Why Compromise Doesn't Work In Washington Anymore

For most of last week, I--like most Americans--spent much of my time trying to better understand the debt ceiling debate going on in this country. I listened to party rhetoric and pundit analysis, and--after filtering through soaring hyperbole and disgraceful hypocrisy coming from both sides of the aisle--arrived at the following general synopsis of what was going on: we needed to raise the debt ceiling to avoid a default on our nation's loans which would in turn likely have staggeringly negative economic consequences that would be felt both at home and abroad. We were told that failure to pass legislature to perform a simple budgetary act that has been done seventy-four times since 1962 would generate a series of financial crises in our country, most notably that a. our stock markets would see significant decline, and b. that our nation's credit rating would be downgraded from the lofty AAA rating it possessed at the time. After a series of negotiations that ranged from shaky (at best) to childish (sadly, this may not be the worst), Congress managed to agree on a final compromise that neither side particularly liked and that left out many provisions that key economists felt were necessary to hold off economic distress. President Obama signed the bill into law on August 2nd, narrowly avoiding default. And those two major economic crises--the stock market drop and the rating downgrade--that this compromise bill was supposed to prevent? Well, a mere three days after the implementation of the plan, both of these two situations had occurred.

Wait, what?

Yes, despite the rather tepid legislation put forward earlier this week, our nation managed to see both the worst market week since 2008(S&P 500, Nasdaq) / 2009(Dow) and the downgrading of our credit by Standard and Poor's to AA+ rather than AAA. Bear in mind that while these market years may seem relatively close, they came during the worst part of the early economic recession and so represent some of the worst performances in market history. Further, while the credit rating still falls as the second highest rating possible, the downgrade still marks a significant first in our nation's history, ensuring that foreign nations will lose confidence in American investments and placing confidence our nation's credit rating lower than that of corporations such as ExxonMobil and Johnson & Johnson. Apparently, the guys who make shampoo are better off at delivering on their financial commitments than the United States government. These issues are significant, and I imagine they will continue to develop for the next few weeks and months. It seems, then, that the compromise package put together at the last minute by Congress failed to prevent some of the main points it was designed to do. As we enter the weekend, and begin to reflect on what our next step is, it's worth asking ourselves: how did we get here?

I don't want to spend a lot of time analyzing the debt negotiations. It's been done already by many people smarter--and, to be fair, many people dumber--than I am, and at this point much of it seems moot. I do, however, feel it's worth commenting on the performance of three groups in these negotiations: the Obama White House with the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, and the Tea Party. I feel, like many do, that all three groups are somewhat to blame for the ineffectiveness of this piece of legislation. I disagree, however, with the sentiment that all three share the blame equally, or even close to it. Rather, in ascending order of responsibility, I feel the above listing of parties corresponds accurately to the fault at hand, albeit without the magnitudes of difference between them.

So, starting with the party I blame the most: the Tea Party. For the past couple of years, the Tea Party has seen a rise in prominence on the national stage, due primarily to the media's constant coverage of their ascent and their ability to motivate members of the radical right to political involvement. In the 2010 election cycle, they managed to get elected conservative Republicans whose beliefs line up far more with Ayn Rand than with their hero, Ronald Reagan. These far-right representatives--and they are relatively few in number, certainly far below either the Democrat or moderate Republican contingent--managed to hijack the debt negotiations and pull the final project far further to the right than anyone expected. By putting forward economic views that so completely fail to understand how our economy works through their delusional haze of hyper-partisan fantasy, they managed to take rational proposals from both sides and remove all revenue increases that had any potential for fiscal growth. The fact of the matter is, and everyone from Paul Krugman to Ronald Reagan realized this, you can't combat national debt without raising taxes. The Tea Party, it seems, has decided that government can do no right, and so managed to sway Congress until such increases were no longer an option. They bullied, whined, and threatened until their moderate Republican colleagues stepped away from a reasonable starting plan and walked into an economic maelstrom of ill-conceived spending cuts and poorly-designed economic plans. And while I despise them for their continual work to ensure the downfall of the American democracy as we know it, I can't help but feel like some of this blame falls on...

