Time's Mark Halperin has graced us today with a fine example of political equivalence, arguing (emphasis his)
The President doesn't think the economy is "doing fine." Mitt Romney doesn't oppose firefighters, police, or teachers. Yes, there are legitimate questions about the President’s understanding of how the private sector operates. And, yes, Governor Romney supports less federal aid to states and localities for such jobs than the Democrats do. But shame on the media for starting the week perpetuating the self-fulfilling prophecy that Friday’s gaffes will be a big deal in the election by continuing to pump them. These gaffes will matter because we say they do. How can the press ever criticize politicians for trivializing our politics when we focus on statements that have little to do with the candidates actual views or their proposals for the future? But also: shame on both campaigns for saying, in effect, the other guy’s gaffe matters but our guy just had some bad phrasing which should be ignored.
For those who haven't noticed- including the mainstream media- hiring in the private sector has been much more robust than in the public sector. That, now, is virtually irrelevant, especially since the President chose to (cliche alert) "walk back" his comments almost immediately by bowing and scraping, pleading "It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. That's why I had a press conference." Clearly, he does not want to be judged by the initial remark, which he has retracted.
Not so Mitt Romney. Promptly following Obama's remarks, Romney declared in a web video "He says we need more fireman, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."
No one knows whether the GOP candidate believes that- rare or nonexistent is the man or woman who can be sure what the former governor believes about anything. At the least, however, Romney wants us to think that he believes it. Three days later, he has not retracted or even modified his remarks. He wants us to believe that he's coming after public employees, even if teachers, firefighters, or police officers. We are better off, he strongly infers, with fewer public servants.
Salon's Alex Pareene recognized Halperin late last year as "the world's laziest dispenser of collective wisdom." Halperin resides comfortably among what Digby refers to as "the Village," Washington insiders who mistake "balance" for fairness or accuracy. Having offered an assessment which appears faulty, Barack Obama bid a hasty retreat. By contrast, Mitt Romney offered a political assessment, suggesting that "the American people" believe "it's time for us to cut back on" firemen, policemen, and teachers. When a politician contends "the American people" want X, he is clearly advocating X, maintaining that he or she embodies the will of the populace.
There is no equivalence between Barack Obama's statement and Mitt Romney's statement, nor a resemblance between Mark Halperin and a journalist.
Appearing on yesterday evening's edition of "Hardball" (transcript here), Mark Halperin generously provided a superb example of what Paul Krugman has referred to as
the cult of 'balance,' the insistence on portraying both parties as equally wrong and equally at fault on any issue,never mind the facts. I joked long ago that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read "Views Differ on Shape of Planet."
The relevant part of the exchange between Halperin and Chris Matthews focused on the President's upcoming job speech and begins
Let me go to Mark first. Mark, I guess the simple question is, should the president go down the middle and offer up something that the Republicans will at least nibble at, or should he offer something so broad and New Deal that they`ll obviously reject it, but the American people on the Democrats` side will love it? What should he do?
MARK HALPERIN, "TIME," MSNBC SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: Chris, I think he should do whatever he thinks is most likely to create jobs. And my sense is, which it`s been through all year, is the thing that`s most likely to create jobs is finding common ground between John Boehner and Barack Obama.
I think the way the speech has been led up to, the things that are likely to be in the speech, the Republicans pre-reaction to what`s going to be in the speech, all suggest that this speech, even if it`s brilliantly delivered, is not going to produce the kind of bipartisanship that is required to get something approved by John Boehner, Harry Reid and Barack Obama.MATTHEWS: But there`s a conflict. I know you know this, but there`s a conflict in what you just said. You said he should offer up a bipartisan offering, knowing it will be rejected.HALPERIN: No, I think he should -- I think they should have been consulting with the Republicans all along. I don`t think it`s too late. But to go in and give the speech that it seems like he`s going to give, offering up new spending -- massive spending proposals with nothing on the other side that Republicans could say would be a trade-off that they -- they -- would be worth taking for them, I think is, again, going to lead again to the kind of gridlock and partisanship and bickering that isn`t going to solve the problem.
Krugman diagnosed the symptoms of the problem in which "nebulous calls for centrism" are made by people "who recognize the dysfunctional nature of modern American politics but refuse, for whatever reason, to acknowledge the one-sided role of Republican extremists in making our system dysfunctional. "
A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.
A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).
Certainly, Republican presidents consistently expand the size of the federal government just as GOP governors, when their states are flush with revenues, expand the size of the governments they preside over. But for reasons both good and bad, the Democratic Party is seen by the American public and the media as the party of government and the Republican Party as the party against government. The GOP has motive to sabotage the reputation of government and works to make government fail, all the more to demonstrate to the electorate that government cannot, will not, succeed.
Into that environment steps the man heralding "we are the change we've been waiting for." In August, heslammed "partisan brinkmanship" and "dysfunctional government." Later in the month, the Presidentmaintained "what we've seen in Washington the last few months has been the worst kind of partisanship, the worst kind of gridlock. And that gridlock has undermined public confidence and impeded our efforts to take the steps we need for our economy."
On Labor Day, the President declared "the time for Washington games is over." Oh, he did add "we're going to see if congressional Republicans will put country before party," as if unaware of the answer to his own question and could shame the GOP into responsibility. In 2009, Senator Jim DeMint said that the Obama health care proposal would be Barack Obama's Waterloo. The Senate Majority Leader saidthat his primary goal- not political goal, but goal- is to defeat President Obama. But for President Obama, the target (at least rhetorically) has been government, or partisanship, or Washington, not unlike the GOP's main target of the past 31 years.
Addressing the debt wrangling at his recent news conference (transcript here), President Obama noted "over the last few weeks, the Vice President has been leading negotiations with Democrats and Republicans on this issue, and they've made some real progress in narrowing down the differences." That was after he remarked "there are also a number of steps that could be taking right now on items that historically have had bipartisan support" and "many of these ideas.... enjoy bipartisan support;" and before he urged everyone to "tackle" entitlements and "spending in the tax code," two aims virtually every Repub legislator agrees with.
But- o my goodness! Characteristically non-confrontational, Obama avoided adding "this is my demand" or even "any deal will include" and instead said, nay pleaded
I think it's only fair to ask an oil company or a corporate jet owner that has done so well to give up a tax break that no other business enjoys.
A popular proposal, requested diplomatically, even nicely, by the President. Still, GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum criticized "from the man who would bring Washington together," "the most ugly, divisive press conference I've ever seen froma President," who "poured acrimony." Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)- who knows better- offered "maybe if he would just take a Valium and calm down and come on down and talk to us it might be helpful."
Santorum increasingly appears, as he did to a lesser extent during his losing U.S. Senate race, frightfully frustrated that his ideas aren't getting through to anyone. The thrust of Santorum's remark, as Digby understands,
is the basis of GOP strength: Obama promises to bring the two sides together, they refuse to cooperate and then blame him for failing to fulfill his promise. Meanwhile the Village media tut-tuts themselves into a frenzy if he's the tiniest bit confrontational and the country blames him right along with the Republicans because they hate the fighting and believe Gloria Borger when she tells them both sides are acting like children.
Roberts' crack, less sincere and more focused than that of Santorum, prompted Taylor Marsh to quip
I'm not going to say Sen. Roberts is equating Pres. Obama with a hysterical woman in need of a tranquilizer, which is straight out of Roberts' generation, but his remark clearly insinuates that Barack Obama was out of control, in over his head and too immature to control himself without pharmaceuticals.
It's a cheap shot at the nearly-elderly generation , but let's not quibble. In suggesting an analogy to the "hysterical woman in need of a tranquiizer,: Marsh is (probably unintentionally) being polite. while Santorum is shocked! shocked! that Barack Obama has not been able to unite 300 million, mostly diverse, Americans, Roberts suggests a minor tranquilizer for President Obama. The tranquilizer for the woman, the tranquilizer for the man: the Angry Black Man. (Marco Rubio of Florida added "It was rhetoric, I thought, that was more appropriate for some left-wing strong man than for the president of the United States." "Left-wing strong man"- from abroad, get it?)
Not that Roberts, Santorum, or their political party is racist. Nevertheless, they have subtly raised the issue of race. These guys may march in lockstep to oppose President Obama but if media personalities are waiting for any of them to blurt out "I don't like Barack Obama because he's black," they're going to have a long wait. Widespread condemnation would follow.
Instead, Santorum and Roberts couched their criticism in ludicrous, but politically safe, phraseology. Less wisely, Mark Halperin, inaccurately assured by Joe Scarborough that his remark would be filtered, was suspended when he incautiously characterized the President. Greg Sargent was unfazed by Halperin's language, caring less about
use of the word "dick" than I do about the argument he and Joe Scarborough were making- that Obama somehow stepped over some kind of line in aggressively calling out the GOP for refusing to allow any revenues ina debt ceiling deal. This notion that Obama's tone was somehow over the top- when politics is supposed to be a rough clash of visions- is rooted in a deeply ingrained set of unwritten rules about what does and doesn't constitute acceptable political discourse that really deserve more scrutiny. This set of rules has it that it should be treated as a matter of polite,legitimate disagreement when Michele Bachmann says deeply insane things about us not needing to raise the debt limit, but it should be seen as an enormously newsworthy gaffe when she commits a relatively minor error about regional trivia. This set of rules has it that it should be treated as a matter of polite, legitimate disagreement when Republicans continually claim that Dems cut $500 billion in Medicare in a way that will directly impact seniors, even though fact checkers have pronounced it misleading, but it should be seen as "demagoguery" when Dems argue that the Paul Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it.
Like crude and flip sexual innuendo, allusion to race should not be a firing offense. But however well hidden, race is a part of our political discussion, to be acknowledged, then considered in the context of what Sargent terms "a rough clash of visions" that characterizes American politics."
