Comic Strip of the Day

CSotD: A tomato is not a crystal ball

130108_The_Curtain_t670

Clay Bennett lays out the agenda for the next Congress and everyone else as well.

And it won't matter whether the curtain goes up on My Fair Lady or Drat! The Cat!  The critics have spoken before opening night.

It's important to differentiate, not so much between the previous Congress and this upcoming one as between making predictions and taking pot shots. There is a reason cartoonists have always mocked the gossips at weddings who, as the bride walks up the aisle, whisper, "They'll never make it."

Even if they are proved correct, their attitude is contemptible. And since they say that at every wedding, they aren't being particularly clever or insightful, either.

This rush to judgment is no different. At least in past times, it was whispered rather than shouted.

When the Republicans announced that their agenda was to bring down the presidency, the gall of saying it publicly (as opposed to simply carrying out their cunning plan sub rosa) was commented on, certainly. But I seem to recall that only Democratic partisans expressed actual horror at the public statement, while others dismissed it as partisan rhetoric.

Which doesn't mean it didn't draw some commentary on that level, as in this Mike Luckovich 2009 panel:

Crmlu091009

But note that Luckovich is commenting on the attitude of the booboisie, not the Republican party.

Once the mob was rallied into a Tea Party and had actual representation in the halls of Congress, it was game on, and, after some initial shock at the blatant partisanship, we kind of settled into an acceptance that there was nothing Obama and the Democrats could propose that the Republicans wouldn't automatically move to defeat or block.

And, of course, the talking point "They both do it" began, despite the clear fact that this hadn't happened at this level in the past and that they weren't both doing it. 

Will Rogers, the master of "they're all the same" jokes about Congress, built a career out of being the plain spoken hick who cuts through all the high-falutin' rhetoric of them thar East Coast types, but he was a stand-up comedian and a humor columnist, with a much closer kinship to Dave Barry than to Jon Stewart.

Today, those scatter-shot "plain folks" wisecracks about Congress are seen, not as rural humor, but as serious political commentary. 

As noted here a few days ago, we've come to the point where the host of a venerable and respected political talk show, "Meet the Press," insists that "leadership" means ending gridlock, even when that entails totally abandoning principle in order to placate the other side.

"Compromise" now means holding out for awhile, making a few speeches and then letting the Wookie win.

All of which makes it perfectly reasonable to assume that the next Congress will be the same as the last Congress. 

And, indeed, the Swift Boats are already being slipped into the water for Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearings.

But if there's anything more depressing than the prospects for fair dealing over the next two years, it's the widely announced, widely accepted prediction that we aren't going to have any.

If there is any place where perception becomes reality, it is in the political arena. 

And there are lots of cartoons about Boehner being unable to control House Republicans, along the line of Nick Anderson's recent entry:

Wpnan130104

But there are very few that note the increasingly tenuous grip on things that the Tea Party loyalists maintain, or the growing backlash against obstructionism and extremist ideological dogmatism, aside from some mockery of Grover Norquist, more directed at him than at the overall movement.

This Tim Eagen "Deep Cover" cartoon seems rather lonely and wistful, amid all the "watcha gonna do about it" assumptions that what has been is what will be.

Deep130103
Editorial cartoonists are supposed to shape opinion, and defeatism is a pretty poor goal to aim for. It's also a little early in the race to start tearing up your betting slips.

And lobbing tomatoes at the curtain doesn't accomplish a lot, especially when "everybody's doing it" and the rotten eggs smell pretty much the same no matter which side of the aisle they came from.

Previous Post
CSotD: … that which you can put off entirely.
Next Post
Interviewed: Mr. Media interviews Mark Anderson

Comments 8

  1. “And, of course, the talking point “They both do it” began, despite the clear fact that this hadn’t happened at this level in the past and that they weren’t both doing it.”
    Au contraire, mon frere.
    I seem to recall a recent moment of hyper-partisanship when the Democrats decided against patience and informed evaluation and instead rammed the ACA through Congress and down our throats.
    IMO, when it comes to rank partisanship, the Democrats have done it first and done it worst in _almost_ every category.
    Regards,
    Dann

  2. Dan, with all due respect, you either aren’t paying attention or you don’t know what you are talking about. Voting with the majority is democracy. That’s how it works.
    Partisanship is something entirely different.

  3. @Dann,
    The ACA that was “rammed through Congress” even included many parts that were brought in during discussions with Republicans. You don’t have to like it but passing the ACA wasn’t “first” or “worst” any way that you look at it.
    I don’t think there’s any reason to wait and seem shocked if Republicans are obstructionists again. Congress doesn’t operate in a complete bubble (although it is close). It’s only because of do-nothing, obstructionist storylines that Republicans actually started releasing their ideas like Paul Ryan’s Budget Plan. That’s probably the only thing that kept Dems in office was being able to see what would replace them.
    For how little the seats have changed from last Congress, I think there isn’t any reason to express or expect differently until they do something to earn it.