The Republican Party, whose failure to take a stand and represent the majority of the moderate right borders somewhere between cowardice and idiocy. I believe, with a pretty high level of confidence, that the majority of self-identified Republicans in this country fall much more in line with John Boehner and Mitch McConnell than Eric Cantor and Michelle Bachmann. So how did the latter wind up upstaging the former in this debate? Simple. The Tea Party fought better. They managed to do what Democrats and Republicans have failed to for the past decade or so: they decided that making a noisy, unwavering stand was more important than irritating some members of their district. While Boehner and McConnell were worried about being re-elected when their terms end--as they still should be--the Tea Party was saying whatever it wanted, hoping that they would strike a chord with the fringe, and they did. So, suddenly, the concern for Republicans was not "how do we pass a bill that helps America," it was "how do we pass a bill that gets us re-elected?" As a result, Boehner stepped away from plans he supported that included revenue hikes along with spending cuts in order to grab onto the Tea Party Express as it careened wildly down a path of fiscal irresponsibility. If the negotiations showed one thing about the Republican party, it was this: John Boehner should hand over Speaker of the House to Eric Cantor. It's obvious the former holds the position only in title only; Cantor has become the silent head of the House Majority Party.

Which brings us to the Democrats, a party about which I feel the same way a parent does when their child does something unbelievably stupid: I'm not angry, I'm just disappointed. Because to be angry, the Democrats would have to have done something so out of character for them that caused some level of shock in me. Rather, they handled this the way they handled most negotiations under Bush the latter and similar debates--on both fiscal and social issues--under Obama: they started in the middle and negotiated to the right, rather than starting on the left and negotiating to the center. I'm not sure if it's naivety or inexperience, but our president seems to think that by starting at the center, he will be met there. That's not how negotiating works. You don't start off at the price you're willing to buy a car for; you lowball and hope that after some back and forth you settle at a middle ground that's actually what you hoped for. President Obama started off by endorsing a "balanced proposal" with massive spending cuts and moderate tax increases, rather than a far-left proposal with few cuts and massive revenue increases, and worked his way to the right. Ask any business school graduate: that's poor negotiating that borders on stupidity.

The party with which I most frequently ally myself managed to do what it does best: collapse under pressure. I don't know where the Democratic Party goes from here, but I do know this: a CBS poll in late July suggested that 71% of Americans thought the GOP were mishandling the negotiations, while a Daily Caller article stated that almost 70% of Americans thought that taxes should be raised on "businesses that own private jets, oil and gas companies, [and that we should] end the federal subsidies that those businesses receive," yet somehow the GOP got the bulk of their requests while the will of a supermajority of Americans fell through the cracks. Only the Democrats could take such significant public approval and fail so spectacularly. You know, I take it back: I'm disappointed, but I'm angry too. I want the Democratic Party to succeed, but with strategies like the ones employed in the debt ceiling negotiations, I can't say that the party leaders are as strongly devoted.

So, in a few paragraphs, that's my take on the negotiations: crazy beat moderate, and our nation is paying the price already. In a political system where the moderates are worried about a few fringe members, rather than the fringe being marginalized by the opinions of a vocal majority, perhaps it should come as little surprise that the political compromise we saw in these negotiations differed from the compromises we saw under Reagan and Clinton. When high-ranking members of the right claim that their main goal in the negotiations was not to avoid a financial catastrophe but rather to ensure that President Obama "is a one-term president,"there is virtually no chance you'll see honest cooperation across the aisle. When the Tea Party feels that they cannot win until all left-leaning politicians are out of power and government has disappeared entirely--except, of course, for the part that legislates against pro-choice health options and same-sex marriage--then we cannot have civil discourse on the way to forward-thinking national development.

Jon Stewart may have summed up the Tea Party best this week on The Daily Show when he suggested that "government isn't perfect. But some people wish it was better, not gone." We are living in uncertain and unstable times. We struggle daily with questions of fiscal, social, and national security. But the gradual decline of the United States over the past decade has come not as a result of government spending or the legalization of same-sex marriage or international terrorism. When politicians decided that their personal re-election was more important than their constituents' needs, when being a politician became a career rather than an opportunity, that's when we started to see the collapse of the American political system. It's a shame the bulk of Congress has decided that serving their next term matter more than serving their present one, and the American people are suffering as a result. It's pathetic that holding on to their job matters more to Congress than generating long-term economic reform.

