This political cycle, moreso than any I’ve previously experienced, has cemented “taxes” as the undisputed heavyweight champion of “dirty words.” The past few weeks have seen Americans of all creeds, colors and party identifications unite under the idea that more of their earned income should remain in their pockets.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m a 23-year-old professional. I’m salaried at a level that puts me squarely in working-middle class. I love my money. I never stop finding ways to spend it and people to owe it to.

I also embrace taxes.

I know, I’m an anomaly, A does not particularly equal B, I’m a socialist, etc.

But wait, there is a method to my wealth-spreading madness. This is no deft separation of a fool and his money.

There are many “necessary evils” that justify our tax dollars. I challenge any libertarian to present a more plausible source of funding for such social necessities as road maintenance, school funding and yes, basic health care.

There is great fear of taxation from two major groups. The middle-class is frightened of losing the dollars that they stretch into car payments, mortgages and entertainment. The upper-class s frightened of losing the capital that they can use to leverage more business opportunities, employ more workers and occasionally splurge on flights of fancy that reward long hours and vigorous thought.

To rail against taxes requires an assumption of altruism in our fellow humans. Taxes are the great correcting factor of democracy. My fellow worker-bees in the middle class realize that taxes may well keep us in a slightly smaller home, a more economical car and in line at Target. The counter-balance to this is that taxes also keep the school buildings in your municipality intact. Taxes maintain roads so that your economy-sized sedan’s axle doesn’t shatter in a pothole. We pay into a pool of money that is necessary to sustain a quality of life that affords us the ability to spend anything on products of pleasure.

Taxes are a much tougher sell to the well-off. The major majority of the working wealthy in this country have made their way through unique talent, ingenuity and opportunistic work. Telling this group of Americans to pay a higher percentage of taxes when they’ve proven the ability to succeed and earn at a rate greater than their peers seems unfair.

The concept of fairness is a prickly proposition here. In this instance, taxes are more representative of an investment. Many believe that the funds they pay into the tax pool would be more useful as a personally-guided investment into their own professional/personal spending. These same wealthy Americans must remember that without a healthy herd of worker-bees and spenders, the system can and will collapse.

Our tax money is an investment into schools that feed minds and spur innovation. Adequately funded schools can commit to teaching a forward-thinking curriculum while offering competitive salaries to competent instructors.

It is also an investment into healthcare that maintains a healthy society. It logically follows that if we are not hacking and miserable at the office or in the field,  we can be more of a focused and productive working society.

While I doubt that many will challenge the basic assumptions I’ve posited, I do forsee people recoiling at the thought of their money being spent by incompetent/greedy/out-of-touch politicians.

To that point, I can only offer what many wise men have intimated before me; we sometimes get the government we want, we sometimes get the governement we deserve.

Upon arriving at the party, Cheryl was high-fived and congratulated on her costume. The Palin getup was a hit. One party-goer came up to Cheryl and exclaimed his approval. In his words, Palin and McCain have to be elected because “we cant have a nigger President.” Another deep-thinker came up to agree, all while sporting a costume consisting of black-face. Apparently the retro trend among the youth is backdated to the 1920′s now.

I share this story to illustrate a simple point. The tone and tenor of this Presidential election season hasn’t awakened some dormant racial divide in this country. It also has not brought out a level of contempt that did not exist in October 2007. This election has only served to illuminate the experiences and feelings of many quiet bigots in this nation.

John McCain and Sarah Palin (among other GOP strategists and surrogates) have accomplished an amazing feat. They have given the prejudiced an outlet and a feeling of freedom to publicly voice what the political correctness movement had pushed into the home. The genius here is in the GOP’s tone. McCain and Palin really have not made any overtly racist statements. Hell, the rhetoric from the GOP can hardly be classified as “racial.” The skillfully crafted coded language and visual messages only serve to stoke fires that have proven to be more hidden than dormant. Madeleine M. Kunin alludes to this in her October 14 post on the Huffington Post. Kunin wrote;

“By making Obama the Other, McCain/Palin are fueling racial paranoia.

It’s downright dangerous. When statements that are politically incorrect suddenly become correct and are cheered into hysteria, no one is safe. Not Obama, and not our democracy.”

Political correctness has become a much maligned concept by those who felt that we had progressed past the need for careful language. The events of this campaign have proven to me that “PC” language may be a necessary component to maintain discourse between the parties that actually informs the public.

Note that I’ve reduced this request to the involved parties. There is a special place for satire, humor and light conversation in politics as well. Some pundits have taken to drawing equivalence between the tenor of a political campaign and the chatter of certain television and print personalities.

On MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show,” National Review writer David Frum expressed his frustration with how Maddow uses her platform. In response to a question about the tone of John McCain’s campaign, Frum said “And this show, unfortunately, is itself an example of that problem, its heavy sarcasm and smearing and its disregard for a lot of the substantive issues that really are important.”

Frum then went on to assail Maddow’s show and the two engaged in the some good old-fashioned news network crosstalk.

Frum has created false equivalence between an admittedly left-leaning and the man running for the  highest executive position in the nation. To hold our political leaders to the same standard as tv personalities is lowering the bar in ways that I, and many like me are highly uncomfortable with.
Simply put… Man up. One of the responsibilities of elected office is clear leadership. There are standards that must be set in a “top-down” manner. That means conducting a campaign free of duplicitous manipulation. If you want to play by the rules of the pundit, bone up on your elocution and humor and hit the studios.

For future reference, the level of responsibility in discourse is arranged in this order;

Politician > news desk anchor > surrogate > pundit.

Our leaders would be better served to abide by this maxim; raise the bar, spare the audience.