Down with Slogans! The Sad Case of Ron Johnson

Senator Ron Johnson

Speaking at the Wisconsin Republican Convention on May 17, 2025, Republican Senator Ron Johnson recently parroted a slogan:

“We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.”

We’ve all heard that one. 

Politicians love their slogans. “Make America Great Again.” “Stop the Steal.” “Make Love, Not War.” “Support Your Local Police.” Catchy? Surely. Do slogans make us think? No. Of course not. What a silly idea.

Slogans grab our attention. Slogans might state nationalism, prosperity, pride, anger, kindness, or hatred. But slogans rust our thinking. For example, “Stop the Steal” begs the question: was anything really stolen? If we say, “We don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem,” does that excuse us from studying the numbers? Certainly not.

What about “Black Lives Matter;” “White Lives Matter;” “All Lives Matter?” Catchy slogans, fine, but are they sincere? Or do some people just say “All Lives Matter” to hint that “Black Lives Don’t Matter?” (Yes, they are all good slogans, but they do no good unless they inspire us to treat one another better. Right?)

The problem: slogans are not policies. They are just slogans. If we want good policies, well, we need to work. We need to get facts and and think a bit. Slogans don’t do that. Slogans give us an excuse not to think. Slogans excite us, and I enjoy slogans the same as everyone, but we get stuck in slogans the same way we get stuck on muddy roads.

Earlier Post: Critical Thinking on the Cheap

Back to Senator Johnson, whose slogan could, but does not, raise legitimate questions: how much money do we need to spend? How much money do we need to raise? Who should bear the most burden: the poor, or the rich? Those are policy questions, and the slogan does not answer them.

Johnson wants Congress to cut government spending. There is, however, no such thing as “government spending.” Not really. The government spends money on many different programs: national defense, law enforcement, national parks, border enforcement, various types of medical insurance, food support, agricultural subsidies, Social Security, and administrative expenses. And much more.

So, which programs does Johnson want to cut to solve the “spending problem?” Slogans don’t answer that tough question. No Republican wants to cut national defense. Although they talk about it, no Republican is foolish enough to cut Social Security. Social Security helps elderly voters, the Republican party’s main voter base. At the moment, Johnson’s party is trying to cut Medicaid spending. They are, however, not cutting Medicaid enough to balance the budget, just enough to create hardship. In general, making cuts is hard and painful. If you cut National Parks, you anger people (like me) who love parks. If you cut Medicaid, are you ready to face the fallout as rural hospitals close? If you cut defense, will the nation still be safe? Anyone can spout smug slogans, but slogans aren’t policies. Slogans are easy; policies are hard.

Yet, Johnson’s slogan is nothing new, while policy ideas repeatedly vanish into the mist. Indeed, back in 2010, Senate leader Mitch McConnell announced that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem.” A year later, John Boehner said that, “Washington does not have a revenue problem. Washington has a spending problem.” Chiming in, Orrin Hatch avowed that, “We don’t have a revenue problem. We all know we have a spending problem.” Sound familiar?

Sadly, politicians mouth their much-loved slogan, over and over, in a thought-free rhetorical style that would horrify any public speaking teacher. If your slogan is your thesis, a teacher would ask, where is your argument?

Thus, we still ask, how does Johnson want to manage fiscal policies? His slogan fails to enlighten us. Worse, once our empty slogans fill us with pious but unthinking indignation, how can we then talk through our nation’s needs? For slogans are the ultimate conversation-stoppers.

Instead of parroting slogans, we need to work on our problems. Sit down. Figure things out. Never imagine that great policies will fall out of the sky. The world dumps massive problems on us every day. Mindless comments never solve them. Not ever. Fiscal slogans are the harbingers of fiscal disaster.By parroting a slogan instead of analyzing and discussing problems, Johnson displayed rhetoric at its worst.

America: Think, or Die! 

Earlier Post: I Don't Like Political Slogans Because They Tell Me Nothing

_____________

P.S. In context, Johnson literally recognized that he was spouting a slogan, yet it never seemed to occur to him to couple his slogan with an actual policy: 

“Every other Republican leader saying some version of we don’t have a revenue problem; we have a spending problem. I would hope you all agree with that.”

I hate to think of our leadership as a cult where our leaders make do with a slogan - the same slogan, the same unargued dogma, the same vacuous absence of ideas, year after year, decade after decade - with the idea that “I would hope you all agree with that.” Surely the world's greatest republic can do better. 

by William D. Harpine

Copyright @ 2025 by William D. Harpine

Image: Official Congressional Portrait, via Wikimedia

The Most Destructive Speech in American History: Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address

Ronald Reagan's swearing-in, Jan. 20, 1981

Before anyone gets riled up, I think that President Ronald Reagan’s First Inaugural Address, delivered on January 20, 1981 was a fine speech: noble in principle, thoughtful, democratic in the little-d sense, and a blueprint for American freedom. It was a speech to admire, delivered with surpassing skill by one of the most articulate presidents in American history. It has become a terrible shame, however, that the subsequent history of the Republican Party has reduced this wonderful speech into one incoherent slogan.

Did Reagan anticipate the iron machinery that he was setting in motion? I doubt it. One, out-of-context comment, subsequently transformed into a mindless slogan, has come to drive the Republican ideology:

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” [italics added] 

The lesson in this is that slogans aren’t ideas. Enthusiasts do not need to think when they chant a slogan. Ideas, however, require people to think before they speak.

Did Reagan really mean it? Yes and no. Context always matters. Let’s look at the context.

