washington, dc

The Democratic Strategist

Political Strategy for a Permanent Democratic Majority

“Democrats In Disarray?”

It’s hardly a surprise, but still it’s impressive how quickly media narratives of the debate over the Obama stimulus package have been slipping into the familiar grooves of the “Democrats In Disarray” story-line. Bill Scher at the Our Future blog has the appropriate response:

Crossfire from his own party! Key Democrats blast Obama stimulus plan! Political wrangling bogs down economic stimulus plan! At odds! Doubts arise!
Such is the traditional media interpretation of the policy deliberations going on between the incoming Obama administration and members of Congress.
But read deeper into the stories and you don’t find evidence of explosive hostility or deep conflict. There is civil debate and discussion, not “crossfire.” There is desire to modify aspects of Obama’s plan, but not its overarching thrust. Congress is still expected to pass legislation within a month of Obama’s swearing-in, which is not exactly getting bogged down, but moving pretty swiftly.

As Scher suggests, there’s a unwholesome taste for authoritarianism that’s implicit in media treatment of intra-party debate as unnatural :

Instead of one-party rule undermining checks and balances and stifling discussion, we may well be seeing how — when a progressive mandate for action points everyone in the right direction — a President, a Congress and their constituents can engage in calm debate to refine proposals while still acting in timely fashion.

Yes, it’s been a long time since either of the two major political parties was able to resolve disagreements without fearing the appearance of weakness. But just as there’s no time right now for genuine disarray among Democrats, there’s no time for prevarication or artificially imposed uniformity over the differences of opinion that actually exist. We’ll get over it.

One comment on ““Democrats In Disarray?”

  1. ducdebrabant on

    Jack Cafferty, who isn’t usually so silly, was doing one of these Democrats in Disarray features specifically about the Obama transition that really ticked me off. The transition was in “disarray” because of (a.) Blagojevich, which had nothing to do with anything the transition had done, (b.) Richardson’s withdrawal, which had nothing to do with any lack of vetting (the investigation was in the papers), and which took place before there could be any confirmation problems — in other words, it was a smooth and timely response to a potential problem — and, (c.) the noise about the Panetta appointment. At no time was Panetta’s confirmation in any doubt, at no time was Obama threatened in any way by the Blagojevich scandal, and the transition team quickly identified another Commerce nominee. The worst offender ever since election day has been Campbell Brown, trying to keep the decibels up by hook or by crook to match the noise level of the election. I wish the press would realize that the viewers, for once, are in a serious mood, and don’t need all this contrived dramatizing. The financial meltdown, the foreign outlook, the inherent drama of inaugurating a black President, all these are more than enough real drama. Even where there are grounds for complaint about the transition — the disgraceful treatment of Howard Dean — things have still transpired smoothly.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.