I keep hearing on the media that the November elections will be a referendum on the current economy, that Republicans will make major gains because of Obama’s failure to reduce unemployment. If so, voters need ask themselves this question.
As the partisan cable networks breathlessly discuss what will happen in the midterm elections in November, there is much talk about how Americans are angry and, as a result, the Republicans are set for major gains in Congress. But the connection between these two assertions — Americans’ dissatisfaction and GOP success — strikes me as incredibly lazy, both by the media and the voters.
Nowhere is this disconnect more clear than in the financial regulation battle, which finally concluded with a bill passing the Senate yesterday.
Americans have every right to be angry. Oil has been spewing into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months (hopefully, it’s finally been contained). Islamic extremists seek to kill Americans. We have such a muddy immigration situation, that, no matter which side of the ideological fence you sit on (pun intended), you can’t be happy with the way things currently operate.
But the main point of anger is the economy. The official unemployment rate is hovering around 10 percent (with millions more not counted because they’ve given up on looking for a job). People are concerned about their ability to pay their bills and see an unfair system that rewards Wall Street’s reckless risks while punishing middle class workers.
But if Americans want to assess blame for these woes, and if they want to choose who should help get us out of these messes, they have an obligation in a democracy to make an effort to really look at the issues before making a decision. And the media, likewise, has an obligation to sort through these complicated issues more carefully.
If the Republican campaign message for 2010 was something like, "Yes, we know that we caused all these problems in the Bush years, but we’ve learned our lesson, and now we are offering these new ideas to fix things in the future," I would understand (if not agree with) the equating of the problems with Republican gains. But that’s not what the Republicans are offering. Rather, the GOP campaign message for 2010 is essentially the same message as the Bush years, only more militant (and more wacky, thanks to the Angle-Paul tea party influence). Their pitch is built around deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and less government, the very things that got us into this mess in the first place.
The Republican congressional record for the Obama years consists of opposing any initiative the president offered (in an effort to make him look ineffectual), even if he proposed something the GOP itself had supported earlier, and to offer as solutions the same tired policies from the Bush years (tax cuts, even if they add to the deficit, as Sen. Jon Kyl suggested). That shouldn’t be a winning election argument. But with incendiary rhetoric and right-wing-propaganda-machine-fueled lies taking center stage, the focus for the midterms hasn’t been on the facts (how we got here and what the two parties have offered since).
In fact, the Republicans have been at the heart of the causes of these problems, and they have offered little other than the same policies as solutions.
Which brings us back to financial regulation, an issue directly tied to the current economic problems. We did not magically morph from prosperity to recession. Rather, the current recession and massive job loss began with the near collapse of the financial system in 2008. Wall Street played a win-lose game (they won no matter what, but we all lost) with risky financial instruments. The housing market collapsed under the weight of subprime mortgages. So the deregulation trumpeted by Republicans caused this mess, and yet the party still touts deregulation.
Certainly, Americans should be angry. And it would seem obvious that action was needed. Nevertheless, all but three Republicans in the Senate didn’t think so. Given a choice of standing with the banks or the American people, the Republicans announced their allegiance loud and clear: It is the party of the financial institutions.
So what is the Republican solution to our economic woes? Based on the actions of their leaders, it seems to be to blame the victims, cut taxes and protect the banks. Not only have Republicans opposed extending unemployment benefits, they have tried to blame the unemployed for their plight, particularly cruel since it was their policies that put them out of work in the first place. Arthur Delaney pointed out two examples in HuffPost last week: Sen. John Kyl said unemployment benefits provide a disincentive for the unemployed to seek work, and Sen. Judd Gregg claimed that unemployment insurance encourages the unemployed to stay out of work. (Again, Kyl won’t support adding to the deficit for unemployment insurance, but he is fine with doing so for tax cuts for the wealthy.)
Republicans have used increasing government debt as a pro-GOP argument. Generally, it is, of course, better for the government not to run large deficits. But the Republican argument ignores history and is overly simplistic. After all, Bill Clinton handed a surplus to George W. Bush, who proceeded to leave Obama with a gaping deficit. Republicans were happy to run up debt in the 2000s on tax cuts for the rich and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, none of which were paid for. But now that the tens of millions of Americans face unemployment, these same GOP leaders complain about the deficit and say we can’t afford any programs to help. How is it that we could afford to spend when it was for tax cuts (and still can, according to Kyl), but not to help those hurt by the Republican-policy-induced recession?
