On the Right - tax reduction; North Korean military threat; political courage - Column

National Review, Sept 27, 1999 by William F. Buckley, Jr.

Tax Reduction And Demagogic Talk

NEW YORK, AUGUST 3

Over the weekend an enormously influential public figure, speaking informally, rued the "demagogic appeal" of an appeal to lower taxes. By sheer coincidence, the denunciation was heard here the very day after Prof. Milton Friedman, again at an informal gathering, reiterated his recommendation that taxes be cut. It would be easier to discount Friedman as a bad economist than as a demagogue. The dictionary reminds us that a demagogue "obtains power by means of an impassioned appeal to the emotions and prejudices of the populace." Prof. Friedman can be said to be fond of people at large and as free of their passions as Rodin's Thinker, who was cast in bronze.

And then one wonders who the "populace" is. A demagogic appeal is presumably made to the mob; to the "common people," as in ancient times. Why is it thought demagogic to advocate lower income taxes? Because the majority will swoon in their support of such a measure?

For the sake of convenience, rounding off figures with severity, let us assume that there are 100 million voters/taxpayers (actually, there are 114 million filed returns). An appeal to lower the taxes would be thought, if demagogic in motivation, to appeal to the majority.

But are the majority listening? What do they stand to get from calls for tax reduction?

By our 100-million table, who is paying how much?

One million people (1 percent) are paying 30 percent of all federal taxes. So . . . you get their vote. Good. You have upped your vote by 1 percent.

Five million people (5 percent) are paying 50 percent of all taxes. Congratulations! By cutting taxes you've just got yourself 5 percent of the vote.

Ten million people (10 percent) are paying 60 percent of the taxes. So, you have a crack at 10 percent of the voters.

What about at the other end?

Fifty million people/voters (50 percent) are paying 4.6 percent of the taxes. There isn't much there to reduce. In 1995, 48 million Americans paid zero tax.

So the question is reasonably asked: Assuming that a taxpayer were influenced exclusively by the tax recommendations of one of the political parties, is it a successful political enterprise to seek to swell your support by advocating tax reductions? In 1998 the rich-man vote (annual income over $75,000) went 53 percent to the GOP, 47 percent to the Democratic party. It is obvious then that a call to reduce taxes doesn't necessarily bring around rich folk. Some of them stay on the other side no matter what. It boils down, then, to very small numbers. How, then, the word "demagogic"?

One would think it demagogic to say things like, "Everybody who has a driver's license should be able to vote by postcard." That would leave it to the contending party to say, "Our bill would send you a postcard pre- stamped."

Would it be demagogic to come out against obscenity laws? On the grounds that the ACLU militants would thereby be won over?

No, you say: because the anti-obscenity people would be riled.

Well, then, are people who pay no taxes riled at the prospect of diminishing the taxes on those who are paying them?

Yes-one saunters down the analytical lane: Presumably the 48 million who pay no taxes will be annoyed if the 1 percent who pay 30 percent of the tax load are relieved a little, on the grounds that the reduction of their tax payments means less that might otherwise be distributed to-the 48 million!

Well, 48 million is a lot more than 1 million. Therefore, isn't it demagogic to come out against tax reduction? By doing so you are indeed appealing to the populace, are you not?

If you come out against crime, are you making a demagogic point? We earnestly want crime reduction, but it is also true that only a very few people, statistically, are victims of crime. The appeal is to the larger body who not only deplore crime but worry that they might one day be crime victims. So . . . they are attracted to the anti-crime candidate. At what point can the anti-crime politician be taxed with demagogic arguments? When he asks for draconian measures (a curfew, say, in crime-ridden districts)? Is the curfew advocate engaging in demagogy?

And if it's the quality of your listeners you are concerned with, is it demagogic to go down the politically correct road?

North Korea Knocking

NEW YORK, JULY 29

The North Korea problem presses and we learn that in Singapore, the Association of South East Asian Nations is above all other matters concerned with what to do about Pyongyang.

Specifically, American intelligence has said that as things are now going, the North Koreans plan to test Taepodong 2, which is an advanced version of T-1, which rocked the world when last August it soared chirpily right over the island of Japan. T-2 is designed to do better than T-1, and better means that it could land a nuclear payload in Alaska or Hawaii.

This takes us back to a very old nightmare. Sixty years ago it was dubbed, "Why die for Danzig?"-a call against mobilization and war to keep Poland from Hitler. In the Cold War age, when it became clear that the Soviet Union could take out American cities, we settled on a balance of terror- mutual assured destruction. Partners to that convention guaranteed that their own weapons systems would continue to be vulnerable. It was the convention that gave rise to the ABM Treaty, which aborted much that might have been done to create an anti-missile missile.