Carpe Datum

Blame the Nearest Liberal

Kevin Drum says what needs to be said about the way the media is treating the debate over social security:

As happens so often, the journalistic community has decided that they're required to say that both sides are being equally irresponsible, regardless of the facts. The way to do this, apparently, is to (a) condemn Democrats for opposing a plan they all acknowledge is a bad one, and (b) then condemn them further for not supporting their own favored alternatives, even though they know perfectly well that the obstacle to these alternatives is not Democrats but Republicans.

It's George Bush who's insisting on a private account plan that even his own people admit won't do anything to shore up Social Security's finances. It's George Bush who's insisting that the only cures he'll consider are ones that include huge — but quiet — benefit cuts. It's George Bush who has publicly refused to even consider proposals to increase Social Security revenue in any way. It's George Bush who has run up the unconscionable deficits that are far more responsible for our deterioriating finances than anything in the Social Security system.

The facts: Social Security has modest problems that are many decades out. They could be easily solved with small benefit cuts combined with small tax increases. A bipartisan solution could be hammered out in a few days if it weren't for one person: George Bush.

The problem isn't that Democrats aren't willing to negotiate. The problem is that Democrats don't have anyone to negotiate with. That ought to be the story.

This sort of nonsense reminds me of all the recent hubbub over the imminent election of Howard Dean to lead the Democratic Party. Busy, Busy, Busy summarizes the reaction of the New Republic, which is similar to most of the "liberal media":

The Democratic Party is on the brink of electing as Democratic National Committee chairman a shameless proponent of Democratic principles.

Dean is actually slightly to the right of Kerry on more issues than not, and Kerry, as I've explained before, has a career history of being a moderate in the Senate. But the corporate media has already painted Dean as the screamer, the radical liberal (a la Supertramp), etc. in response to a few of Dean's ideas that are more liberal than the median Democrat.

The thing is, though, even if Dean were the most liberal Democrat in the whole wide world, so what? Don't these Dean-bashers realize that Republicans are in a mode to bash Democrats as unpatriotic, terrorist-loving, Christian-bashing, freedom-hating obstructionists sight unseen? Why not have an unapologetic, hell, even proud, loud liberal who is well-spoken, telegenic and sharp as a tack. I'm looking forward to Dean telling Pumpkinhead Russert to stop being such an obtuse prick on "Meet the Press".

Posted by Observer at February 11, 2005 07:09 AM