As part of my concurrent education program in undergrad, our class also earned an ECE (Early Childhood Education) diploma with the nearby college. While we were attending the college, there was a mayoral election, and the candidates had a debate in the cafeteria. We decided to join and ask some questions about the municipal childcare closures in our city. We asked what these candidates would do for the children of our city, and all the responses showed a serious problem with the attitude these candidates had toward our younger citizens.
Each candidate only spoke about children as 'future taxpayers' and how they wanted a promising future for these children to grow into, or would speak of children as the offspring of 'taxpayers'. No one really understood that these children were citizens now and had needs that had to be met presently. No one really realized that childcare services weren't just for the benefit of working moms, but for the good of the children as well. It seemed none of them realized they had obligations to all their citizens, and not just present 'taxpayers'. I found this blind spot in their thinking to be somewhat disturbing, but also I thought it was very strange how the use of the word 'taxpayer' rather than citizen was a recurring theme. Since that day, I see the use of the word 'taxpayer' rather than 'citizen' a lot in political rhetoric, and it makes me wonder what the significance of it is.
My speculation is that perhaps politicians use corporate models to understand their role in government. They see taxpayers as investors who need to be placated and that the 'return on investment' is supposed to be an economically healthy community with lots of jobs. While I think economic development is important, I think such an account of government misses out on a lot of important things. For one thing, if we are reducing citizenship to a process of investment and return, how are human citizens, who are merely investors any different from corporate investors? If money is the only 'currency' in this system then what difference does it make where that money comes from? In other words, I think an approach to government that merely look at investors is an approach which is very vulnerable to, or perhaps can't even give an account of, corruption.
Secondly, when we talk about citizens rather than taxpayers, I think we miss out on certain elements that are central to our understanding of citizenship--the idea that we are human beings with human needs who are socially invested in a community. When we see citizens as investors or taxpayers, we reduce them to a numerical or financial account of their role in government, but what government is is more than just an institution that moves money around. A government is supposed to meet social needs, and a government has to be an institution that its citizens can believe in, or else it simply isn't sustainable. Our legitimacy as citizens isn't based on our ability to invest in our government; it's also based on our willingness to be coerced by the state, which is largely based on our beliefs and ideals.
Some things I wonder about are whether this linguistic trend is a cause or symptom of the attitudes I've described above. Is the way we talk about citizenship a product of capitalism? I think a lot of Marxists would say yes. Another question I have is what we should do about it. If the linguistic habit creates these attitudes then merely altering our language would be enough, but I suspect a much deeper and more radical change is required. Either way, the use of the word 'taxpayer' often leaves me suspicious because it suggests the speaker is acting on a model of government that is oversimplified and perhaps even harmful.
