As we head into election season with rhetorical and hyperbolic guns ablazing, I find this short piece by Arnold Kling to be somewhat correct and refreshing.

Kling asserts that, for the most part, the difference is more rhetorical than anything else.

Says Kling:

So what is the "key difference" between the parties? Rhetoric. When Republicans advocate a small contraction of the welfare state, Democrats claim that Republicans totally oppose the welfare state. And many Republicans oblige them by standing up for "liberty" and "responsibility." Similarly, when Democrats advocate a small expansion in the welfare state, Republican claim that Democrats oppose free markets. And many Democrats oblige them by saying things like "markets only benefit the rich."

This rhetorical illusion is so powerful that when a Democrat like Clinton adopts many pro-market reforms, Republicans still hate him as a 60s radical. And when Bush II sharply expands the welfare state, Democrats still hate him as a billionaire's lackey.

Oh my God, is that ever true!

The rhetorical difference can be seen in blogs even more so than on the campaign trail and the halls of Congress. Partisans LOVE engaging in these illusions by playing into the stereotypes of being anti-market-soak-the-rich/socialist-wannabe/spineless defeatists (Left) and corportate-enabling/ruthlessly uncaring and selfish/imperialists (Right). In reality, most are neither. I stress "most".

But like Kling says, Dems/Reps, liberals/conservatives play into these stereotypes by trying to outdo the other on rhetoric. When conservatives want tax cuts, liberals tend to overdo the criticism and come across like tax-loving, "more, more, MORE" tax/spenders. The dichotomy of the rhetoric is then greatly more extreme than the reality of policies at stake or perhaps even the true intent. In most cases, we're talking about a few percentage-points of difference in tax rates.

Kling says that if they really wanted the rhetoric to match policies, they would be much more bold in what they push for:

The second big misconception is that the parties' rhetoric makes sense on it's own terms. It doesn't. If Dems really cared about poor human beings, they would quit worrying about the American old, most of whom aren't poor. In fact, they would quit worrying about the American "poor," because by world standards, they're doing fine . Instead, Dems would concentrate all their efforts on helping absolutely poor foreigners, presumably through a mixture of permitting massive immigration, and redirecting welfare to the world's bottom billions.

Similarly, if Reps really cared about "over-burdened" tax-payers, they would try to diminish the burden in the only sustainable way: Big cuts in spending. They would be crusading against the popular programs like Social Security and Medicare that absorb most of our tax dollars. While they're at it, they might want to do a little cost/benefit analysis of the War on Terror .

Indeed. The truly poor who truly need help are not really the primary target of Democratic policies. The targets tend to mainly be, IMO, the borderline poor who could use a helping hand on the margins. Beyond that, I feel they tend to do more harm to marginally comfortable or self-sufficient. Americans who, IMO, pay a lot in taxes compared to the benefit it really gives and those benefits are either exaggerated or made to seem more broadly targeted than they really are.

While helping struggling Americans, I truly wish Dems would consider more carefully how the damage/impact of the billions spent on the poor is not simply a dollar amount. Marginally-making-it Americans who don't get much in the way of subsidies get (rightfully) resentful when they see co-workers and peers working less because they can supplement their income with welfare subsidies. It's also not good that marginal workers work to the qualification thresholds. It's bad for character and bad for the morale of the working poor who make it on their own. Clinton showed just how much we could cut from this when he did welfare reform in his second term and the rolls dropped dramatically and life went on just fine. Again, keep in mind the rhetorical angle. You can be stingy on welfare programs and still be concerned for the poor with helpful programs. You really can. There's no need to be un-critical of it in daily talk simply because the conservatives are more openly critical. It's bad for the accuracy of national dialog.

As for the conservatives, this message works in its own way for them. And yes, Kling is right: if conservatives really cared about tax burdens, they'd be pushing for massive spending cuts all the way around....starting with military and war-related spending. What a damn shameful waste of blood and treasure. And then move on to the biggest ones: SS and Medicare.

Foreign policy is the same. When you put aside the compounded rhetorical escalation of war-mongering perpetual imperialism and spineless acquiescence...as if that's really where the policy differences are at...you see that the real difference isn't that incredibly wide.

Could it really be that the unmeasured rhetoric is simply to keep the faithful thinking that stand for moderation in the face of extremism? Perhaps.