SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Why The Media Loves Deficit Reduction

JONATHAN CHAIT FEBRUARY 18, 2010

Why The Media Loves Deficit Reduction

The news media has a lot of biases, but the most pronounced is a bias in favor of fiscal conservatism. I mean the term in its old fashioned sense -- the belief in the primacy of balanced budgets. Indeed, this point of view is so widespread among elites, including the news media, that they fail to recognize it as a point of view at all.

Take a look at Brian Williams' interview with Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, co-chairman of the new debt commission. I should note that, broadly speaking, I agree with Bowles and Simpson, in that I would like for their preferred policy mix to succeed (though I highly doubt that it can, politically.) There are, however, ideological opponents on both the left and the right. Yet you'd think from the interview that Simpson and Bowles were involved in some kind of non-controversial charitable endeavor rather than a political project with an ideological point of view.

Here is a list of every question Williams asks in the interview:

Erskine, I'll give you the first question.  What does it say that the co-chairs I'm looking at, neither of whom are running for anything nor hope to in the near future?

Senator Simpson, it's been said this ought to be on the scale of a Marshall plan, but we don't have a war to point to or an Apollo program.  And we don't have a rocket to point to.  How do you get people who are worried about jobs and health care-- to be outraged about this?  How do you get people energized in this cause?

How do you get the parties off the dime?  You know the lines in the sand that both parties have set.  The Democrats, "This is an oversimplification."  The Democrats don't want to touch entitlement spending.  The Republicans don't want to touch taxes.  This is gonna take a little bit or a lot from everybody.

And Senator Simpson, you-- said a quote not long ago that's already-- become quite famous.  "There isn't a single member of Congress, no one, who doesn't know where this is headed."  When people hear that, that sure sounds like-- a lack of courage, if everybody knows what's happening here.

But senator, think of how politics has changed.  Let me throw out a few names.  Bob Michel, Mac Mathias, Alan Simpson.  Where are they all today?

Erskine Bowles, how do you get people to pay attention to this commission?  I'm thinking most recently of the findings of the 9/11 commission, which I think if most Americans read it-- sat down, read it start to finish, would still come as something as a surprise to them.

Final-- final question for both of you, Erskine first.  Sum up how serious a problem this is, when you look at-- children and grandchildren's futures in the United States.  How do you put this in terms of urgency?

There's not a question there that couldn't have been written by Simpson and Bowles themselves.

I actually think Brian Williams is pretty good. And again, I'd love it if Simpson and Bowles actually could create a sustainable bipartisan consensus to maintain tax revenues and spending at some sustainable level. But this is a political and ideological question, not an uncontestable truth.

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 2 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

2 comments

I think you might need a new title on this entry, J-Chait. You do a good job of identifying the bias (which I've read about before in TNR and elsewhere) but peter out before you get to the "why" part. I believe the last time I heard an answer to that question, it was "because at the highest levels, members of the media establishment are extremely rich, thus more inclined to be skeptical of scary populist ideas like tax hikes on the wealthy, or budget deficits that threaten their investment portfolios."

- austinexpat

February 18, 2010 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A better explanation is that debt reduction gives the media an opportunity to tar both Democrats and Republicans equally. All that "evenhandedness" talk gives them a feel-good high. Never mind the verifiable truth that in the last 40 years only Democratic presidents, not Republicans, have left office with lower debt/GDP than when they entered. "Deficits don't matter", etc. But when in practice "deficit reduction" means "constraining the Democratic agenda" while simultaneously doing nothing to constrain irresponsible Republican tax cuts (which amount to the whole of their agenda), it ceases to be a nonpartisan goal. Rather, it's a partisan cudgel with which to beat the status quo into forward-thinking Democrats.

- thetraytiger

February 19, 2010 at 11:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close