 

Context #1

Reagan did not say the government was always the problem. He did not say that government was bad. He said that government was bad “in this present crisis.”

The crisis to which Reagan referred was the burst of inflation under the Jimmy Carter administration, which was followed by a series of unpleasant economic shocks. Those shocks caused problems—I lived through them myself—but they only lasted a few years. But “government is the problem,” taken out of context, sounds like a long-term issue.

The Nunes Memo: Why Does Context Matter?

Context #2

However, before discussing those long-term issues, Reagan spoke up firmly against all forms of discrimination. A Republican of 2023 would most likely call Reagan “woke.” Dismissing special interest groups, Reagan said that the only special interest group that mattered was the American people, regardless of rationalism, ethnicity, or race. Indeed, even the most liberal politician of 2023 could utter this same passage and mean every word:

“Well our concern must be for a special interest group that has been too long neglected. It knows no sectional boundaries, or ethnic and racial divisions, and it crosses political party lines. It is made up of men and women who raise our food, patrol our streets, man our mines and factories, teach our children, keep our homes, and heal us when we’re sick -- professionals, industrialists, shopkeepers, clerks, cabbies, and truck drivers. They are, in short, ‘We the People.’ This breed called Americans.”

Ronald Reagan Spoke on the Fourth of July: Celebrating Freedom, Shared Values, and Diversity 

Context #3

Yes, Reagan promised to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, which, like many conservatives, he considered to be a potential threat to liberty. Note, however, that he did not stand for destroying or disrupting the government, but rather for an orderly redistribution of power. He stated his economic principle:

“It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the states or to the people.”

Note that he did not call for shutting down the government or defaulting on government bonds.

Unfortunately, like many conservatives before and since, Reagan neglected to list the government programs that he intended to reduce. So, although his promise was based on traditional American ideals of liberty, this speech laid out no specific program.


Context #4

Predating the concept of a “compassionate conservative,” Reagan insisted that reducing government power did not entail dumping people to flounder on their own. He did not speak for a Darwinian contest, in which the winners would announce themselves to surpass the losers. No, Reagan emphasized community responsibility. He said that we should love all our fellow Americans, help them when they were in need, and ensure that they have the chance to become self-sufficient. I fear that Reagan’s remarkable statement of values seems to have disappeared from the conservative movement of 2023. How sad. This is what he said:

“We shall reflect the compassion that is so much a part of your make-up. How can we love our country and not love our countrymen -- and loving them reach out a hand when they fall, heal them when they’re sick, and provide opportunity to make them self-sufficient so they will be equal in fact and not just in theory?”

Context #5

Ending this epic speech, Reagan reminded his audience that the United States of America can accomplish whatever we want to accomplish. Insisting that success required ambition and determination, Reagan assured the American people that the crisis of 1981 could be resolved: 

“It does require, however, our best effort, and our willingness to believe in ourselves and to believe in our capacity to perform great deeds; to believe that together with God’s help we can and will resolve the problems which now confront us.

“And after all, why shouldn’t we believe that? We are Americans.”

Context #6

Let’s look back at how Reagan began his magnificent speech. He started with the American tradition of orderly transfer of power. Former President Jimmy Carter himself sat in the front row to recognize Reagan’s ascension to the presidency. It was, Reagan reminded all of us, a momentous occurrence. It was a remarkable thing that the loser conceded and the reins of power were handed over smoothly, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, with no violence or disruption. As Reagan said:

“The orderly transfer of authority as called for in the Constitution routinely takes place as it has for almost two centuries and few of us stop to think how unique we really are. In the eyes of many in the world, this every-four-year ceremony we accept as normal is nothing less than a miracle.”

George W. Bush Used His Prestige to Call Out the January 6 Terrorists

George W. Bush on 9/11: A Forgotten Vision

Yet, 40 years later, in January 2021, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, heir to Reagan’s party, refused to concede victory. Instead, swarms of his supporters attacked the Capitol to interrupt the counting of the electoral votes and halt the peaceful transfer of power. Reagan had commented that “few of us stop to think how unique we really are.” Sadly, we are no longer unique, as Reagan’s own party, and the conservative movement he proudly ensconced, has now utterly rejected that keystone of the United States Constitution.

Did It Work?

Did Reagan say “crisis?” Yes, he did. And now, in September 2023, Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut down the American government until someone meets their poorly articulated demands, on which they themselves do not even agree. Isn’t that a crisis? And does it not arise from the slogan, “government is the problem?”

While in office, Reagan cut domestic spending but greatly increased military spending. Overall, it’s questionable whether he articulated a clear program of how to reduce the federal government, much less to leave an ongoing program that could inspire his successors. So, unfortunately, even today, in angry voices that contradict Reagan’s affable style, Republican politicians continue to insist on massive cuts in increasingly unspecified government programs, in dollar amounts that they rarely state aloud.

Reagan’s speech was destructive and dangerous, not because it was a bad speech (it was a wonderful, inspiring speech), but because its ongoing influence today is now mired at the slogan stage. Republicans today have sadly forgotten the contexts that Reagan gave to this speech. “Government is the problem” is not a policy. It’s only a slogan. Unfortunately, slogans only take us so far.

Follow me at WHarpine@Twitter.com 

by William D. Harpine  

Earlier posts about Reagan’s speeches:

"Mr. Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall!" How Ronald Reagan’s One Sentence Changed Berlin

Reagan versus Trump: The Unifier and the Divider. Two Public Speaking Styles. Same Message, Different Songs

Copyright 2023, William D. Harpine

Image: National Archives, via Wikimedia Commons