There is an old saw of politics: "He [or
she] who controls the agenda wins the election" (or the political battle, or
the legislative contest, or what have you.") (1). And so, when during the Iraq
War Cheney/Bush wanted to raise the hundreds of billions of dollars they needed
to prosecute a war that Bush had already declared over, without raising taxes
or making expenditure cuts elsewhere, the agenda became, not something like "an
unfunded war, again --- why?" but "Support the Troops," over and over again,
from Fox"News" on up (or down, depending upon your perspective). If anyone,
Democrat or Republican (and back in those days there was an occasional
Republican like Chuck Hagel who questioned the War --- what already [as WFAN's
Steve Summers would say] you didn't know why they are going after him with such
a vengeance?), they were immediately accused of "not supporting the troops," or
worse, and that was that. No opponent, either of the war or of paying for it by
borrowing money from China ever able to get the agenda on any substantive theme
(2).
Of course the Republicans were interested
in keeping the focus on "Support the Troops," a matter of process, not
substance, for several reasons. They obviously didn't want to raise the tax
rates when one of their signature achievements was the "Bush Tax Cuts." They
never have a problem when deficits and the debt are being increased to pay for
a war (or military spending in general --- see Romney's campaign platform),
especially Cheney/Bush's Iraq War. In fact, it has been a Republican tradition
going back decades to increase the budget deficit and the national debt on
their watch, on programs like pursuing wars, hot or cold, that they like. This
is so that when the Democrats get back into office, they will inevitably be
hamstrung fiscally and will not be able to enact programs that they like in the
realm of national domestic spending, like infra-structure
construction/re-construction, expanding educational opportunity, strengthening
the so-called "safety net" to make it a bit less pitiful than it presently is, and
alternative energy supplies development
As is well-known, leading into 2009 the
GOP did the run-up-the-deficit things in spades, with the unfunded wars, the
unfunded expansion of the Medicare pharmaceuticals program, and of course the
Bush tax cuts. The genius of Republican policy and especially politics since
2009 has been first their ability to still keep the agenda focused on, not
national programmatic needs, that is substance, but the "debt and the deficit,"
that is process. For the most part,
during his first term President Obama went along with this formulation. And so the
GOP has been able to use the process agenda of "getting spending under
control," "ending deficit spending," "reducing the national debt" as the continuing
focus of all political discussion and controversy. This of course has been
combined with "no tax increases" (on which they did cave just a little bit in
resolving the so-called "fiscal cliff" crisis [3]). And then there is the other
process mantra: "shrink government" (without specifying how, while at the time screaming ever-more loudly about
expanding government in very specific areas, like everyone's beds and now even women's
vaginas. (Actually what they are after most is shrinking government regulation,
of the environment, the workplace, pharmaceuticals production, energy source
extraction, and the like, but that's another story).
Not that they have ever offered any
specifics on exactly how they would either "shrink government" or "get spending
under control," in the realms of activity in which they want to do that. And they still are not. Just the other day,
one of their supposed "rational" spokesmen, Jonathan Podhoretz of Commentary
magazine, appearing on "Morning Joe," after allowing that Republicans need to
be "more reasonable," and mentioning "immigration reform," on the agenda of
some Republicans not for reasons of principle but only reasons of politics,
when asked for specific program cuts refused to mention even one (except
"entitlements," of course, but again without any specifics). They have been
riding the process approach to political agenda setting since Reagan came to
office on the "government is the problem" mantra, always without specification.
So, imagine their horror when in his
Inaugural Address the President actually addressed specific, substantive agenda
items, for example: climate change (gulp!), infra-structure
construction/re-construction; alternative energy development; protecting the
(pitifully weak) "safety net;" immigration reform; gun-control laws; banking
reform; equal protection for women and homosexuals; further health care system
reform; and meaningful tax code changes. Ohmygosh! A debate over the specifics of government
functions is something the GOP simply cannot afford to have, because then they
would to take actual positions on the elements of the list, and others
too. And since publicizing GOP positions
on the whole of the list above would make them profoundly unpopular with many
sectors of the electorate, that is something they want to avoid like the
plague. And here is Obama, ohmygosh, going all specific, going all substantive,
on them. How unfair, how devilish in
fact.
And so they do two things. One is the casting
of epithets, widely and loudly. You
know: "liberal," "socialist," "big-government," "big spender." The purpose here
is to get the debate away from the specifics and onto the "yes he is, no he
isn't" contretemps. The other is to
get it back to the process side, on "debt" and "deficit." Unfortunately, in
recent days the President seems to be slipping back into that one, losing the
momentum he seemed to have been establishing in his inaugural address. Too bad.
(And oh yes. There is a way to deal with the debt and the deficits and get tons
of things done too. It's called the People's Budget [4]. Unfortunately, it was
not developed by two old reactionaries like Simpson and Bowles, but rather by
two old progressives like Raul Grijalva and Bernie Sanders. Which of course has
meant that it has received virtually no attention in the mainstream media since
it was first published in 2011.) Maybe someday we'll have a progressive
Democrat in the White House, who will take the debate to the substantive side
and keep it there. Alan Grayson in 2016, anyone? In the meantime, as you follow the political
debate, just think: "process" or "substance."
You will then be able to tell who is on which side, regardless of party
(because there are surely Democrats who do the process dance too), very easily.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References :
1. Jonas, S., Dr. J.'s Commentary: Controlling the Agenda, 9/10/2008, http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/jonas/126
2. Jonas, S., "Bi-Partisanship in Iraq,"
The Political Junkies, http://thepoliticaljunkies.org/tpjmagazine/2006/07/06/ideas-for-democrats-vii-bipartisanship-on-iraq .
3. Jonas, S. "Rappelling Down the Fiscal
Cliff," Dec. 12, 2012, http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17688-gop-loves-big-government-when-it-comes-to-the-military-prison-industrial-complex-and-corporate-subsidies .
4. Jonas, S., "Grover Norquist's Wet
Dream," Published on BuzzFlash@Truthout , April 15, 2011; revised, April 20, 2011,
and Feb. 6, 2013; http://blog.buzzflash.com/node/12601
