AND THE MEDIA ROLE IN MARKETING PARTISANSHIP
A few days ago I read online a story by Ken Strickland of NBC News, about how the Senate has shown more rancorous partisanship in the past than it currently displays. The thrust of the story, part of an informative series, was based on interviews with nine Senators who were retiring or had been defeated in primaries and won't be returning next year. Their combined views were, essentially, that despite the public image of extreme partisan politics, things were not as contentious in the Senate as they have appeared. The story stated that, historically, there have been more rancorous times. The current partisan politics image came primarily because of fights over the $800 billion stimulus program, health care reform, and greater regulation of the banking industry and Wall Street.
To me, the story had two particular annoyances.
First, as members of the world's most exclusive club, the nine exiting Senators were simply absolving themselves and fellow club members of the partisanship label that has become attached to the Senate over the past two years. Of the nine interviewed, six were Republicans and none had broken partisan ranks to support any of the three major bills that have become the litmus test of partisanship. (The stimulus bill passed with only three Republicans voting for it--Senators Collins and Snow from Maine and Specter from Pennsylvania before he switched to the Democratic party. Health care reform passed with no Republican support; financial regulation passed with three GOP votes--Collins and Snow from Maine and then newly-elected Scott Brown from Massachusetts.) And the beat goes on. Yesterday (September 14) only two Republicans--George Voinovich of Ohio and George LeMieux of Florida--voted to clear the way for Senate passage of a bill to provide $30 billion to aid small businesses, a group usually dear to the hearts of the Republicans. Republicans are simply adamant in their opposition to legislation that President Obama might claim as a victory toward job creation and speeding up economic recovery.
Naturally the six outgoing Republicans would defend themselves against any charges of Republican partisanship and obstructionism. And the three Democrats interviewed also took the club member view and defended the institution. As club members, one really should not expect them to do or say otherwise. And who knows how many of them will be returning as lobbyists and, therefore, would not like to leave on a dissonant note about their colleagues.
Second, and to me equally troublesome, is that the media itself, not just the self-serving Senators interviewed, have been a big a part of the partisanship issue. It has been the media who have importantly shaped the voter image of raw partisanship of the current Congress. Both the printed and electronic media were continually telling us about the unwillingness of GOP lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, to cross the aisle to support the stimulus program, health reform, and financial regulation proposals. Rhetorically, on how many occasions has the media focused our attention on the bipartisanship of anything?
While Obama kept sounding the call continually for bipartisanship, the media kept telling us how he was running into a stonewall in his search for GOP support on the various parts of his agenda. Partisanship was also the media focus on the nominations of two U.S. Supreme Court justices. About the closest we came to hearing about efforts at bipartisanship was when we were told how two or three Republicans had been pried loose from the party leadership and brought into negotiations in an effort to gain the necessary 60 votes to get around GOP obstructionism and have a bill considered on the floor. The Strickland article, through the interviews of exiting Senate clubbers, would have us think that maybe the partisanship of the current Senate wasn't really all that bad. Presumably Strickland himself wasn't trying to change any minds, merely giving us another perspective.
To conclude, the public perception of naked partisanship in the Senate has come from the reality of actual voting behavior on the big issues, fixed and reinforced into the our minds by the media search for the sharpest headline. It is much too late to change the public perception, particularly when the case is made by some members who are part of the problem.
So, you're saying that the perception of partisanship in the Senate is accurate, as is the conclusion that "Republicans are simply adamant in their opposition to legislation that President Obama might claim as a victory toward job creation and speeding up economic recovery." If the media have reinforced an accurate perception and conclusion, why take them to task? Perhaps to remind us of the importance of being aware how the selectivity and focus of the media can influence our perceptions of "reality?"
ReplyDeleteIt had crossed my mind that with the passage of health care and Wall Street reform (however limited and watered down in favor of vested interests)--goals that have eluded (at least with health care) several previous administrations--and with the relatively easy approval of two Supreme Court nominees, Obama has shown considerable acumen and effectiveness in getting significant measures through Congress despite the obvious efforts of the GOP leadership to deprive him (and the country) of successes. I suspect that it's greater incivility that heightens the sense that partisanship has increased.
Perhaps it's true that within the lofty confines of their exclusive club Senators from opposite sides of the aisle get along well together and even forge friendships. The public, however, is not privy to such niceties. Instead, I think a major cause of the perception of extreme partisanship derives from the incivility of Op-ertainment shows on radio and TV (Beck, Limbaugh, Fox "news," O"Reilly, Maddow, etc.) that hype partisan views and often make outlandish claims to get gullible viewers angry and excited. And then there are the examples of the tea party demonstrators shouting racial epithets at members of the Black Caucus or the incivility displayed by the likes of SC Representative Joe Wilson shouting "you lie" during the President's speech on health care to Congress last fall. Politics certainly appears less civil if not actually more partisan than 50 years ago. Still, we've had no 21st century fist fights in Congress, as this website indicates were not uncommon in previous centuries: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1161398/ready_to_rumble_greatest_fistfights.html?cat=9.
The media drumbeat has been about partisanship. If there is a case to be made for another point of view, let the media do it through their own analyses and resources, not through the self-serving voices of nine outgoing Senators who have been a big part of the problem.
ReplyDeleteDespite overcoming congressional partisanship, Obama's biggest successes have come at a big political cost, at least in the short run. Republicans in Congress, the Tea Party, etc., use the stimulus package to score points about deficit spending that shows no really reliable measure of impact on the job market. Spending and deficits have also been used against his health care reform. Add to that the right wing cry about big government taking over our lives with health care reform and increased regulation of financial markets. Spending/deficits and big government getting bigger have been the bread and butter of the right wing and it seems to be working.
Regarding civility. I agree but confined the posting to current congressional partisanship, not civility/incivility past and present within or outside of government. Although frequently violated by me, the maxim of this blog is that brevity is the soul of more than wit.
Sort of off the point but I am amused to notice that the Colorado GOP has withdrawn it's support of Dan Maes, the tea party backed GOP primary winner for governor. The GOP had called on him to drop out before the primary ballots were printed September 3rd. The big winner may not be the Dems but former GOP Rep. Tom Tancredo, running as an American Constitution Party candidate in the general election. Tancredos known for jumping the shark with his outrageous racist and homophobic statements. The tea party feels he betrayed them when he decided to run as an independent after encouraging them to work within the GOP. He had called on other GOP candidates like Maes to drop out of the primary and when they didn't he got on the ACP ballot. So is the tea party pushing the GOP to the right or splitting off the GOP vote or making it possible for third party extremists to come out ahead? Maybe all of the above.
ReplyDeleteYou're only off point by one day. Tomorrow's post will be about the Tea Party. Very interesting possibility about how all of this may work out in Colorado in terms of Tancredo being the possible beneficiary. Except for Sarah Palin and the increasingly whacko Gingrich, Tancredo is one of the wierder persons out there. His position on illegal immigrants and immigration reform were really extreme.
ReplyDelete