An excellent column from Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson rightly chastises those who, because they are too lazy to figure out what’s actually going on, blame both sides more or less equally in the ongoing talks over raising the nation’s debt ceiling. Says Robinson:
Washington has many lazy habits, and one of the worst is a reflexive tendency to see equivalence where none exists. Hence the nonsense, being peddled by politicians and commentators who should know better, that “both sides” are equally at fault in the deadlocked talks over the debt ceiling.
This is patently false. The truth is that Democrats have made clear they are open to a compromise deal on budget cuts and revenue increases. Republicans have made clear they are not.
Put another way, Democrats reacted to the “grand bargain” proposed by President Obama and House Speaker John Boehner by squawking, complaining and highlighting elements they didn’t like. This is known throughout the world as the way to begin a process of negotiation.
Republicans, by contrast, answered with a definitive “no” and then covered their ears. Given the looming Aug. 2 deadline for default if the debt ceiling is not raised, the proper term for this approach is blackmail….
Some Democrats, yes, are being scratchy and cantankerous. But Republicans are refusing to negotiate at all. That’s not the same thing…. [N]o one should be confused about what the president confronts: On one side, grousing and grumbling. On the other, a brick wall.
Well said. Yet, sadly, it’s not just Washington: here in Boston, the Globe’s editorial page has fallen into exactly the trap that Robinson describes. Here’s today’s sorry effort:
Now, in this divided Congress, there are some who are trying to apply these tested formulas to the debate over the debt ceiling. Republicans are refusing to consider any revenue increases, even by closing unjustified tax loopholes; Democrats are leaning toward a diehard defense of Medicare against any cuts or changes. Obama, wisely, is putting the national interest ahead of these reflexive positions.
Bah. “Republicans are doing one bad thing; Democrats are doing another bad thing.” Sounds all fair and bipartisan-y. The problem is that it’s not true, as Robinson explains.
And it gets even worse. Somehow the Globe has concluded that Obama has a good-faith negotiating partner in John Boehner:
Fortunately, GOP House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic leaders have been willing to come to the bargaining table, but their rank and file members aren’t fully on board.
And this, even as a front-page story in the very same edition of the Globe reveals that Boehner either is in cahoots with his tea-partying caucus, or is without any ability whatsoever to get them in line.
President Obama urged Republicans yesterday to stand up to political pressure and agree to tax increases as part of a far-reaching deal to prevent a government default. But House Speaker John Boehner refused to budge, as some conservatives in the House asserted the White House was exaggerating the risk of a default…. Higher taxes, however, are unacceptable – in a deal of any length, Boehner countered. “The American people understand that tax hikes destroy jobs,” he said.
Apparently, the Globe’s editorialists are so taken with their own even-handedness that they have stopped reading what their own reporters are writing.
Look, Boehner wanted to be Speaker. So, if (giving him a probably-undeserved benefit of the doubt) he is serious about cutting a deal with the President, he needs to do his job. He needs to start using the power of his office to whip his own membership. Simply put, he needs to threaten them, like every other Speaker in the history of the Republic has done at one time or another.
Alternatively, he could start crying. Maybe that will work.
farnkoff says
for current fiscal situation- when I think that the historical tax cuts for the rich, coupled with a debt-funded spending explosion under Bush, is more responsible than anything for the fiscal discrepancies everyone is suddenly so concerned about. Cut taxes more, introduce austerity measures,lay off a hundred thousand government workers and maybe fifty thousand non-profit-sector types, take money out of retirees’ pockets or whatever, how is that going to help the economy? Will it really help small businesses? Historically, have tax cuts for the rich and for large corporations really resulted in net gains for the average American worker? How many domestic jobs have been created? How have wages been holding up lately? Frankly I think virtually everything the Repubs do and say is in bad faith, and about 60% of things the Dems say and do. And I’m not convinced that “free trade” has been a net positive for the American economy, either.
Mark L. Bail says
read it, but it was a solidly leftist publication. The author argued that mainstream journalists are not usually partisan, but they have developed a sort of journalistic ideology that glorifies their own behavior. By rejecting the left and the right, they define what they believe is the “sensible center.” A partisan point of view that is correct–i.e. the national GOP is nutsy fagin–can’t be reported because it would violate that sensible center.
Who’s in the sensible center? Paul Krugman calls them Very Serious People. Digby calls them the Villagers. I generally like Fareed Zakaria, but I was aghast find him in there as well. He recently said in an interview that the Simpson-Bowles (non-) report is sensible.
Sometimes I’m glad the media is losing money.
mizjones says
I’m not bothering to read the Globe column, since it will certainly not mention that this immediate fuss over the debt ceiling is the Republicans’ way of holding the country hostage to their goal of dismantling the New Deal and other popular government safety net programs. Of course they will not mention that much of the projected future deficit can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts, which when passed were supposed to have expired last year. Of course they will not point out the hypocrisy of Republicans who ignored the deficit when they pushed through those tax cuts.
I’ve heard NPR make this same false equivalency between the Tea Party and New Deal Democrats, as on the Diane Raynes show last night. People who want to dismantle the government as we know it are presented as one extreme while the people who want to preserve core programs (now aka “the far left”) are presented as the other. This has to be disingenuous.
Why are the major media outlets so motivated to confuse the public on important issues? I can only speculate…many outlets are owned by large corporations who may benefit if the safety net is dismantled; or it’s about pleasing advertisers; or fear of incurring the wrath of the powerful.
Ryan says
It’s time to say, “Look, America, we really tried. The Republicans, unfortunately, are assholes who don’t give a shit about you or any of your family, friends, neighbors or coworkers. They don’t care about your jobs, your homes, your health or your economic security. They only care about Wall Street, defense contractors and CEOs. The only way to stop them is to vote them the hell out of office in 2012.”
Meanwhile, take the constitution, which says our debt cannot be questioned, and lay a great, big turd on the Republicans be evoking it. They’ll run to the courts, and maybe even win given the conservative bent, but it’ll take them a long, long time and by then we should be in the midst of the 2012 election.
Of course, this is what a strong Democratic President would do. Instead, we have the spineless inexcusable Barack O-for-everything Obama. There’s no poison pill he won’t agree to in order to get this done and claim his “centrist” cred, no matter how many jobs it’ll destroy in the midst of a jobs crisis, no matter how much economic damage it will do and no matter how many Democrats will lose in 2012 because of it — Obama only cares about himself and perhaps his corporate pals.
If I were Nancy Pelosi, trying to get a majority of Democrats through the House in the 2012 election, I would start denouncing this Obama the Back-Stabbing Betrayer of Doom and run against him as much as the Republicans. I’ve never met a man who’s done more damage to the Democratic brand than this President.