And it's tragic that while a few politicians are trying to keep their jobs, millions of ordinary Americans are losing theirs.

"You Won't Destroy Us"

Today, the nation of Norway fell victim to two terrorist attacks which have thus far claimed the lives of eighty Norwegian citizens and hospitalized dozens more. The first attack was a bombing on a government building in Oslo--which damaged the Prime Minister's office, though he was away from his workspace at the time--and the second took the form of a lone gunman opening fire on a youth camp organized by the ruling Labour Party. Though separate in time and space, authorities believe the two attacks to be connected; while no organization has publicly claimed responsibility for the attacks, police believe that there is a definite link between the two attacks. This belief is supported by timing, target, and the fact that Anders Breivik, a thirty-two year old Norwegian man presently being held in custody, matched descriptions of a man seen outside the Oslo building just prior to the explosion there. The man--from what early reports have been able to confirm--acquired the clothing of a policeman, established a fake checkpoint, then opened fire on the assembled crowd with an automatic weapon in an act that killed dozens at the camp. This attack was unexpected, cowardly, and--at least in this writer's opinion--a failure.


In a mood that appears to reflect the one felt in the United States following the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, Norway has been left reeling in a combination of sorrow and confusion in the wake of these attacks. The terrorist attacks are like nothing known to the country in recent years; the last time Norway suffered an attack of such a numerical scale on its own soil came during World War II. This confusion is compounded by the fact that no known terrorist organization has yet taken credit for the two attacks. Though police were able to capture and detain Breivik, who opened fire on Utoya Island--site of the Labour-run youth camp--this afternoon, they have not yet been able to confirm his involvement in the Oslo bombing, if he was working alone or with a group, or what the motive might have been for his attack. 


Out of all the questions surrounding the attacks today, the question of motive might very well be the most important unanswered one. After all, identifying the specific complaint may lead authorities to a group capable of and intent on carrying out attacks like those seen today. Given the targets chosen--buildings housing the office of the Prime Minister and a camp run by his party--there appears to be a political motive, likely stemming from a series of governmental decisions with which the unnamed Norwegian assailant disagreed, but at this point such a motive can only be classified as informed speculation. Reuters is reporting that, based on the targets of the attacks and statements made by Breivik, the man may be part of a "right-wing" militant group, but this has yet to be confirmed. Norwegian authorities know the "what" and "where" at this point, but the extent of the "who" and the truth of the "why" seem to presently remain unknown.


In times such as these, citizens tend to look towards the leader of their nation for words of guidance and comfort. Today, such words came from Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store, who told the Norwegian media that although "today, free government was attacked, freedom of association was attacked, the spirit of youth was attacked...we will kick back and say that these are values that are dear to us, and we intend to defend them and Norway will be recognizable tomorrow as the Norway our friends and partners around the world have known so far." The quote was part of a longer speech, but this excerpt stood out to me, in part because of it's resemblance to another head of state's response to an act of terrorism on his soil: "Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature, and we responded with the best of America, with the daring of our rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give blood and help in any way they could." President George W. Bush's address to the American people the night of Sept. 11, 2001 contained a beacon of hope to the American people, and his speech the following day--which, arguably, was likely the best speech he delivered while in office--served not just to let us know what had happened but to remind us that we were stronger than any radical fringe group, that our national resolve would not be weakened through the loss of buildings and lives. Mr. Store's statement mirrors this message, and his words served to offer comfort and hope to a nation still trying to make sense of a horrific and senseless attack. 


There is a terrific episode of Aaron Sorkin's The West Wing--a show which I imagine will be referenced from time to time on this page--called Isaac and Ishmael, in which the White House is put into "crash mode" when a staffer appears on a terrorist watch list. This action traps everyone in the building inside, including a group of teenagers from the Presidential Classroom program. The students are entertained by various members of the staff, but perhaps the most powerful moment comes from a scene where White House Deputy Speechwriter Sam Seaborn is asked what strikes him most about terrorism. After thinking for a moment, Seaborn replies "its 100% failure rate." He goes on to explain that "not only do terrorists always fail at what they're after, they pretty much always succeed in strengthening whatever it is they're against," noting that terrorists tend to succeed in killing people but fail to kill ideas and beliefs. 