They call it conventional wisdom because it's conventional and nearly obligatory; wise, it's not.
Mark Halperin is vying with David Broder as the Dean of Conventional Wisdom inside the beltway. In a post published 8/23 on time.com, Halperin had written
Amid a flurry of Democratic Party news releases and press conferences warning voters that Republicans are targeting Social Security for destruction, the President devoted his radio and Internet address last week to commemorating the 75th anniversary of the signing of the law that created the program. He cautioned that "some Republican leaders in Congress don't seem to have learned any lessons" from the past and are "pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress." This familiar refrain might indeed help the Democrats limit their midterm losses, but Obama's involvement shows that on this issue he is putting party before bipartisanship and that he sometimes can be tone-deaf to the human element required to change Washington's acid culture.
It is clear why Democrats are raising the specter of Republican efforts to alter Social Security. This tactic has worked in the past, as older voters — who typically turn out at the polls in higher percentages, especially in midterm years — tend to trust Democrats more than Republicans to protect the cherished retirement program. And given the weak economy, Obama's mushy poll numbers and the lack of traction on the White House's legislative achievements, it is no surprise that Democratic leaders would turn to the tried-and-true tactic. Also, with some prominent Republicans still calling for a fundamental change to the system by adding private accounts, the GOP has opened itself up to political attack.
But Obama is living in a parallel Vulcan universe if he thinks he and his strategists can spend the next two months using campaign appearances, advertising, robocalls and other voter communication to demonize Republicans on Social Security, and then turn around in January and try to make a deal on that same issue.
A bipartisan partnership on Social Security — as on every other tough issue, including Afghanistan, immigration, energy, education, deficit reduction and jobs — is going to require trust: trust between the President and Republican leaders to stand up jointly to the extreme forces in Congress and at the grass roots in both their parties, meet in the center, take some political risks and find creative compromises to get things done. On Social Security, that means Obama will have to support raising the retirement age and cutting some benefits, while Republicans will have to back some increased taxation. And they will have to work together and present a united front.
It is hard to imagine that Obama can be the leader of such a process in 2011 if he takes the current, sky-high level of personal and political mistrust and elevates it further by using Social Security as a weapon of distortion in September and October. And yet it appears that the White House believes there is no contradiction or connection between those two sequential presidential goals. Obama may be a hyper-rational guy, but his current rhetoric on Social Security defies logic if he wants to have a productive 2011.
The "cherished retirement program" to which Halperin refers is probably the most popular governmental program in American history, one which soon after enactment lifted much of a generation out of poverty and which, along with that other dreaded "entitlement," Medicare, continues to keep our nation's elderly out of poverty. As something our sainted free market system is increasingly unable to do for the non-elderly, the task is clear: Social Security's success must be stopped and woe to the politician insufficiently bipartisan to join the effort.
Raising the retirement age or cutting benefits to "save Social Security" is unnecessary and dangerous. The life expectancy of Americans is greater than in the past primarily because fewer individuals die in in youth, as infants or otherwise. And Republicans never, never are going to support raising any taxes to save a social insurance program many in their party were opposed to in the beginning and now are lining up behind Rep. Paul Ryan to privatize out of existence. At the supposed "deficit reduction commission," focus has been placed on Social Security, which by law pays its own way and adds nothing to the deficit. Its Repub members have risen as one to demand: no tax increase, only benefit reductions- and by the way, we want corporate and capital gains taxes cut. Let no means to slice and dice the middle class get neglected.
As with the GOP's effort to undermine a popular government program, so it goes with everything- everything else in Washington. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has spilled the beans in an exchange with the National Journal's Major Garrett (as noted by thinkpProgress.org):
MCCONNELL: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NATIONAL JOURNAL: What’s the job?
MCCONNELL: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
(Until recently, Garrett was at Fox News. Maybe McConnell was lured into complacency- or honesty.)
Later, McConnell would recognize his gaffe and claim elimination of the Obama presidency is merely the party's most important political job. Too late, though: in the National Journal interview, McConnell already had admitted "our single biggest political goal is to give our nominee for president the maximum opportunity to be successful."
The most important thing the GOP wants to achieve: defeat of President Obama. Its single biggest political goal: to get its nomineee elected. Pretty clear, there.
It is so clear that even former U.S. Representative Joe Scarborough (R-Fl) was aghast, referring, evidently, to McConnell's admission as "embarrassing" and goal as "pathetic" (video below from MSNBC via Crooks and Liars).
Mark Halperin, amazingly, is oblivious to the obvious, perhaps living in his own "parallel Vulcan universe." President Obama, as an experienced community organizer, is there to negotiate and compromise, eager to get a half, even a third, of a loaf and declare victory. That's his route "to have a productive 2011." The guys on the other side are there to make sure he's not around more than another two years- nothing more. And they just told you so.
