When it comes to politics, excess is not considered a problem. There’s a daily parade of talking heads espousing talking points endlessly and sometimes almost hysterically about the shortcomings and failures — real or imagined — committed by those in the opposing political party. Nothing about this is new. What has changed is the immediacy and constancy this din has taken on with today’s 24/7 media — both broadcast and online. Most of this verbal warfare is typically factually inaccurate, even nonsensical — a stream of continuous babel.

The party out of power, or at least not holding the presidency, is often the most bellicose, so for the last several years we have been treated to Republicans combining gross exaggeration with hyperbolic assertions in an attempt to divert attention from their own dismal shortcomings when it comes to sensible governance. Thus we find the news currently filled with conservative shock and outrage at a so-called IRS “scandal.”

The reality is, this scandal fails pragmatic examination almost completely. Yes, a combination of a huge increase in the number of organizations seeking 501(c)(4) tax-exempt status, a small, overworked staff in a backwater midwest IRS office, vague criteria and shifting management directives resulted in one or more staffers using specific terms, such as conservative and tea party, to sort out from many thousands of applications a manageable category. This is, to me, a non-issue given the non-partisan motivation behind it. What appears to be inappropriate behavior actually has a reasonable basis given the circumstances and details.

The overall classification criterion for this tax-exempt category is organizations dedicated to improving social welfare, a somewhat vague term, with limited political activity. But it’s well known that many 501(c)(4) organizations are political organizations gaming the rules for this particular tax-exempt status for one specific reason: this category allows keeping the names of donors secret. So it’s not surprising that conservative/tea party organizations that are hostile to taxation in general and seeking to avoid publicity, would be suspect. And, it is the function of the IRS to determine the legitimacy of applications for 501(c)(4) status.

With more than 400 such applications being submitted in 2010/11 among thousands of others, there was good reason for trying to gain efficiency with word searches while increasing the degree of investigation. After all, examiners have to decide if each organization is at least 51 percent social welfare and no more than 49 percent political activity. If the IRS didn’t do due diligence, it wouldn’t be fulfilling its responsibilities and duties. Due diligence is in the details.

There are reasonable questions to be asked regarding this tax-exempt category. What is the purpose for the existence of 501(c)(4), what are the criteria used to determine qualification and what is the rationale for allowing secret donors. As with so much of U.S. tax code, 501(c)(4) represents both an opportunity to encourage organizations actually working for improved quality of life in society and also an opportunity for other organizations with other agendas to try and use this exemption for purposes unintended by the code. The ability to hide donor names is the real motivation, and problem, with this exemption, and I’ve yet to see a compelling justification for its inclusion.

So the IRS, by law, has the task of distinguishing which applicants deserve approval for this category. Using certain search terms might appear inappropriate, but it’s hardly a scandal, and most reasonable people would consider the misuse of this tax exemption worse than the methodology used to catch those organizations that are attempting to acquire 501(c)(4) status for dishonest reasons. Social welfare may be affected by politics, but that doesn’t mean political organizations qualify for the category.

When it comes to honesty and integrity, politics is too often not an example of these. The work of governing effectively for the greater good is consistently undermined by the circus of political rhetoric and posturing. When it comes to responsible governance, the U.S. has become a dismal example of dysfunction, and only voters who demand change and want practical, effective representation can alter the inexorable decline of the country. No country is perfect, but this one seems hell bent on proving that the phrase “greatest country in the world” is simply more rhetoric.

Research indicates that getting people to change their behaviors can be more effectively accomplished by telling them how much others are doing the right thing, or not doing the wrong thing. This replaces nagging or trying to devise negative messages to discourage certain behaviors. In other words, you inform them regarding what the social norms of those around them are, information they typically have either no actual knowledge of or only incorrect assumptions about. As long as the data are credible and accurate, most people respond by adjusting their own habits.