That, perhaps, is the one ray of hope we can take away from the tragic events of today. The goal of these attacks was not to blow up a building in Oslo, or to kill dozens at a youth camp. These actions were a means of achieving a larger goal: the destruction of the ideas rooted deep at the heart of the Labour Party and the Norwegian government as a collective. Today, the terrorists were successful in their means, but were complete failures in achieving their goal. The Norwegian Labour Party is still standing; the Prime Minister lived to issue a condemnation of these attacks, and the people of Norway--rather than collapsing under the fear they must be experiencing--have come together in a showing of national unity to prove to the world that they stand together against such senseless violence. 

In his address following the attacks, Prime Minister Stoltenberg announced to the terrorists that "you won't destroy us. You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked." Today's attacks took the lives of dozens of Norwegian citizens in a deplorable display of violence and bloodshed. Yet the values that the Norwegian people stand for--the ideals of strength, pride, and national unity--have not been defeated but rather strengthened, through the resolve of a nation that refuses to surrender in the darkest of times.

And in doing so, Norway has ensured that terrorism's failure rate remains at 100 percent. 




Edited To Include The Name of Anders Breivik

The Tube Is Flickering Now

Edward R. Murrow's speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in 1958 conveyed a simple yet haunting message. At the time, the television was rapidly evolving from a new and unpredictable piece of technology into a beacon with connections into the lives of millions and the potential to impact those millions through the programming it displayed. Yet television, Murrow believed, was at the risk of becoming nothing more than a source of light-hearted entertainment devoid of honest and in-depth journalism--the type of journalism he sought to embody on CBS' See It Now while fighting Sen. McCarthy's anti-communist stance. In Murrow's eyes, television programming was dictated not by intellectuals striving to improve the public but rather by advertisers seeking to reach as many potential clients as possible, and programming was suffering as a result. His speech at the RTNDA conveyed this analysis and the fear that we as Americans were "currently wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent. We have currently a built-in allergy to unpleasant or disturbing information. Our mass media reflect this." He expressed his concern that the images broadcast across the airwaves had become so diluted and monetized that their message was being lost in the quest; instead of news being broadcast brightly across Farnsworth's cathode ray tubes, the information--like the vessel it appeared on--was beginning to flicker and dim. For Murrow, "the tube [was] flickering."

The tube is flickering now.

We live in an era of twenty-four-seven news coverage. At any point, we can turn on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, or any one of the many full day news networks that seek to provide as much watchable content over the course of the day as possible; networks stretch shows--reairing them with frequency to fill hours without programming--and wrap snippets of questionable reporting around increasingly frequent, increasingly loud advertisements. These networks all more or less have the same source stories to work with, so they persist in a constant struggle to become the most watched by the public. This, after all, leads to higher ad revenue and the ultimate goal of private television: higher profits. As a result, Murrow's great fear of broadcast news--that the public would be so "complacent, indifferent and insulated" that they would reject knowledgable programming for entertaining shows--has become increasingly valid.

Television, Murrow believed, could "teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire." I believe this is true. I also believe that this sentiment holds true for radio, newspaper, and internet publications that seek to provide legitimate intellectual information to the public. But I also believe that these same sources for potential good are at risk of drowning themselves in a sea of misinformation and entertainment news. Today's internet has joined modern television on the precipice upon which Murrow's era of programming once stood.

Yet, I believe there is hope for modern news. I believe that there are journalists--on television, at newspapers, on the internet--that still seek to embody the intellectual realism that Murrow sought to encourage at the RTNDA gathering fifty-three years ago. I see what Murrow saw when he claimed there was "considerable evidence" against the idea that society is completely "wealthy, fat, comfortable and complacent." Modern media has evolved and has taken many steps in the direction Murrow sought to discourage, a direction controlled by advertisers, fearmongerers, and hyper-partisans. Considerable Evidence seeks to join those sources that strive to step away from this path and instead begin charting a new course for public information, a course dedicated to intellectualism, professionalism, and journalistic integrity. The tube Murrow spoke of has changed. The flickering he warned of has not. We have the opportunity to bring back clarity and illumination to the news. But, in the words of Edward R. Murrow, this will only occur "to the extent that humans are willing to use [media] to those ends."

The tube is flickering now.