The Debatable Land

Laffering all the way to the Revenue

Lots of talk about the Laffer Curve these days as folk argue over whether it a) exists at all and b) under what circumstances it might be applicable if a) is true. But it seems odd to me that fiscal conservatives in either the US or the UK would seek to make the argument that tax cuts are good things because they increase government revenue. As Milton Friedman, I think, once said, if you're increasing government revenue by cutting taxes you're not cutting taxes by enough.

Broadly speaking,the case for - or for that matter against - tax cuts in developed economies such as the US and UK that don't have what one might term punitively confiscatory levels of taxation rests on moral and philosophical grounds concerned with one's overall view of the role and proper reach of government, not on whether or not tax cuts increase revenues. In a political sense, of course, that may not be comfortably tenable these days (especially in the UK) but that's a different matter altogether.

The Hierarchy of Grief

Christopher Hitchens, bless him, nails the vanity and solipsism that engulfed the nation in the days following the Virginia Tech murders:

One should express a decent sympathy for the families and friends of the murdered, a decent sympathy that ought to be accompanied by a decent reticence. Because Virginia Tech—alas for poor humanity—was a calamity with no implications beyond itself. In the meantime, and in expectation of rather stiffer challenges to our composure, we might practice nailing the colors to the mast rather than engaging in a permanent dress rehearsal for masochism and the lachrymose.

Quite.

It's not over yet however. The NFL draft, for instance, will "honor" Virginia Tech this weekend, even though no football players were killed or had anything to do with the massacre. But no, the NFL needs to muscle in, intruding into what ought properly to be private grief to demonstrate that it cares, it understands, it, Blacksburg, feels your sodding pain.

In fairness, the NFL is scarcely alone. Across the country there's the unwelcome spectacle of organisations unconnected to Virginia Tech desperately trying to cram themselves into the limelight of grief. Look! Can I not bleed too? This preening - for that's what it is - says precisely nothing about Virginia Tech. Nor, mind you, is it designed to. It's boastful and solipsistic design is to flatter those so publicly (because what merit would there be in keeping such things private?) paying their respects to the victims.

There's a hierarchy of grief and those who seem to feel the need to manufacture some mysterious connection with Virginia Tech would do well to remember their place in it. Real respect does not involve patronising those most affected by the tragedy. A period of respect followed by a longer spell of silence in which we left the families of the victims and the people of Blacksburg alone would be rather more appropriate.

It is not, after all, about you.

If this is pragmatism, heaven help us.

EJ Dionne reminds one, albeit inadvertently, that the definition of pragmatism in Washington is to be seen to be doing something rather than actually accomplishing anything sensible or proportionate. To wit, contrasting anti-terrorist regulations with gun control measures:

In other spheres, we act reasonably when faced with new problems. When Richard Reid showed that nasty things could be done with shoes on airplanes, airport security started examining shoes. When liquids were seen as a potential danger, we regulated the quantity of liquids we could take on flights. We barred people from carrying weapons onto airliners long ago.

If we can act pragmatically in the skies, why can't we be equally practical here on the ground?

I'm far from unsympathetic to sensible proposals that might make it harder for the wrong sort of people to purchase guns, but the notion that gun legislation should be modeled on the sort of panicked, knee-jerk, idiocy that has become de rigeur at airports is not an idea, I think, that should be pursued. There may be a virtue in creating the impression of greater security at the expense of convenience and comfort but it's far from clear that that is, in fact, the case.

The Problem with St Barack

Mike Crowley on the latest from the Obama campaign:

A new flier from the Obama campaign bills itself as offering "Barack Obama in his own words." But the first thing you encounter when you unfold it is a quote from Robert Kennedy's son about the legacy of his father. Just in case the Obama-RFK parallel had escaped anyone thus far....

I wonder if Obama perhaps shouldn't play that card. There's something a little unseemly and certainly very immodest about it. Indeed, there may be a limit to the public's willingness to embrace a candidate who might, if you were to believe the hype, be on the point of beatification. Such piety can grate. Equally, Obama's effort to raise himself above the petty and grubby concerns of the political life risks - unless played carefully and sensitively - making him appear rather too loftily superior to the other candidates. Too much of that and he risks seeming a prig or a snob.

I suspect Obama is aware of this, as this anecdote from a glitzy Hollywood fund-raiser may suggest:

When Morgan Freeman comes over to greet Obama, the senator begins bowing down both hands in worship. "This guy was president before I was," says Obama, referring to Freeman's turn in Deep Impact and, clearly, getting a little ahead of his own bio. Next, a nod to Bruce Almighty: "This guy was God before I was." (Okay, more than a little ahead.) But Freeman is eating it up. Leaning in, he tells the senator to win it. "I will," Obama replies. "That's why I'm running."

Now, Obama is clearly joking here. But it might be useful for him to undercut his saintly image on the campaign trail too. I suspect he can throw an elbow if he wants or needs to; but a little less sanctimony and a little more nastiness wouldn't hurt him either. Although, of course, perhaps that willingness to play fast and loose with rules or ethics is what the constant invocation of RFK is supposed to suggest...

The Debussy Primary

Clive Davis links to this Q&A with the French presidential candidates asking their views on classical music. Clive suggests this is "a typically Gallic touch" but I see no reason why this sort of thing should not be imported to British or American politics. Someone - Alex Ross or Terry Teachout perhaps? - persuade McCain, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al to answer the question: "Classical music: is it elitist?"

Sarkozy gives the best answer:

Les musiques dites « classiques » sont par définition les plus populaires puisque ce sont celles qui ont transcendé le temps, les modes, les sociétés, pour parvenir jusqu’à nous. La musique de Mozart et de Beethoven était peut-être révolutionnaire, voire élitiste du temps de leurs contemporains, mais comment prétendre qu’elle n’est pas populaire ? Le nombre de personnes ayant écouté cette musique depuis plusieurs siècles est tout simplement incalculable ! Même les musiques que certains fonctionnaires de la culture nomment « musiques actuelles », même les groupes de rock les plus contemporains, tirent leurs harmonies du système tonal inventé par Bach et Rameau. Et je ne parle même pas des films de cinéma et des publicités qui recourent à Schubert, Chostakovitch ou Fauré pour créer une atmosphère ou faire aimer leurs produits. En vérité, ces musiques sont universelles.

It may come as little surprise to you, mind you, that Jean Marie Le Pen complains that too many foreigners are being trained at l'Opera de Paris, l'Opera du Rhin etc etc.