Social norming works because it appeals to our sense of community and responsibility, and it also helps us gauge where we are in behaviors and habits relative to others. But to be effective, the message has to be carefully worded to have the desired effect — enhancing the value of good choices and/or making negative choices seem undesirable because others also avoid the same ones. It might seem manipulative, but all social norming does is give people reference points that can be used in making behavioral choices.

Of course, what would seem a practical, sensible way of making the quality of life for individuals and society better has its critics. It will come as no surprise that those who are more conservative in their world view find fault with social norming because it doesn’t set strict parameters about what is right and wrong but rather only influences behavior without prohibiting it. A typical example is college drinking, which has been most effectively reduced when the message, often delivered with the help of students, is that most people at parties drink less than is commonly assumed by other students. The objection is that the message doesn’t say underage drinking is simply wrong and leads to all kinds of bad things.

My inner pragmatist reacts negatively to this objection on the simple premise that disapproval doesn’t work, whereas social norming does. Even when a strict message about bad things might be true, it doesn’t have much effect on what people do, if only because most of them don’t believe it will happen to them…and they are right more often than wrong. Beyond that, strong moral messages rub many the wrong way and bring out the inner rebel. College students are going to go to parties and they are going to drink. The issue is really about how much, not if.

Social conservatives seem psychologically wired to be judgemental and simplistic about issues. Whether it’s college drinking, the war on drugs or sex education, they see everything in black and white. Social norming sees human nature for what it is and works with it for improvement. Social conservatism, like its fiscal counterpart, starts with ideological principles and then tries to make human nature conform. It hasn’t worked because it doesn’t work. Where some see important moral/ethical issues, others see personal choice and preference.

This is the reality and conundrum of human existence. Lots of opinions, rules and judgements but much less agreement and consensus regarding them. Given all the complexities of coexistence, social norms are functionally just widely spaced lines within which we share life with others — family, friends, coworkers and strangers — more or less successfully most of the time. And then we die and none of this matters. Right versus wrong, good and bad, heaven or hell…all gone. But until then, we are faced with the tasks of getting along and finding happiness, making social norming pragmatically positive.

When Thomas Wolfe famously wrote that you can’t go home again, he wasn’t necessarily referring to the physical place, although that might actually be gone. He meant you can’t go back to another time and place because all of the things that made it what it was are changed…and may never have actually been what is remembered. You can’t go home again because the memories — real or imagined — are locked in time and will cease to exist when you do.

We have changed, our country has changed, the world has changed. Significant changes can be subtle, imperceptible…until you look at photos, you look in the mirror, you look at those around you. It’s not just aging but how we live now and what that means.The future becomes the past and we perceive the loss of people, traditions and things we cherish and perhaps miss. If you’re a pragmatist, you seek the joys of life in the moment and make the most of what is here and now, but not everyone is so pragmatic or willing to accept these changes and losses. They become anxious and angry about what is gone…almost strangers in a strange land. They cling to the past and to each other in defense.

So we are now a country, culture, community that is in a terrible dilemma. Those who feel the losses of change the most are the most conservative and most committed, fighting to “take their country back.” But the battle isn’t going well, with changing demographics and ethnicity making even more change inevitable, driving some to consider more desperate measures. A very recent survey indicated that some 44 percent of Republicans think armed insurrection may be necessary within a matter of years to rescue their country from government tyranny and changes they cannot abide.

This is what happens when a formerly white male-dominated culture has a black president, growing Hispanic and Asian populations and non-heterosexual couples who can marry in 11 states, with more to come. The nexus of an obsession with the right to bear arms (even as a diminishing percentage of the population actually owns them) combined with growing fear of their own political party being willing to sacrifice sacred values to win elections, is creating a perception that another “revolutionary war” may be necessary to secure “liberty” and a return to the country we used to be.

Now, no pragmatist thinks these delusions could be taken seriously by anyone who recognizes that the government holds all the cards, and that attacking it would be treason…and very unpopular. But I remind you that those who are quite conservative have never doubted their ideology, their values, their principles, and they are convinced — as one would expect — that their message is simply not being heard by others. They cannot accept the possibility, and likelihood, that the message has been heard and simply rejected. True believers, regardless of what they believe in, are the most zealous and dangerous individuals to society, caught between their beliefs and reality.