Two polls released on Tuesday showed that Americans care more about unemployment than the deficit. Which party is more concerned with each of those issues? So why should the anger translate to GOP votes? It shouldn’t.
In general, Republican policies precipitated the recession, and the party’s solutions are to offer more of the same. And when it came to deciding who to stand up for, the Republicans attacked the unemployed and stood with the banks. Americans’ anger is legitimate, but directing that anger by giving power back to the GOP is misplaced. The connection makes no sense… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
The author elucidates the same points I have been making for months. They are points we need to keep driving home over and over again. The November elections should be no contest whatsoever, based on comparative records. But the media want it to be a horse race. They make more money on advertising that way. In addition, they have their own right wing interests that set their agenda, because it is the Republicans who support consolidation of the media to concentrate the ability to control what we see and hear in the hands of a few giant corporations.
14 Responses to “At Whom Should America Be Angry?”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
TomCat,
This is a superb post overflowing with accuracy and truisms. You are absolutely correct about the media and voters both being lazy. Our media is pathetic and is dummying-down the country with its sensationalistic and shallow “reporting.” But the real villain, as always, is that lying conservative Republican Party, now aided by extremist wackos in the Tea Party. Regarding voters, I think they have a severe case of bullshit fatigue, and are also tired of nonstop political barrages. It has made them numb and susceptible to falling for the voice they hear which is loudest and most repetitive. That’s why people like you, I, and all readers of this blog must relentlessly oppose and make lots of noise about every Republican lie we encounter.
Jack, your analysis is, as always, flawless.
The media is being lazy and want to make this a horse race, but they should also be clear about where the problems came from – the Repubs. Nice post Jack, as always!
That they should, Lisa.
It’s so weird. The Repugs say, “Googboyd oisdfy oisdf ydsodfy” and the brain-dead Americans who only watch Faux Noise say, “Right! I’ve always thought that way.”
The conservatives will gain seats by babbling nonsense! How sad for us.
When media give nonsense equal weight with fact, and voters don’t care, that’s what happens.
Logic plays no part in most voters minds Tom. The polls suggest that they distrust the GOP the most, yet most say they will vote Republican. They are totally controlled by their personal economics. If they don’t have a job, then it’s Obama’s fault period. You cannot talk logic, they don’t hear you.
Sorry I don’t here often. I can’t pick up your feed in a reader, just the titles, so I have to download the entire site every time. Took me 10 minutes just to get to the comments. Sigh….
Sherry, it is indeed sad that voters are so shallow in their understanding.
I’m sorry that you have so much trouble here, due to your dialup. I had the RSS settings on Summary to encourage people to read here to make commenting easier, but I changed it to full text to enable you to use your reader.
So the voters are gonna lash out blindly at Democrats because everything still sucks (even though things have gotten a little bit better) and the Democrats are the party in power.
I had a life-threatening illness that went untreated for 8 years. Then in January of 2009 I finally had the life-saving operation I needed. But I’m still a little bit sore from the operation and there’s an ugly scar; and it’s the surgeon’s fault.
Tom, that’s an excellent analogy. My favorite is that they would put the fox in charge of the chicken coop, because the dog protected all the chickens but one.
Let’s see, who do we have to fight this super large Right wing neoteabagging hate mongers?
Hmm MSM no not them, they lay down like a scolded dog
Cnn Forget them, they want to be the next Fox
MSNBC Well they certainly try but there a peashooter in comparison to Fox.
US We try to but just blowing sand
The only way to fight them is to bring back the fairness Doctrine. At least we would have a chance to reach their pathetic Right wing brains.
Tim, the fairness doctrine was lost due to Republican deregulation. I’d love to see it return.
The horse race between the two parties is a side show. You blame one side they blame the other and nothing changes. The government has allowed the backbone of our economy, industrial jobs, to be sent to china over the past 30 years. 70% Our “production” is us buying things which is based on credit. We are now broke and so is the government. If you think that’s just a republican scare tactic look at California and Greece. Both will happen here and when it does we are in trouble. There won’t be any social security or health care for all. Or we will go up to 5o% taxation and the resulting 20% unemployment. Both parties allowed us to be raped by the banks and we will pay with our country.
Welcome Ian. I agree that both parties are to blame for job exportation, because Clinton should never have signed the GOP legislation that allowed it.
We all complain, but what solutions do you suggest?