Crisis Talk (Mixed with "Both Sides Do It"!)

But the allure of crisis-speak is not explained simply by the media business model. For politicians in a divided land, there is great value in preserving a condition of perpetual emergency that can be blamed on your political opposite. Politicians, in other words, often get more from preserving a crisis than by fixing it. The debt ceiling is a perfect example of this idiocy.

I wrote a blog myself about the debt ceiling "crisis" and how it was a sham. That was my general sentiment throughout. 

The problem was that we couldn't wish away the House Republicans. The Biden message of no fault but that there was an ability for "both sides" to work it out gives the Republicans too much credit (even while correctly criticizing them), but there was no magical alternative.  

(Let's not ignore that the Supreme Court helped the narrow majority with their shadow docket blockage of some districting that could have changed the election map.) 

The essay, however, then goes into a "both sides do it" (and yes, partisan politics does have some of that) that does not really convince me in this case. It also only tells part of the story.  The "truth-telling" here turns out to be rather ironic, promoting a message that "enflames" without working the right way to address the underlining issues.  

True enough Secretary of the Treasury (following past efforts) supported ending the debt ceiling. I found this from 2021 on the matter.  The article shows that the Democratic House at the time was willing to raise the debt ceiling but that the Republicans in the Senate blocked it.  I am not sure how things broke down for ending it, which was never put to a vote to my understanding.  But, the issue had to go through the filibuster.

If, as noted in the essay, Republicans as a whole opposed it, how exactly would it pass? Manchin and Sinema simply refused to end the filibuster. I am wary about assuming one-sided solutions to major problems work. The death penalty and GLBTQ issues, for instance, have been addressed (including a few states ending the death penalty) with some bipartisan support. Maybe, mostly Democrats (we can imagine a comparable issue that most Republicans support with a few Democratic allies), but not completely.

But, the reality of the situation was that a 50-50 Senate last year would not have ended it.  It was not just -- as put forth in the piece -- some cynical attempt by "Democrats" to avoid having all the responsibility (itself a bit of a bullshit thing) and take away a cynical method (since they had the power to remove the problem) to blame Republicans.  No. The problem was the Republicans.  It wasn't some both sides do it deal.

I'm willing to grant that you can say it is "mostly" the Republicans.  But, that's it.  The piece itself noted how every Republican would refuse to end the debt ceiling.  Democrats don't have the sole responsibility here to be "serious adults."  We have another case where Democrats have to be completely for something (and maybe bite the bullet to compromise) and Republicans have to do little or nothing.  Or, Democrats will be part of the problem.  

Furthermore, I think Republican-leaning sentiments were a big part of not ending the debt ceiling at any rate.  I'll say that even more since the essay doesn't actually provide any support for its "cynical partisan Democrat" theory.  My general sentiment is that a lot of Democrats would have been fine with following Yellen's lead here.  It's a logical good government approach. 

The problem was not just some cynical partisan move (which I'll assume some might have thought about).  It was as much or more a combination of factors.  Manchin types saw the debt ceiling fight as a useful deficit move mixed with the belief that we should work together across party lines.  And, it was as likely some Democrats thought they would look unreasonable and not responsible.  

A lesson on structural problems and emotional-laden passions used to avoid dealing with them is fine.  The fear of deficits, for instance, leads to unreasonable positions. As Chris Hayes noted, Republicans really came out as phonies with their talk about fiscal responsibility.  Democrats criticizing them as phonies ("didn't care when Trump was there") was not some sort of partisan bullshit tactic.  It was the truth.  

The sentiment, however, is present enough on the Democratic side that a 50-50 or 51-49 Senate will be affected by it. It is not honest to avoid discussing this in a piece that -- this is his general brand and is of a type -- above fray truthteller that shows both sides are at fault. Fine to say that when justified.  

But, you should not do so when it is not. Or, at the very least, you have to do it in a less simplistic way.  

ETA: Greg Sargent, a sensible political observer (I'm not trying to contrast here) has a logical take crediting Biden's approach (leaving open some doubt -- which is fair, since the analysis game is inherently hedge-y).  

The approach was to draw a line -- we won't negotiate or touch certain basic things -- force Republicans to provide their poison pill bill (which got blanket support) and only later on be open to negotiating if the result was actually reasonable.  This shows the nuance of the situation as compared to some "well they were against negotiation until they were for it" takes. 

Biden (and it's getting to be a basic Democratic theme) has pushed the "MAGA Republicans" message (it is standard daily press conference messaging).  This line has some flexibility (some might deem it to apply to all and Biden is not too upset at that) but the idea is not ALL Republicans are MAGA.  It is a major force and a threat to republican values generally.  And, Biden is there to play the grown-up.

("MAGA" is also a general force among the Republicans. It is not just specific ones.  So, we can even imagine the usual suspects at times being able to be reasonable at times. So, Ted Cruz opposed the horrible Uganda anti-gay legislation as super-extreme.) 

A concern here is that certain Republicans will obtain some benefit from this framing as more reasonable than they deserve. I myself believe that there is a blanket blame that goes around here.  This was underlined by the few House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump being targeted.  But, again, that first party-line bill is there, along with various other things where every House Republican sticks together.

Biden and the Democrats did manage to do some bipartisan things. But, in the end, the grown-ups are still pretty clear.  The fact that some fraction of Republicans are sane at times is important.  The failure of that reasonable right-leaning middle in 2016 led to Trump winning.  Still, the credit is limited.  And, the Republicans as a whole do enough to show it.

I was not enthused with Biden in the primaries in 2020 but accept he is now the president we need. And, he is on the ball.