This functionally unbridgeable gap between the far right and the rest of the population is creating a divide so entrenched that responsible, practical governance is disappearing right in front of our eyes. But this is part of the process of change. Those who “want to go home again” are going to become increasingly marginalized, and in a generation or two, the ability to govern sensibly will likely have returned. Unfortunately, the country needs pragmatic governance now, and the lack of it may have consequences it will take a very long time to repair. The rise of pragmatism is the only hope for the culture to survive change in positive ways.

When I was quite young, I remember hearing my father say that life was about solving problems — large ones and small ones. It wasn’t until I was much older that I realized how much that said about him but not necessarily about life. Or at least life as I perceived it. Not that there isn’t truth in what he said, but rather that defining life on this basis can take much of the fun out of it. But then, I don’t think he was ever really happy.

There are two sides to problems. One is the perception of them. Are they big or small…are they even problems. The more rules, expectations and assumptions about life one has, the greater the number of problems there will appear to be. Which is to say, many problems only exist if one perceives them as such. If something doesn’t seem like a problem, or at least not something that needs to be solved, it ceases to exist as one.

I know intelligent people who see the world as having so many things wrong and needing to be fixed that they become anxious, discouraged and even depressed. It’s a world view that cannot ignore what others take little notice of and even less effort to do something about. We do need people to take up causes and concerns that so many do not, but retaining an objective perspective seems essential.

The other side of problems is solving them. This is not a skill-set that everyone has in equal amounts. Finding viable solutions often requires balancing competing factors, seeking innovative ways of approaching issues and an ability to accept imperfections and small steps. In addition, there are also unintended consequences and complications that can’t be anticipated or necessarily changed. The greater one’s idealism, the more vexing the process of solving problems can be.

Pragmatists can excel at problem-solving because they more willing accept compromises and trade-offs as part of the process, whereas those more emotionally motivated are forced to fret over these realities. Those driven by ideological beliefs or religious dogma are the least likely to successfully navigate the problem-solving process because they start out with so many rules and prohibitions that effective, practical solutions can be impossible to achieve. Morality and values become goals even when these are demonstrably the least effective “answers” to the questions raised by problems.

Human nature creates many, perhaps most, problems and also prevents or undermines many solutions. The division of how problems are perceived and what should be done often fall naturally into three categories (politically and culturally) — liberal, moderate, conservative. The one in the center is where pragmatists are found. Pick a topic (problem) and then discern how “discussions” and “solutions” regarding them break down into these three broad divisions.

The most rational, sensible, viable solving of problems invariably comes from the middle, whereas the least rational, most emotional, literally doomed-to-failure occur furthest from the middle. When data, statistics and analysis prove these outlier “solutions” to be failures, those most dedicated to ideology and religion will simply ignore both facts and information. Which makes sense given that if they accepted these, they wouldn’t — couldn’t — occupy the fringes of the political/cultural spectrum.

My father became quite religious late in life, but those decades really were no better for him, although I don’t think he realized this. He was, under the thin veneer of religiosity, the same person with the same issues. His problem became saving those around him so he could get into heaven. It was a problem for him, and in the process it became one for us that made family dysfunction simply worse. Imaginary problems can become real ones, a result of failed objectivity, reason and pragmatism. Such “problems” defy solution, and knowing this is the only satisfactory conclusion I think one can come to…for pragmatists.

You might be under the impression that a majority is more than half, but you’d be wrong in the land of American exceptionalism. The citizens of this country are held hostage on a regular basis by a combination of a minority of voters and a minority of members of the U.S. Senate. This branch of national government, in particular, has drifted to a level of institutional dysfunction sufficient to make the fundamental, universal definition of majority meaningless.

It ceases to matter if a majority of 100 is 51 if it takes 60 votes to create a functional majority. Not on the basis of the numerical definition of majority, of course, but as a result of that pointless relic of the Senate, the filibuster. While James Madison may have expressed concern regarding tyranny of the majority, he would certainly be appalled at tyranny of the minority. If one wants to reduce the likelihood of legislation being passed by a simple majority, just redefining majority as a higher number will work.

This is exacerbated by the reality that the senators from small states having equal power with those representing vastly more people. A dozen small states (census, not geographic area) can have influence on legislation that is completely out of proportion to their populations. When the constitution was written, the colonies were largely agrarian, with many small towns and villages. The Senate was meant to balance the influence of more populated states with large cities, which would have significantly more elected members in the House of Representatives. Like the second amendment, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but now is undermining the efforts of Senators representing more than 80 percent of 315 million people.

The results are predictable. On a per capita basis, the states with the smallest populations receive the most federal monies, well above what these states contribute in federal taxes. Legislation regarding gun control, immigration, women’s health and a multitude of other issues is derailed or redefined by senators from rural states. Generous farm subsidies and other economic benefits remain in place despite little evidence to support their existence. In other words, those who complain the most about the federal government are first in line for funding of many kinds, while infrastructure critical to the economy — which exists primarily in metropolitan locations — is deteriorating, with new infrastructure investment barely existent.

The overall result is a large, wealthy country that is unable to solve its own problems. From marginalized infrastructure to economic inequity to unfordable health care to substandard education to homicides by firearms to [fill in the blank] — far more is wrong than right. Those in the current minority insist that government spending and deficits are the problem (unless spending is for their states and preferred government functions) and consistently derail efforts to implement the real solution, which is higher tax revenues and thus investment in all that is not working while growing the economy. They can do this by insisting that a majority in the Senate is 60 votes, and the current actual majority lets them do so (probably on the assumption that the roles of majority and minority could be reversed sometime in the future).

In other words, politics and democracy are broken. Idealism and an unwillingness to compromise have raised the level of divisiveness and lowered the presence of responsible governance. This can only occur when a majority is no longer 51 votes, and even voting to allow discussion and voting on legislation now requires 60 votes. The pragmatic values inherent in the democratic process cease to exist, because without compromise and consensus, governance that represents the majority of voters becomes impossible. Voters ultimately can reward or punish those who have created this problem, but only punishment will actually result in change for the better.

What is the opposite of intelligence and reason. It’s fear and anger. It’s pragmatism versus emotion. It’s enlightenment versus extremism. It’s those obsessed with the right to bear arms versus those who recognize how dangerous obsession actually is.

All cultures, no matter how advanced, exhibit quirks and idiosyncrasies. Sometimes these are harmless, but they can just as easily be self-absorbed and even self-destructive. Nothing about the U.S. is as mystifying to those outside the country (and many within it) as the cultural obsession with firearms. The world’s richest economy (for now) is also the leader by a very wide margin among industrialized nations in gun ownership and the use of guns to kill each other and one’s self.

A majority of U.S. citizens consider this particular American example of exceptionalism to be the result of a lack of reasonable restrictions on access to firearms by those most likely to misuse them. There is both general public agreement and defined constitutional protection for the fundamental concept of owning firearms, although the details regarding what specific types of firearms and associated magazines and ammunition this should include depends on who you ask. 

The problem is that without universal background checks, sharing of data and tracking of firearms, there’s no way to restrict access for those who for a variety of reasons should not be allowed to posses any firearms. This means background information not just in retail stores but also for gun shows and Internet sales. Objections to these rational measures are functionally irrational. The insistence that universal background checks threaten legal ownership is a fabrication that hides an even greater irrational fear.

A particularly obsessional focus of those most extreme in their vehemence regarding any restrictions of second amendment rights is the possibility of gun registration — a national database of gun ownership. The seemingly hysterical fear regarding such a database is that the government could seize any and all firearms from citizens because it would know who owned them. And why, you might wonder, would this be of any interest to the government. Because it could prevent citizens from defending themselves and their rights against tyranny — a scenario based entirely on patriots freeing the colonies from a tyrannical British government some 250 years ago.

