I like to get in the head of the “other side” - for example, when I was an auditor, I wanted to figure out what client management was thinking when they chose not to record a liability for an obvious loan, or when I took my cell phone back to Verizon within their “30-day No Risk” trial period, why did they feel they could charge me a $50 restocking fee.  I’ve really tried to figure out why Democrats would want the health care bill to pass.

Another fascinating analysis is trying to figure out how the other side sees you.   Do they see me as a sincere proponent of transparency and accuracy, or an annoyance?  Am I really looking for a good cell phone or trying to work the system to get free stuff?  Do Democrats really see everyone else as selfish capitalists with no regard for the welfare of those with less?  And if so, what am I really working for when I say “no” to the healthcare plan, cap and trade, etc…

Our good friend Paul Krugman provided this insight, and I think he actually makes sense.  Read his article here because its pretty insightful (I may never say that again).  Here is the theme:

“Ever since Reagan, the G.O.P. has been run by people who want a much smaller government…  But there has always been a political problem with this agenda. Voters may say that they oppose big government, but the programs that actually dominate federal spending — Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security — are very popular. So how can the public be persuaded to accept large spending cuts?

The conservative answer, which evolved in the late 1970s, would be dubbed “starving the beast” during the Reagan years. The idea — propounded by many members of the conservative intelligentsia, from Alan Greenspan to Irving Kristol — was basically that sympathetic politicians should engage in a game of bait and switch. Rather than proposing unpopular spending cuts, Republicans would push through popular tax cuts, with the deliberate intention of worsening the government’s fiscal position. Spending cuts could then be sold as a necessity rather than a choice, the only way to eliminate an unsustainable budget deficit.

And the deficit came…”

Despite the criticism (and the fact that I don’t see myself as a Republican), he then very covers why I am so frustrated with all politicians:

“At this point, then, Republicans insist that the deficit must be eliminated, but they’re not willing either to raise taxes or to support cuts in any major government programs.  And they’re not willing to participate in serious bipartisan discussions, either, because that might force them to explain their plan — and there isn’t any plan, except to regain power.”

What do you think?  I think its as fair of an insight into the “other side’s” head as me truly believing that President Obama’s strategy is Step 1 - Create crisis, Step 2 - Enact government plan to fix crisis,  Step 3 - Make sure Step 2 gets more people on government payroll or welfare so Step 2 will never have the support to be undone.

Last 3 posts by Eric B.

• Nassim Taleb on the Economy - June 25th, 2010
• Full Circle - May 3rd, 2010
• The Dark Side :) - April 5th, 2010