I object to “a pox on all their houses” assessments on principle, because it encourages the lack of accountability. If everyone is at fault, nobody is at fault, or at least nobody will be willing to accept responsibility as long as he or she or they can point fingers at someone else. Reading all of the clichéd “Winners and Losers” columns in the media this morning as the debt ceiling crisis winds down, however, convinces me that there were no winners, only losers, in this sorry spectacle. In the latter group I include the writers of the “Winners and Losers” pieces, which are all just spin, obvious and biased attempts to extract a writer’s favorites from the train wreck using the rhetorical Jaws of Life.
They are all losers, all of them, together with the United States of America. The perfect storm of cowardly, irresponsible, reckless, stupid and arrogant leadership weakened the recovery, weakened the economy, weakened foreign faith in American investments, weakened American prestige, split the Republican Party, revealed the Democratic Party as hell-bent on chasing the European-style nanny state even as their model is crumbling abroad, exposed the Tea Party as a unmannerly mess of deluded doctrinaire ideologues with no grasp of political or economic realities, and most disastrously of all, showed the American President to be hopelessly, pathetically, frighteningly weak, devoid of leadership skills and leaderly instincts.
The low point for me was President Obama’s jaw-dropping address last week, in which he pleaded with the public to do his job, and persuade Congress to act responsibly. The bully pulpit is a tool for creating public support, not begging for it. He, of course, was ultimately responsible for the crisis developing at all. Obama could have, as leaders are supposed to be able to do, foreseen this onrushing train by insisting on a debt-ceiling increase as part of the deal to keep in place the Bush tax cuts, but he did not. He could have insisted that his Democratic Congresses pass budgets, like every other Congress. He could, and should, have had the courage to present his own deficit reduction package, and done so long ago. He could and should have embraced the recommendations of the non-partisan commission that he himself appointed. He could have demonstrated that he was concerned about the deficits and the debt when people would take his concern seriously. He could have led. Obama did none of these things. Instead he resorted to outright dishonesty, as when he said that he “could not guarantee” that seniors would receive their Social Security checks if the U.S. defaulted, a statement that was 1) false 2) in direct contradiction to the repeated assertion by his minions that Social Security was safe and not affected by the deficit at all, 3) naked fear-mongering and 4) disgraceful for a self-proclaimed truth-teller.
Of course the Tea Party Congressional members behaved worse, but that is a faction, not a President. They are held to lower standards, and still missed them by a mile. Using extortion—especially extortion that involves threatening to cause immediate harm to your own country—to force even vital policy changes is madness, and per se unethical. It is the equivalent of an abused wife holding a gun to her child’s head and threatening to shoot unless her husband checks himself into a treatment facility. The Tea Party’s insistence that taxes not be raised when everyone with a brain stem knows that they will have to be raised eventually—all to keep a pledge devised and supported by zealots, libertarians, anarchist and mouth-breathers was breath-takingly irresponsible. Democrats, meanwhile, like the loathsome Nancy Pelosi, insisted that reforms of Medicare and Social Security were “off the table,” even though every economist has been crystal clear that reforms of Medicare and Social Security cannot be avoided if the U.S. is going to avert a fiscal meltdown in the relatively near future.
All of this depressing display of fecklessness, selfishness and incompetence would be palatable if any real problems were solved by the eventual debt-ceiling compromise. They were not, however. In fact, new problems were created. The cuts are insufficient, and include the usual accounting gimmicks. As more civilian protestors are being gunned down by Syria’s dictator, it must give him and other evil-doers around the world a sense of new-found security to know that the U.S, would prefer to cripple its military power, the greatest force in the world for peace and freedom, than to admit that Medicare is out of control. Yes, on top of everything else, the failure of America’s leaders is getting people killed, and making the world a more dangerous place.
