The Politics of Sequestration

Friday, 01 Mar 2013 12:04 PM

By Susan Estrich

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
|  A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Inside the Beltway, everybody's talking about sequestration, and not only about whether it will happen (various supposed "high-level" sources say they are not optimistic that it will be avoided) and what it will mean, but also — it being the Beltway — which side of the aisle will pay the price.
 
The president is running a campaign to convince people that the results will be dire, that they should be avoided in favor of a sensible mix of spending cuts and revenue increases, and that the Republicans' insistence that all of the savings come from cuts will lead to fiscal havoc, if not take us over a cliff.
 
Republicans are saying that because Democrats control the Senate, they and the president should put a specific plan on the table.
 
The White House obviously believes that upping the temperature on the issue will increase support for their position — and solidify blame of the Republicans. So that's what they are trying to do.
 
There's some reason to think that will work from the polls, which find that the more carefully people pay attention to the debate the more likely they are to want Congress to do something to avoid sequestration.
 
On the other hand, nearly four out of 10 people polled tell Gallup they aren't paying much attention, and 40 percent tell Pew Research/USA Today pollsters that if there's no deal, the cuts should go into effect. Two in 10 have no opinion at all about the cuts and whether they're for them or for a deal, much less what kind of deal.
 
Almost everyone is drawing an analogy to the way House Republicans were blamed for closing down the government during the Clinton years, although the reality of that — the government is closed, you can't call Social Security, you can't get your passport — was easier to grasp.
 
If I went to the corner where my office is located and stopped people on the street, I'm not sure that most of them could actually define "sequestration," much less identify specific program cuts. And I have a lot of respect for the people in the neighborhood.
 
In fundamental ways, this does seem like a Washington game. At some point, sooner or later, some kind of deal will be made that some of the politicians and talking heads will praise and others will condemn. But that will only happen after the various elected and appointed officials involved play the usual blame games, up the ante with the old-fashioned "chicken" face-off and wait for the other side to blink.
 
One side will claim some kind of victory, while others will denounce the "deserters" and condemn the results, and we'll move to the next fiscal cliff. There will be polls that show us divided, as we usually are.
 
I can't predict who will "win," but I can tell you who will lose: anybody who really cares about respect for government, for Congress, and the presidency, and for the value of politics.
 
Years ago, political theoreticians clustered around the idea that pluralism was the means by which democracy operated best, that the public interest was served when different groups with different interests interacted in the process of deciding who got what, when, where, and how — the classic definition of politics. But those were the days when the opposing sides acted like people who disagree rather than like people on opposite sides of a war, when everybody still had a drink after work, when forging compromise was an act of strength and not a sign of weakness.
 
None of that is the case anymore, which is why we seem to lurch from crisis to crisis and why many folks who dreamed of serving in Congress are disappointed with how it's turned out. It's why running for office doesn't even appear on the list of what my talented students want to do.
 
One way or another, we'll survive the sequestration debate, the way we did the fiscal cliff — or perhaps more likely, we'll find a way to put it off to another time. The harder calculation is of the cost to a healthy democracy. This much is clear: It is not insignificant.
 
Susan Estrich is a best-selling author whose writings have appeared in newspapers such as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post, and she has been a commentator on countless TV news programs. Read more reports from Susan Estrich — Click Here Now.
 



 
 

© Creators Syndicate Inc.

Share:
  Comment  |
   Contact Us  |
  Print  
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Retype Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
You May Also Like

The Uproar Over Hillary's 'Stupid Stuff' Comment

Friday, 15 Aug 2014 11:55 AM

If you are the last person in America wondering whether Hillary Clinton is running for president, her recent interview w . . .

Robin Williams Tragedy Spotlights Depression

Wednesday, 13 Aug 2014 09:41 AM

Why do even those of us who know better spend even a second when we hear of a suicide saying things like "He had everyth . . .

The Beat Goes On in Iraq

Friday, 08 Aug 2014 15:53 PM

"Limited, specific, and achievable" , that is how one unnamed official described the military option in Iraq, last Thurs . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, NewsmaxWorld, NewsmaxHealth, are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved