Our federal government is based on a system of contention that civics textbooks call a “separation of powers.” This division leads to “checks and balances” that keep any one branch of government from overwhelming the others. For all our history, we’ve understood that without this balance, disastrous consequences would follow. We’ve also understood that checks and balances have a downside known as “gridlock.” In this state, Congress and the president block each other’s political agenda, and the status quo, however unpleasant it may be to some, holds sway. Gridlock is weakened or entirely broken only when public sentiment shifts.
A legion of op-ed gurus, media bores, and party apparatchiks would have us believe that very severe gridlock is what Washington suffers from today. Nothing could be further from the truth. Gridlock presupposes civil discourse in which each side has difficulty in convincing the other to change or compromise strongly held beliefs. What we have instead is a faction in the House threatening violence to our economy—and hence to the well-being of the nation—and demanding, “Mr. President, give us what we want or we’ll harm everyone. In fact, we’ll even harm ourselves, because the harm will drive the nation further into debt and probably cost us our good names and political careers!” No, there’s nothing civil here. This is fear-based negotiating, a tactic that is the signature of terrorists.
How did the House fall into the grip of such madness? It was a complicated process to be sure, involving conservative talk radio, big lies, the gullibility of the Red States, a morbid fear of societal change, and an abysmal failure of leadership. A thorough analysis of these factors would make for an interesting book, one that I don’t propose to write. I’ll be satisfied to remark only about the failure of our leadership; specifically, the failures of John Boehner and President Obama.
The best I can say about Mr. Boehner is that, unlike many of his colleagues, he may still be in touch with reality, but he has made basic human decency his second priority at best. Clearly, his first is preserving his speakership at all costs. He began his self-degradation with stupefying tolerance—tolerance of arrogance, callousness, lies, power fantasies, and self-destructive threats. Then he became the spokesman for the lies, fantasies, and threats, lending them full-throated conviction wherever the media were gathered. Whether he has become a co-opted android or merely a shameless cynic makes little difference now. He is as pathetic as he is dangerous.
Nearly equal in blame is the president. No, it’s not because he won’t “negotiate.” (Talk about Newspeak!) It’s because he has the power to stop the Republican madness dead in its tracks and won’t do so. He need only invoke Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which declares that “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law,… shall not be questioned.” It’s true that this language was meant to put to rest any notion that the Union might not pay its war debts in full, but the Supreme Court ruled long after the Civil War that it has broader application. The present crisis is the perfect opportunity to use its force. Why does the president refuse to apply it? Because, he says, our creditors might doubt this defense and buy fewer of our bonds, and then only at a higher rate of interest. How feeble an excuse! Does he really insist on a magic wand, a solution so flawless that there are no repercussions whatsoever? Isn’t it the case that any consequences would have to be measured against the catastrophe of an outright default? Where are the shades of gray in his reasoning?
I find it interesting that only last August the president was on the verge of ordering a military strike against Syria, at first (before the British bowed out) without Congressional approval. In speaking to the nation, he explained that a president has the authority to take such extraordinary action if the national security is threatened. Fine, I have no objection to that assertion. But if America were to default on its loans and cause economic chaos around the world, how secure would our nation be? Can a president uphold his office if he protects us from one kind of ruin but not from another? No. If the Republican House goes forward with their threat and President Obama remains passive, he will have broken his presidential oath of office and be rightly damned as a coward. And we the people will pay dearly for the spinelessness of our leaders.
The Scratching Post 