I used to have a hard time understanding how politicians in the 1930s could be so foolish as to cut government spending during the Great Depression. Wasn’t it obvious that the only way to boost demand was to increase government spending? But recent events have helped me understand the intuitive appeal of the notion that in tough times the government — the only entity with spare cash — should spend less. This argument draws on two particularly potent ideas in Western culture: that the government is like a family, and that we must suffer before we can be redeemed.
Over the past year, conservative arguments in favor of budget cuts and austerity measures have gained traction in both Europe and America. Economists including Princeton’s own Paul Krugman have argued that the only thing wrong with balancing the budget is that you balance the budget — in which case, the economy tanks due to lack of demand. This means that those who turned out to the polls in support of conservative policies both here and abroad have been voting to fire themselves and then deny themselves unemployment benefits.
Voters are drawn to these policies in large part because they want to throw the bums out: Obama seems to be failing, so let’s give someone else a chance. But I suspect that there is something about austerity measures that appeals to our own cultural sensibilities: they feel logical, even though they aren’t good for the country.
Republicans argue that just like American families during this time of economic hardship, the government must learn to “tighten its belt” and “make tough choices.” Not a message that I imagined to be a political winner — but, much to my surprise, it’s sellin’ like hotcakes. That’s because it’s as American as apple pie.
First, the belt-tightening image draws on the idea that the government is just like a family — an idea that comes from a long Western tradition of seeing the state as the parent of the nation. In seeking to combat the stimulus package, Republicans have argued that government spending practices should mirror those of a typical American family in the Great Recession. For example, in the final weeks before this fall’s election, the GOP put out a press release arguing that the Democrats had lost touch with the reality of American families because they had forgotten how to balance the government’s checkbook.
Second, conservatives pushing budget cuts have been drawing on an idea that I last heard from my middle school running coach: no pain, no gain.
The link between suffering and redemption is ingrained in Western culture. The Israelites had to wander through the desert for 40 years before they could reach the Promised Land. Jesus suffered so that all of us could be absolved of our sins.
Lately, conservative politicians have been drawing on this concept in order to sell damaging economic policies. We spent too much, the Republicans argue, and now we need to suffer for our sins by making the “tough decisions” that will lead us to the Promised Land. Our suffering (read: austerity measures) will redeem us, they tell us.
“Tightening your belt” is no hayride. But it’s what an honest, hardworking man or woman should do: no pain, no gain.
The idea that suffering leads to redemption, or even delayed gratification, is not always a bad thing. But just because the phrase “no pain, no gain” rings true sometimes, that does not mean that we can only gain through pain. This, however, is essentially what conservatives have argued: Only if we suffer now can we have economic growth later.
But we should be suspicious when things start feeling a little too “natural,” when they fit a little too easily into our own cultural narratives. As lawyer Randall Kennedy’s quotation on the wall in Frist Campus Center reminds us, a liberal arts education is meant to inculcate a “thinking that is free of reflexive obedience to familiar signals.”
This sort of thinking is exactly what we need when it begins to feel natural to support policies that will definitely hurt us in the short term and probably hurt us in the long term. After all, the lessons of the Great Depression show that in tough times, the government should act very differently from a typical family. When American families have no cash to spare, the government must spend more in order to spur growth.
Conservatives are wise to try to sell their ideas by drawing on our own American cultural narratives about government and redemption. To those voters who are eager to give in to their cultural instincts and purchase these policies with their vote, I remind you of another classic piece of Western wisdom: Caveat emptor. Buyer beware.
Adam Bradlow is an anthropology major from Potomac, Md. He can be reached at abradlow@princeton.edu.
Read More
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
Return Pete Hegseth’s educational ideologies “to sender”
Lily Halbert-AlexanderHegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
Hegseth believes students are being raised to “see America as an evil place” because his confining approach to education leaves no room for admiration and criticism, hope and horror, to coexist. He treats American history, patriotic ideals and the “pillars of Western civilization” as if they were made of glass, as if “cross-cultural encounters” and critical race theory, the “cornucopia of diversity” he criticizes, could shatter them.