So, what to any pragmatist appears to be a form of delusional insanity is the basis upon which a sufficient number of Senators were able to prevent an expansion of background checks and any other common sense firearms legislation from being enacted. Fear of government tyranny and seizure of firearms facilitate by a national gun registry are fabrications at best and functionally responsible for the deaths of thousands of people every year, including children, as a result of an absence of laws that are common in the rest of the industrialized world.

It is hypocritical to proclaim sorrow over the dead and wounded in military conflicts but do nothing to reduce the same carnage at home. Gun ownership on a per capita has actually gone down, which is yet another source of anxiety among the gun obsessed, who fear public support will diminish as a result. A small percentage of the population owns a high percentage of guns, while 90 percent of public opinion is for sensible gun control laws. One could posit that the real tyranny is from those who prevent reasonable limits on gun access, and that a minority is stopping the will of the majority, an increasingly problematic issue I will discuss in my next post.

When things aren’t going well, many look to the past. You know, when things were better, the country was the world’s greatest and we could actually solve problems. What’s always missing from these gazes backward in time is recognition that hindsight is simply not the same as being there. Historians know it takes at least 50 years to acquire the perspective necessary to properly evaluate and understand the facts and long-term results of the past, and this historical perspective has to be evaluated within the context of what those at the time thought was taking place.

Which is to say, the past played the same role for those living in other decades and centuries as it does for (some of) us today. The difference is, most of what we take for granted now simply didn’t exist during much of the country’s political/economic/social history. More than 90 percent of today’s knowledge (and university courses) didn’t exist before the 20th century. Conservatives (by definition…to conserve) look back fondly at earlier times for principles and values that no longer determine cultural/societal ideals, and which are part of the historical mythology they believe has been lost. For them, what’s wrong with the country now can be traced to what has changed.

Pragmatically, the past doesn’t matter (other than, ideally, learning from it), because that was then and this is now. What worked, or at least appeared to work, in the past was within a context of time and place that no longer exists. Even the “solutions” of the 1980s and 90s have proven themselves to no longer be functional…in a single generation. And the conservative nostalgia trips down memory lane typically leave out the many ways in which the country used to be the exclusive preserve of white heterosexual males who lived at a time when a random combination of factors allowed the U.S. to become the world’s dominate nation economically and militarily.

Nostalgia has a way of obscuring reality while creating a feeling of better times that are gone. It’s been said that nostalgia is about what happens to individuals when the bright future of possibility becomes the past and the end of the journey looms closer. The “good old days” acquire an appeal that isn’t matched by what it was really like. The popularity of retro design and style can be fun, but everything else — from the quality, functionality and reliability of products and services to the rights of women and non-whites — is far better now than it ever was. Living in the past isn’t feasible (or desirable) beyond reminiscence despite the efforts of those who think we have left behind what we used to be and thus what made us the world’s “best.”

It’s illogical and antithetical to pragmatism to insist that ideology, policies and values from the past can address today’s vastly changed world. If those who wrote the constitution in the agrarian colonies of 18th century North America could have envisioned how much everything would change over the next 200+ years, that document might well be very different than it is. That’s the thing about the passage of time and the process of change. You can never predict the future and you can never go back to the past. You can try, but it’s doomed to failure.

I originally chose not to post something I wrote months ago because I thought it was perhaps too pragmatic, which might seem impossible…but…you’ll see. I was considering how the arguments against gay/lesbian marriage were not all that different from those against polygamy. And, unlike homosexuality, polygamous behavior, choice and marriage have a long, open history in human society.

Polygamy typically benefits wealthy, powerful males (and the women who marry them), leaving those in the middle/lower classes to seek mates among the diminished pool of remaining females. Which is to say, in polygamous cultures women often prefer being the second (or third…) wife of a rich male to being the first and only wife of a poor one. The rise of monogamy has been theorized to be the result of greater economic and military success in societies that codified monogamy into law to assure that all males have greater access to potential wives.

