Beware of “Broken Government” Propaganda

Pages: 1 2

In the weeks during and since the debt-ceiling debate, the media, pushed by the Democratic Party, has peddled the propaganda that our government is broken — because the Republicans in the House of Representatives negotiated a better deal than the liberals wanted.

While it was President Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner who, during the debate, said they couldn’t assure payments of Social Security or interest on the federal debt payments (while Republican leaders guaranteed there would be no lapse in such payments) it was the GOP that the media accused of irresponsible threats.

It is par for the course for the losing side in a congressional fight to bewail the end of democracy in America. But it is rare for the major media to push and the broader public to bite on, such a line.

Yet the surprisingly gullible Wall Street and European opinion leaders bought in to that propaganda. Indeed, Standard and Poor’s downgraded U.S. Treasuries expressly on the preposterous proposition that the American governmental process was broken and unreliable. After all, a deficit bill passed without tax increases in it — the process must be broken. From their point of view, any system that doesn’t raise taxes is broken. (For explanations of why our governance is not broken, see Washington Post opinion writer Charles Krauthammer’s column last week, “The System Works” and my article ” Is Our Government Really Broken?” from February 24, 2010.)

The immediate price of this “broken government” propaganda is several trillion dollars in lost equity value last week on the stock exchanges of the world. But, the enduring danger — if not intent — of such propaganda is its potential to undermine public confidence in representative government.

Make no mistake: If our form of government is “broken,” democracy’s challengers would “fix” it by castration. In our case, these critics would castrate the “representative” bit. We have seen this argument before in our history. Put forward by authoritarians and their supporters, it disdains the messy and disorderly process whereby free people thrash out the nation’s decisions.

The current recrudescence of this authoritarian temptation did not start with the debt-ceiling fight. Its been building for a couple of years. It comes — as it always does — at a moment when the nation faces serious economic or security dangers. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in September of 2009 gave early voice to the current authoritarian temptation: “One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century.”

Abraham Lincoln could have been thinking of Thomas Friedman when he worried out loud in the Gettysburg Address whether any nation “conceived in liberty…could long endure.” Lincoln then called the nation to the “unfinished work” of maintaining a nation “of the people, by the people and for the people.” That work goes on today.

Friedman’s concern arose out of our current economic problems.

Not coincidentally, the last time we saw this urge, amongst “respectable” people, to seek an authoritarian alternative to the regular congressional process was during the Great Depression.

Pages: 1 2

  • BS61

    Great article, I didn't know the history. But I did think the press has an agenda!

  • scum

    Well, first we should mention that FDR was one of our greatest presidents who negotiated the country through not one, but two of our most trying crises. To attack FDR is to attack America. Second, one should note that it was none other than Dick Cheney (who worked for that bastion of honesty, Tricky Dick), who said that in times of crisis the president might have to assume 'monarchical powers.' Cheney, more than anyone, pushed for centralized and secretive powers of state.

  • fmobler

    Hey scum (if that's your real name),

    Mr. Blankley did not attack FDR in this article. He merely pointed out that many people around him succumbed to the impulse to scupper democracy in hard times. Please read the article more carefully before writing a comment.

    I agree that Mr. Cheney is indeed another example of the same anti-democratic impulse. Does that make it better or worse in your eyes?

    One other thing: "An attack on FDR is an attack on America"? You can not be serious. As a Californian who grew up with neighbors who were sent to Manzanar, I think FDR has a few human rights issues to answer for. I am capable of respecting him and the office he held, while being sure he made some serious mistakes. Even if I thought he was the worst president ever (I don't), that would just mean I think all the rest were better. Equating an attack on FDR (which is not present in the article) with an attack on America is, well, un-American.

  • Flipside

    But… it is broken though.