Questionable Assertions Analysis
P. Schultz
April 8, 2013
Here are some of the “questionable
assertions” I detected in an article in the NY Times on this date. The article
is entitled in part, “Obama Must Walk Fine Line….”
“The challenge for Mr. Obama became
evident as soon as he took office, when Republicans almost unanimously opposed
his economic stimulus package even as the recession was erasing nearly 800,000
jobs a month. The author Robert Draper opened his recent book about the House,
“Do Not Ask What Good We Do,” with an account from Republican leaders who dined
together on the night of Mr. Obama’s 2009 inauguration and agreed that the way
to regain power was to oppose whatever he proposed.”
I do not doubt that this dinner and
conversations took place but am doubtful that the Republicans were being
genuine when they “agreed that the way to regain power was to oppose whatever
he proposed.” The results of the 2012 presidential election would seem to
undercut this analysis and it would seem that those results were not too
difficult to predict. Thus, it would seem that the Republican strategy was
simply a mistake or, more likely, was aimed at achieving something other than
regaining power. For example, it might just be a way to preserve, as nearly as
possible, the status quo, suspecting that Obama and the Democrats would play
along for the same reason, an interest in preserving the status quo. And by
opposing whatever Obama proposed, they could make their stance in favor of the
status quo look like they were concerned with genuine political change. By
playing along, Obama would look like he was stymied in his attempts at genuine
political change while actually being content with the status quo.
Now, insofar as this is accurate, then the following assertion
is less than persuasive:
“Members of both parties say Mr. Obama
faces a conundrum with his legislative approach to a deeply polarized
Congress.”
If both the Republicans and the
Democrats are interested more in preserving the status quo than in genuine
political change, then the Congress is not “deeply polarized.” Of course, as
this is the linchpin of most analyses today, this suggestion will be dismissed
out of hand by most people. Again, by acting as if they were deeply polarized,
the Republicans and Democrats can pretend to be interested in genuine political
change while being unable to accomplish it, along with even accomplishing a
modicum degree of genuine political change. And “all or nothing” strategy
guarantees that nothing, or almost nothing, will happen. And, unless you were
satisfied with almost nothing, why choose this strategy? Genuine political
change can come in doses or stages; it need not come all at once. Everyone
knows this, including of course those we have elected to the Congress and the
White House.
Of course,
the American people seem to be aware of the shell game being played at their
expense. A poll by the Pew Research Center bears this out, as 56% of those
polled agreed that the political system is not at fault; rather, it is the
members of the Congress who are “the problem.” Of course, what the people
polled may not be aware of is that what they conceive to be “the problem,” the
members of the Congress perceive to be “the solution!” And they may also not be
aware of the degree to which the system favors incumbency and, therefore,
undermines attempts to “solve the problem” as it is conceived by the people.
“When asked if the current problem with
Congress is a broken political system, or the members themselves, most people
continue to point to the lawmakers. A majority (56%) says that the political
system can work fine, it is the members of Congress that are the problem. Only about
a third (32%) says that lawmakers have good intentions and it is political
system that is broken.”
No comments:
Post a Comment