Now, I’m not making any value judgements regarding polygamy, and I am well aware that pragmatic conclusions can sometimes be in conflict with the emotional perspective of even strong pragmatists. But I find it interesting that the reasons given for being against gay/lesbian marriage, polygamy and even interracial marriage until not all that long ago are strikingly similar. And it demonstrates the outer limits of pragmatism. Our emotional selves may sometimes, for whatever reason, ultimately reject our pragmatic selves at the end of the day.

In looking back at why I decided not to approach this topic, I think I was concerned it might appear manipulative — a rational justification for polygamy to prove a pragmatic point. It’s a topic of complexity. That polygamy is identified with the Mormon church is not a plus (if only because religious justifications are always suspect in term of rationale). And, realistically, if living with one person is already challenging, wouldn’t the odds of doing so successfully with two or more spouses be even less likely? And what are the reasons and needs for more than one wife (multiple husbands being far less common) other than perhaps sex?

What changed my mind about bringing this up was a very recent short piece about this gay to polygamy connection on The Economist web site, focusing primarily on why monogamy is universal in industrialized countries. And given that there’s no possibility of polygamy becoming a viable political issue in the foreseeable future, the topic is functionally academic, thus being an exercises in pragmatic analysis without having to deal with real world results.

Other than imposing monogamy so men spend less time and energy competing for a limited supply of females (a lack of which is currently an issue in China for another reason) and more on economic and military tasks, the remaining arguments against polygamy are marginal at best. There’s no evidence that spouses and children suffer in any way as a result of polygamy, and moral judgements are subjective and essentially capricious, so the only compelling reason against polygamy would be societal success, as noted above — which is nicely pragmatic.

You may or may not be aware that there is a trending new interest in manners and etiquette that has the focus and attention of those who are young adults. Perhaps it’s the accumulated effects of abusive, rude behavior online in comments and on forums, the daily assaults of ironic snarkiness seemingly everywhere and the continuous, brutally divisive conduct in politics that has driven a desire to return to politeness and manners last seen in the middle of the last century. Everything from conduct on social networks to social interactions within the home and outside of it are the center of discussions in print and online.

But where did this deterioration of manners and etiquette come from? Only a couple of generations ago one could disagree respectfully and still remain cordial. Being dismissive, rude or worse was the exception, and not considered acceptable behavior. Points of view represented multiple perspectives, not black and white choices with little or no grey in between. Moderation was a virtue, extremism was not.

There are practical reasons for this. Getting along, working together and devising sensible solutions that make all participants stakeholders are essential to sustainable, effective endeavors — be it a country, a business or an organization. From family life to cultural life, how we treat each other and interact are vital to the quality of life for ourselves and others. From a pragmatist’s perspective this all starts and ends with social skills and critical thinking. Seemingly obvious, obviously not.

The single most pragmatic rule of social skills is simple: don’t do or say anything to others you wouldn’t want done or said to you. The second most pragmatic rule is moderation in all things. And yet, despite the reality that everyone has heard or read these is one form or another, these are often not a way of life for a lot of individuals. My only explanation is that the skills of critical thinking don’t come naturally to many and are rarely taught in school. Without critical thinking and a deep appreciation of how large the grey area between black and white is, the probable result is an either-or approach to life.

When enough people are taking either one side or the other, with little nuance or grey, divisiveness is inevitable. And when this happens, the good manners, respect and cordiality necessary for compromise and agreement no longer exist. As divisiveness becomes more extreme, the ability to get along and communicate diminishes. And this seeps into all aspects of life over time. Intolerance, impatience, anger and irresponsible behavior (verbal, written, social) become more frequent and a barrier to cooperation and problem solving.

My pragmatic raspberry award for at least 80 percent of the blame for this goes to political (fiscal/social) conservatives — specifically, those who are to the right of center-right (moderates). In a span of less than 40 years they have willfully altered the social contract that made our cultural functional and practical, dividing seemingly everything — no matter how mundane — into an ideological struggle of black and white. And, as more voters turn away from this and seek to return to an earlier way of working toward a greater good, those farther to the right have become even more divisive and insistent. True believers never willingly give up.

