vote in the elections, and basically that the votes in Kirkuk were a farce. Some are alleging even worse irregularities, like the well-worn ploy of having dead people vote.

The PUK response was pretty blithe:

“Unfortunately, the Arabs and Turkmen do not understand democracy,” Rajkar Ali, a candidate for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) for the election, said.