creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Mark Shields
Mark Shields
19 May 2012
A Price Tag on Patriotism

Will Rogers was wrong. The legendary humorist, speaking of the responsibilities each of us has as a citizen … Read More.

12 May 2012
Shortcuts for 2012 Campaign

Please accept the following as a small token of appreciation from your semi-faithful correspondent, who knows … Read More.

5 May 2012
Slinging Mud

Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels was characteristically candid when speaking to the Indianapolis Star's … Read More.

GOP Is Biggest Winner in Supercommittee Failure

Share Comment

You can make a case that the failure of Congress's overhyped "supercommittee" to find common ground to reduce the federal budget deficit politically benefits the Democratic Party. After all, the one real point of public consensus on dealing with the deficits that emerged is voters' agreement with President Obama's argument that the wealthiest taxpayers should pay higher taxes.

In addition, congressional Democrats can boast to their core supporters that barely a single silver hair on the sacred heads of Social Security or Medicare will be disturbed by the $1.2 trillion in budget cuts triggered by the supercommittee's failure.

But this analysis ignores the most profound consequence of the latest failure from Washington. Because Democrats have been historically the party that believes government can be and has been an effective instrument for social and economic justice, gridlock and paralysis in the nation's capital reinforce the Republican argument that government is not an answer, but instead, the problem.

Americans, not that long ago, did have confidence in the federal government. That confidence was earned through historic successes. How about the United States' rebuilding a devastated and demoralized Europe after World War II and thereby saving millions from disease, starvation, slavery and death? A federal government that could conquer and eliminate polio and put a man on the moon while bringing electricity to the most remote, rural corners of the continent could be trusted.

The private sector and tax-cuts did not protect endangered species, save the Great Lakes, reclaim America's rivers or make American air cleaner.

The U.S. government, headquartered in Washington, D.C., did. This same national government could end racial segregation and officially sanctioned discrimination through federal laws that guaranteed the right to vote, the right to stay in a hotel, go to a movie, to eat a hamburger and, later, to buy a home in any neighborhood the buyer could afford.

In those halcyon days, seven out of 10 Americans trusted their government "to do the right thing" either "all" or "most of the time."

But that, of course, was before Watergate and Vietnam, the savings and loan scandal, Enron, before wars launched to wipe out nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction," before Wall Street larceny, Fannie Mae and taxpayer bailouts. And before unlimited money came to shadow American lawmaking and to dominate American political campaigns.

Not surprisingly, in this winter of national discontent, we have seen barely two out of 10 citizens trusting their government "to do the right thing" either "all" or "most of the time."

If the government cannot do what it is supposed to do, argue conservatives, then why — given the feds' chronic inability or unwillingness to stop the flood of red ink in Washington — would you trust the government to do more?

So while the Democrats may have won last week's rhetorical debating points over who was wrong in the supercommittee stalemate, the environment in which the 2012 campaign will be waged has become even more pessimistic, less confident, more distrustful and more hostile to government. That is a national environment in which a pro-government Democratic Party does not thrive.

To find out more about Mark Shields and read his past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM

COPYRIGHT 2011 MARK SHIELDS


Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
Maybe, but I think the more likely fallout is against the Republicans, who are seen as a bunch of privileged monsters who won't share, and who are the biggest cause of government malfunction.

Maybe the government doesn't work, but you can count on the fact that if it is run by the Repes, you won't be seeing unemployment benefits extended any time soon. A lot of people get that.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:09 PM
Both Democrats and Republicans lost, because taxpayers are seeing that the federal government, while making grandiose claims and stealing taxpayer money for everything except breathing, is becoming increasingly irrelevant in terms of social and moral guidance. Corruption and good ole boy favoritism has become so entrenched that no one is even shocked by it anymore. At this point the federal government doesn't represent me in any way, shape, or form. I'm embarrassed by the example our so-called "leaders" are setting for Americans and the world.
Americans are wising up to the fact that the bozos in Washington are clueless about everything from the economy to health care to the environment. All the legislation is just an excuse to extort more taxpayer money to fund governmental sinecures, including Congress, the entire judicial system, the president, federal employees, government check-collectors, government contractors, bankers, and Wall Street. The federal government is suicidal, for good reason, and the supercommittee's failure was just the latest signal.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Katharine C. Otto, MD
Fri Nov 25, 2011 1:46 AM
If there is a problem with waste and corruption in the top layer of the economy, giving more money to those who are the problem is not a good idea. Why isn't that obvious?
Comment: #3
Posted by: partsmom
Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:57 AM
If there is a problem with waste and corruption in the top layer of the economy, giving more money to those who are the problem is not a good idea. Why isn't that obvious?
Comment: #4
Posted by: partsmom
Fri Nov 25, 2011 2:57 AM
Interesting point. I hope you are not too correct about it. This is the opening for a third option.
@partsmon the problem is obvious, and if you vote for a known you are the problem. We all are when we accept weighing who is the bigger lier, or ignoring the lies because of habit, or some stupid catchphrase about big government, or job killing taxes, or whatever.
In the US voting is like betting on a sporting event and trying to decide who has the most drug enhancements, but still not too much that they will get disqualified in a test or scandal.
Every lie they tell to influence or mislead is from the mouths of deceitful humans not fit for employment.
They ask for your vote, but what you should be hearing is to run yourself or organize someone you can vote for with dignity.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Jerry Sumpton
Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:10 AM
Tired to find where to put a comment for Inside Washington.TV - couldn't. So I'm sending this to you.
Please tell that fool of a woman (don't know her name, don't want to) on the Inside Washington program to shut up. Everytime she opens her mouth I cringe. Please replace her.

I do, however, enjoy your comments, even though I usually don't agree with them.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Krystyna Clark
Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:45 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Mark Shields
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

19 May 2012 A Price Tag on Patriotism

27 Aug 2011 Mike Huckabee in Iowa: No Apparent Regrets

23 Dec 2006 "Inimitable Backwardness?" I Totally Disagree!