I don’t subscribe to the “everyone’s equally to blame” theory, for the same reason I reject the assertion that all opinions are equal. We can’t function effectively, pragmatically, sustainably this way. Only when good manners, mutual respect, moderation and insistence on compromise that’s fair and equitable are once again in place will we begin to move forward as a country and a culture. Only when those who are most divisive lose their place at the table will this happen. The shift has begun, but we have a long way to go on the road toward good manners and etiquette.

Yes, I know, the title seems redundant, but not if you’ve seen the short video of a number of New Jersey citizens being interviewed (all Republicans) who insisted that government spending needs to be reduced but then answered no to each and every program, department or benefit the interviewer asked about cutting. What is going on here? Are voters really morons when it comes to reality versus political opinion?

Before we venture a guess, it would be helpful to know that conservatives are quite wrong when they insist we don’t have a tax revenue problem, we have a spending problem. The facts, which they refuse to acknowledge, are quite simple. Baby boomers are retiring in large numbers, and the benefits they receive require greater tax revenues, not less. Unless we decide that the programs we hold near and dear must be cut and made more difficult to access, the only solution is higher taxes, which is actually a reasonable thing to do.

Consider that taxes as a percentage of GDP are where they were 50 years ago, when the first boomers were getting ready to graduate from high school. There were 180 million Americans in 1960. Now there are more than 310 million, and as in every industrialized country, there’s a curve of decreasing birth rates as economies grow. The result is a population with a rising median age and an increasing ratio of individuals who are retiring relative to those who are working. Inevitably, and predictably, the costs of paying for all the things a larger population expects from government have increased…and will continue to do so.

Economists agree that costs for entitlements are not sustainable without changes, and unless we willingly give up what we have, the only functional solution is greater tax revenues. Those who insist that taxes are already high enough, or even too high, are simply more interested in their ideological beliefs than the pragmatic realities they live in. Conservatives seemingly only care about less government and lower taxes, not what government can and should do, what level of tax revenues reflects economic and social realities, and what voters actually want (even those confused voters noted above) as opposed to what they say they want.

 This conversation now includes reference to the 47 percent of citizens who don’t pay taxes — defined by conservatives as “takers.” They do, in fact, pay lots of taxes (state, payroll, sales) but don’t earn enough to have a federal tax liability. And why is this? Because the famed job creators don’t create many middle class jobs but lots of low paying ones, including minimum wage jobs, and increasing numbers of part time positions. As a result, tens of millions hover at or near the poverty line and spend everything they earn on basic costs, which is good for the economy but less so for federal tax revenues.

 What is less well understood by those who think they want less government spending is the neglect of infrastructure investment, which goes above and beyond paying for what these same individuals want from government. The U.S. is already spending so little on existing infrastructure, and even less on new infrastructure, that future economic growth will be lower while the cost of doing business will be higher. The world’s largest economy cannot remain as such at current levels of investment, which are far lower as a percentage of GDP than many other economies.

 So we return to the beginning of this post. What is functionally wrong with too many conservative voters? They apparently believe conservative rhetoric that the deficit is a huge problem and the source of that problem is spending. The phrase, you can’t spend what you don’t have, is popular among conservatives, but both naive and meaningless. Government economics are nothing like family economics. And, mathematically, it’s simply not possible to reduce the deficit significantly via spending reductions, at least not without also reducing entitlement budgets — and that is off the table for voters, conservative or not.

 One can make the case that those elected to office will only take risks when voters demand it, and are willing to pay for it. Voters are often so contradictory it’s little wonder that politicians are mostly rhetoric and very little leadership. Fiscal conservatives have an agenda that isn’t about economic realities or the quality of life for the average citizen. They believe — in contradiction to economic data — that lower taxes are good for everything, including smaller government. Yet no nation that competes successfully in the global economy has smaller government as a result. Quite the opposite. That’s the pragmatic reality of the twenty-first century.