Meanwhile, other crucial, nation-defining problems remain, and cannot be neglected forever. When and how will we repair and rebuild our creaky infrastructure, another trillion-dollar job? What is to be done with the failing public education system? The much-vaunted health care reform addressed access, but did nothing to control burgeoning health care costs. And the Social Security coffers remain depleted, with the Baby Boomer generation hitting its dotage.
Most devastating of all, how can our nation reverse the collapse of our mutual trust in each other, our institutions, and the promise of the future? This, like the rest, will require hard work and selfless dedication by courageous and talented leaders at all levels of government.
The debt ceiling fiasco taught as that at the national level, at least, we simply don’t have enough of them.
What we have more than enough of is losers.
Ethics Alarms 
U.S. politics is disgusting because the good of the country is never its goal, if indeed if it has been the case for the past 60 years. On the matter of our military, however, we have gone the way of all collapsing empires in engaging in multiple, unwinnable wars that, in spite of righteous proclamations, are designed only to shore up our economic interests abroad but succeed only in gutting our ability to provide worthwhile programs at home and keep up national infrastructure.
I don’t agree regarding the military, at all.. I don’t think any country can allow an attack on its soil supported by a foreign government and not retaliate. I live in Washington DC, and I firmly believe if the US hadn’t responded in Afghanistan, my family would be dead. It isn’t that these wars are unwinnable; it is that the nation isn’t willing to do what is necessary to win them—something else entirely. And the argument that the current wars are primarily about economics is self-refuting. They are economically devastating, and demonstrably so. The public should be asked to pay for wars, which are in the public’s defense. Infrastructure pays for itself—it isn’t an either-or proposition.
A strong military is best used when it doesn’t have to fight. A weal military is far more likely to fight. Arguing that the military has been misused doesn’t make the case that we don’t need one.
A good post in general but I have a few quibbles.
The European-style welfare state is not crumbling. Countries like Germany, Finland and Sweden are growing at an impressive rate. Many European countries will have to make adjustments to their policies to deal with an aging population, but most developed countries will have to make such changes as well.
Obama was not incorrect when he said that he could not guarantee that seniors would get their Social Security cheques. If the debt ceiling was not raised, spending would have to be cut somewhere, and it is conceivable that spending on Social Security would have been cut (I am aware that Social Security funds are held separately from normal revenues and disbursements and do not require Congressional approval to be distributed but that does not mean that distribution cannot be cut and the money used elsewhere). It is rather unlikely that this outcome would result, so Obama was fear-mongering when he said it, but he was not lying.
As I wrote earlier, Obama’s social security comment was deceitful. In a default. he had complete discretion over what obligations were paid and what were not—if he wanted to make sure the Social Security checks went out no matter what, they would go out. He implied that it was beyond his control. Dishonest. This statement was condemned by bi-partisan critics, by the way.
All of the European countries are going to have to cut back on benefits, and almost all have serious, serious deficit problems, plus populations ready to riot at any cuts. You can cheery pick examples either way—on the whole, the democratic nanny state is in big trouble.
Yes, and Obama’s statement should have been criticized but it was not a lie.
Sure, you can cherry-pick examples either way, which is what many people do when they are arguing about the unsustainability of European welfare states. Having to cut back on benefits right after a global financial crisis and when a country has an aging population is normal. By your definition, what country isn’t in big trouble?
I think all of them are in big trouble. If you promise benefits to people who begin seeing them as rights and entitlements without having to do anything to earn them other than to exist; when you pay for irresponsible behavior and allow your citizens to be self-righteous about the government’s obligation to solve their problems; when you encourage people to surrender their freedom of self-determination and choice for security that is illusory—you’re in big trouble. And every country is doing that.
You hit the nail on the head.
Why does our military even have to ask if they are getting a paycheck next week, and be told “I don’t know”. Our president needs to get some balls, and show some strength and leadership and reassure the military, and the disabled and social security recepitents that he will not let that happen and that they will receive their paychecks no matter what congress does. Don’t use scare tactics to get us on your side, some of us still have a brain and can think without the government telling us what, when, and how to think. The treasury department can decide what takes priority and gets paid first and in what order. Last on that list should be the president, all senators and representatives, cut your paychecks first!
