Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/other/1427810-not-by-popular-demand
https://studentshare.org/other/1427810-not-by-popular-demand.
The article d ‘Not by popular demand’ by Ruy Teixeirais criticizes the US government’s over emphasis on cutting budget deficits. The terms this phenomenon as deficit mania. It is observed by the writer that the recent governments while solely focusing on budget deficit, failed to attend to the requirements of the local economy. This observation is substantiated by the data on modest economic recovery and high unemployment rate. This tendency of the government is generally justified as its response towards the shift in the priorities of the voters.
However, the author disproves this argument by stating data from various sources to prove that the electorate was concerned more on economy than on budget. The agenda of the government highlight deficit cutting as a booster for employment is also criticized by the author. The statistics on people’s opinion on this clearly suggested that they even believed that deficit cutting would have negative impacts on job generation. The history of US politics shows that people have always reacted by voting down the parties which couldn’t bring in economic development.
Looking into the issue in these terms, the stand of the republicans to go by the deficit cutting policy does fit into the bracket political manipulation of people’s opinion by using the media. The democrats are observed by the author as acting based on the common sense notion that ‘debt is bad;’ and are not concerned of the economic facts prevailing in the country. They are trying to create sentiments over the amount of debt that the country is in and is trying to push the deficit cutting agenda.
Taking into account the history of the response of the voters on governments not oriented on economic development, the author warns the democrats to be careful on the cutting budget deficits agenda. More than the net result being bad for the democrats, the author fears that it may prove bad for the country.
Read More