  4. Hi guys,
    I’ll skip the longer response. Y’all can thank me later. 8*)
    My larger point is that elections do have consequences. And the majority in the U.S. House is held by the GOP. They were elected in large part because they promised fiscal responsibility and spending restraint.
    As it was in the late 1990s, a divided government means that both sides have to give.
    We’ve seen US$600billion in tax hikes; $74 in taxes for every $1 of spending cuts. Mr. Obama has said that he wants a 1:1 ratio taxes:cuts. That looks to me like GOP cooperation with the President’s agenda. Yet all I see in the MSM are complaints about the GOP being the source of gridlock. IMO, an equally valid argument can be made that the problem is an uncooperative and intransigent President and Democrat-led Senate.
    From my perspective, the Democrats have committed acts of partisanship that make the GOP look like rookies. Then the GOP tries to match them, which justifies the next step in partisanship. And the cycle continues.
    Regards,
    Dann

  5. Again, Dann, and not to drag this out, but you clearly don’t understand the concept of “partisan.”
    Your instincts are good, and you’re a nice person, but your strong instinct for group loyalty, which served you well in the Corps, is blinding you to the conversation ongoing around you.
    Among rigid thinkers, there are ideologues and partisans, and they are two different things except when a party is constructed on strictly ideological lines.
    So an ideologue who is blindly committed to the First Amendment sees no difference between leaking a report that a Senator is selling military secrets to the Chinese while the CIA does nothing, publishing a map showing the homes of people with concealed carry permits or posting photographs of naked 10 year olds on a porn site.
    If his political party offered legislation outlawing kiddie porn, he would break ranks and vote his beliefs rather than his party’s position.
    By contrast, a partisan who feels that there should be reasonable constraints on the press, faced with a bill to make kiddie porn legal, would swallow his disgust and his moral questions and vote in favor of it, out of loyalty to his party.
    For someone to be elected on the promise of a health care program to promote such a program is neither rigid ideology nor rigid partisanship. It’s simply democracy.
    If he can get the votes to pass it, that’s democracy.
    And if he is willing to modify certain provisions in order to secure the votes of those who could not support the original text, that’s compromise.
    And if some people cross party lines to vote for or against it, that’s also democracy.
    Even in parliamentary democracies, which rely on partisan loyalty, there are free votes in which members are permitted to vote their consciences or the local interests of their ridings.
    But we have reached a state of partisanship in which outright, blatant lies are used to justify party loyalties — such as the “death panels” nonsense, and in which a man can propose and pass legislation as governor, brag about what a great accomplishment it is, and then, as a candidate for president, denounce it because, on the national stage, it has emerged as an accomplishment of the other party.
    That’s not ideology, because it shows no particular moral position. The only “idea” is “We want to win.” A three-year old grabbing a teddy bear from another understands that level of “ideology:” Mine!!!
    In a parliamentary democracy, the ruling party often gets its own way. England had that system in place at the time of our Constitutional Convention and we specifically set up a system that did not require lockstep party loyalty.
    You should respect it, or call a Constitutional Convention to change it.
    Meanwhile, the idea that the president did not compromise on fiscal matters is evidence of a partisanship so deep that you are blind to some very simple facts and very basic news reports. Clearly, obviously, plainly, he gave a lot of ground — in fact, he’s getting a lot of flak over how much he was willing to give up.
    To believe otherwise is not a difference of opinion. It is blind partisanship that extends to the point of nonsense.
    And there can be no arguing or reasoning when one position in the conversation is nonsensical, for whatever reason.
    (And if you weren’t basically a good guy at heart, I wouldn’t bother with all this. But your loyalty is obstructing your vision, my brother.)

  6. Partisan obstruction would be siding against legislature you supported earlier simply because the other side supported it. See: RomneyCare & McConnel’s Debt Ceiling Bill.

  7. “For someone to be elected on the promise of a health care program to promote such a program is neither rigid ideology nor rigid partisanship. It’s simply democracy.”
    And the current GOP in the House were elected in large part based on promoting fiscal restraint. Their opposition to tax increases isn’t partisan. It’s democracy.
    Also, “We want to win” perfectly describes many Democrat politicians, IMO. In particular, passing the ACA was not partisan. The manner of passage, ramming it through with so few GOP votes and lots of folks asking for more time to analyze it, was highly partisan.
    “Partisanship” swings both ways, gentlemen. And IMO, the Democrats consistently do far worse, far more often. That isn’t intended absolve the GOP for the things they do. Simply an observation that commentary on the subject in the MSM is a little lopsided relative to reality.
    Thanks to you both for your patience and kindness.
    B/R,
    Dann

  8. Erg…sorry….too much time to think during my workout.
    Why does the issue of misreporting matter now?
    Our nation is running deficits in excess of $1trillion per year. That is clearly unsustainable.
    We have the GOP in Congress that have agreed to roughly $90billion in tax increases that they don’t want.
    We have a President and Democrats in the Senate that have agreed to roughly $1.5billion in spending cuts that they don’t want.
    Neither of them is solving the problem. And by focusing on the theoretic partisanship of the GOP, the media is short circuiting the necessary public debate over what steps need to be taken to resolve the deficit issue.
    Some sort of fund raising graph like the United Way uses with crying babies complaining about their “sacrifices” would probably make a real good political cartoon as it would keep the problem in focus, it would demonstrate what has been done thus far, and who is unwilling to compromise. I’m not holding my breath.
    B/R,
    Dann

Comments are closed.

Search

Subscribe to our newsletter

Get a daily recap of the news posted each day.