Polling this week by both the Pew Research Center and the Washington Post found that Americans characterized the negotiations leading up to the debt ceiling deal as "ridiculous," "disgusting," and "stupid," words that might aptly characterize reality television instead of the world's greatest deliberative body.
Sadly, the debt ceiling negotiations seemed to reflect far more from the ethic of reality TV than the spirit of deliberation.
Early on in the process, the Republicans' decision to use the debt ceiling vote as a way to raise consciousness about the enormity of our federal debt had some tactical appeal. Something, it seemed, needed to remind lawmakers (who have failed to pass a budget since 2009) that revenues and expenditures are unsustainably out of sync. The tea party insurgency in the mid-term elections was bound to find this kind of legislative expression.
But whatever the original tactical appeal of this manufactured crisis, the process veered quickly into dysfunction. Once this debt ceiling vote was identified as a focal point, rating agencies duly took note and threatened a downgrade of the nation's credit. And with each day it became more difficult to determine precisely what it was each side really wanted. Enormously important but difficult questions, such as the nature of our social compact, the advisability of amending the Constitution and the proper role of government were shoehorned into an unreasonably short timetable for real debate.
Well-functioning organizations, almost by definition, have ways for those with differing viewpoints to confront differences through honest dialogue that protects their safety and dignity as they work toward solutions.
In this era of reality television, however, it seems that players on both sides can't resist the allure of news cameras as a regular outlet for denunciation and self-promotion. The prominence of the debt ceiling crisis showcased for the American public and world markets what astute Washington observers have lamented now for years: lawmakers are less engaged in the practice of deliberation than in the game of mastering the sound bite for maximum media exposure and fund-raising appeal.
In our representative system, citizens expect their representatives to do the hard work of carefully considering options, listening attentively to other viewpoints and reflecting maturely on how to move forward, while honoring the lawmaking process as well as other lawmakers. Such deliberation need not compromise on core principles, but it should avoid getting hung-up on ideology.
Imagine what the spirit of deliberation might have looked like in the recent debt ceiling debate. It could have been reflected in the White House taking seriously the bipartisan work of the deficit reduction commission when crafting this year's budget. Or in the House taking into account what was politically feasible in the Senate when drafting legislation. Or in Senate leadership refraining from phrases like "dead on arrival" before considering legislation approved by the House.
It could have eliminated competing press conferences and different versions about who walked away from whom in favor of listening and acknowledging the valid concerns of lawmakers with different priorities. And it might have done the hard work of balancing those differing priorities to produce a larger, more comprehensive package of deficit reduction in less time.
The debt ceiling negotiations, however, revealed that many of our lawmakers have either never learned or have forgotten the art of deliberation. Instead of observing mature debate, the public was subjected to repeated slogans that seemed crafted for campaign bumper stickers and direct-mail fundraising rather than legislative problem solving.
Regrettably, lawmakers squandered their opportunity to elevate and inform public debate about the complex problems associated with public finances. Their communications might have focused on solutions, emphasizing the need for shared sacrifice and discipline as the basis for future national achievement. But too many lawmakers littered our public discourse by tossing out extravagant and incendiary language for partisan purposes.
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive...
- Frank Pignanelli & LaVarr Webb: Are...
- 19 songs to consider as replacements for the...
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on marriage?
- Charles Krauthammer: The jihadi logic
- Catherine Rampell: Have America's public...
- John Florez: Utah public education is a house...
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on... 93
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 37
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- Richard Davis: Scots — Be brave,... 25
- In our opinion: Accountability,... 25
- My view: Intergenerational poverty the... 19
- Mary Barker: Religion and politics... 17
- In our opinion: How committed are... 17