Jack,
While I agree Obama is far from the “change we can believe in” that was promised, I do take umbrage with the suggestion fixing the debt crisis was somehow his fault or responsibility. Few times in recent memory have I actually had more respect for a President than when Obama told the American public to call their congressmen. Can anyone imagine Bush ever having made a similar plea? Sadly, it did only come AFTER he’d proven himself ineffectual in the negotiations, but he was nevertheless “passing the buck” to where it belonged, Congress (and, indirectly, the American people). After all, the ‘bully pulpit’ you’re so quick to laud was an invention of Teddy Roosevelt and has, more often than not, been used to justify the pushing forward of a presidential platform through fiat.
Even before the new deal the office of the presidency has slowly increased in both prestige and implied power to the point that the President is now identified with direct administrative control over the government. Why? The power to pass budgets, raise the debt ceiling, and most other financial matters are the responsibility of Congress, not the President. Thus, asking the American people to contact their representative and make their wishes known is, to me, how the process should always work. I realize it would be impractical to consult “the American people” on every budget debate or legislative quibble but we (all of us) are ultimately the ones who will have to live with the consequences; so asking for occasional feedback seems reasonable.
Democrats, Republicans, and Tea-Partyists alike are forever in print and on television making claims on behalf of the “American People” as though we were one monolithic group with the same political motives and ideas when no such broad consensus actually exists. If anything, it takes far more courage and personal responsibility to say “I’ve made it clear where I stand and what I want, but its ultimately your responsibility to talk to Congress and let them know whether you agree or not.”
Please understand, I don’t think any of this was Obama’s intent, only that it’s a good example of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. To me, the role of government isn’t to lead, but to follow.
-Neil
I’ll reserve a longer response for when I have time to do it justice. But a debt crisis, any debt crisis, is the president’s responsibility. It is mind-melting to suggest otherwise. He signed the the bills; he approved the pork; he made the tax deals. He gave the keys to Pelosi and Reid. One of the many reasons I feel Obama is an epically weal leader is that I have seldom seen any of his predecessors so eager to assign responsibility elsewhere.
As to your question about Bush—-no, he wouldn’t do that, and here are some other Presidents who wouldn’t do that: Clinton, Nixon, Reagan, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Hoover, and Coolidge…because it is weak weak weak…AND ineffective. Bush Sr and Carter, who reside with Obama as the most inept leaders in my lifetime, might have tried it. Maybe Ford.
Jack,
There’s no need for a more in-depth response as it’s likely to be another long wait that ends in anticlimax.
Summarized, my point is simply: Obama IS weak, agreed, but that doesn’t mean the American people aren’t still the ones best suited to fix the problem. WE were complicit in accepting the bills, the pork, and the tax deals. The other presidents you listed were all the kind egregious offenders of presidential power I was talking about. I’ve read Article II of the Constitution dozens of times and never once was there a mention of “the president shall, in time of great debt, set forth his agenda before Congress and force them into acceptance.”
Why rely on solutions from the very same people who created the crisis in the first place? This is akin to asking serial murderer to assist a triage unit. Arguing he shares the blame is one thing, but arguing he has a responsibility to fix it is something else.
-Neil
PS: Bush Sr. worse than W? I don’t know. One was a ineffectual, the other was just plain dangerous.
I’m wounded that you have so little regard for my well-considered responses. I’m going to pout now.
Social Security revenues are not held in reserve. They have been spent. What SS has is IOUs. Where are we going to get the money to pay the IOUs?
Taxes, Tim- if Obama has his way. Spending cuts and reduced government within the limits of the Constitution if the Tea Party has it’s. There is no middle way in the final count… and both sides know it. The battle lines are drawn.