Semantics

I've encountered a bit of skepticism about the ability of the Democrats to position themselves as the "anti-tax party" (notice that I mention the term rather than use it; that will be important). How, if the Republicans have for so long railed against taxation and strangled the political lexicon so thoroughly as to impute a positive interpretation of their fiscal policies into the very framing of public survery questions, can the Democrats possibly attain credibility as an "anti-tax party"?

The answer, I think, is for the Democrats to wise up to the semantic turn in Republican politics and make similar moves themselves. Everyone with few exceptions---certainly a supermajority of voters---is "anti-taxes." That doesn't mean that anyone, including the Republican party, is necessarily anti-taxes.

Look at these posts by Matt Yglesias and Kevin Drum, especially the latter. Have the Republicans not created an opening to criticize them as being explicitly in favor of raising taxes? Surely they have. But the Democrats, as I keep saying, are so wedded to an outdated substructural ideology that they haven't got a clue about how to attack the Republicans in "anti-tax"-theoretic terms.

Every speech critical of Republican fiscal policy should make no more and no less than two points: Republican policy is destroying the very notion of fiscal solvency, and it is increasing the average taxpayer's tax burden. Forget about appealing to an ideal of selflessness or public duty or charity; and certainly forget about a 24 point comprehensive rebuke of the minutiae of the Republican plan. Talk about naked self-interest, about how Republican tax policy is inimical to the finances of the individual voter/taxpayer. That way lies victory.