Deceive and Deny, Rinse and Repeat

How Congress and the media exacerbate our political dysfunction.

By
271
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (at the podium) is joined by House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, Rep. Anthony D'Esposito, Rep. Michael Cloud), House Republican Conference Chair Rep. Elise Stefanik, and Rep. Adrian Smith for a news conference. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.)

Hey,

Let me start by just putting down a marker I can point back to over the next year or two. Congress isn’t going to do very much this year or next. But that’s not a marker worth laying down. The thing I’d like people to keep in mind is that very often people will say—in sorrow or anger or joy—that Congress has done something when it in fact has not. 

Consider, for instance, the GOP majority’s recent vote to claw back funding for the IRS. Here’s how several Republican members described their vote:

This content is available exclusively to Dispatch members
Try a membership for full access to every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism.
Start Your Free Trial
Already a paid member? Sign In
271
By
Comments (271)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Aaron H Frank

    Nellie Bowles over at The Free Press introduced a rule that should become a law (but sadly won't).

    Anyone who has ever flown on a private jet is not allowed to lecture anyone else on the dire situation of the planet and climate.

    As for Social Security, I understand Rep. Donalds's point but saying there is a Social Security trust fund is sort of like saying that trust fund is in a lock box. We're e on track to run out of money to pay social security but talking about a trust fund is silly. Or maybe that's just the easiest way for people to understand it.

    Collapse
  2. Mschuman18

    Jonah, re climate change I recommend the Manhattan Contrarian website to you. It seems to me a very credible position that climate change is in fact not a real problem. Now, perhaps it is. But your column above accepts the premise that it is (or that we can not win any argument that says it is not). Please provide arguments and evidence that will withstand cross-examination (e.g., by Manhattan Contrarian) why should we accept that premise.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    “ Now, I have to confess, the analogy falls down somewhat with entitlements because, unlike with climate change, a very large bloc of voters care a lot about Social Security and Medicare.”

    Ha!

    Joy Reid is a moron. The inanity of this refusal to even let someone say that there might be a problem is shockingly dumb.

    Collapse
  4. Hartzlk

    I like the quotable-ness of this article.
    "pundits hate saying their beat isn’t that important"
    "But the notion that Social Security shouldn’t become insolvent still blinds people to the fact that it will be insolvent if we do nothing."

    Thanks for the article, Jonah!

    Collapse
  5. Learnin4life

    Age has some benefits and one for me is that I'm not terribly concerned about funding troubles for Social Security (SS) late in the next decade. This doesn't mean I'm not worried for those who are dependent on SS for basic needs where every dollar lost means making tough choices. The US must take care of its elderly population, and especially those who for whatever reason weren't able to set aside sufficient funds to provide themselves at least a basic standard of living.

    There is also an analogy to climate change here which should be mentioned. None of us can predict the future with certainty (except perhaps the sciency types working for Exxon-Mobil) and to a great extent we're stuck with judging reality based upon what's in front of us now and in the foreseeable future. The present reality appears to be that continuing to pump billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere will have negative consequences for the future including higher average global temperatures. It's interesting to me that some living now have the temporary freedom to question the severity of our current actions regarding continued use of fossil fuels on the environment. This position seems at odds with the sciency type's predictions and our own eyes as we see some of the early effects of climate change manifest in the environment (where are most of the earth's glaciers?).

    I'm concerned right now about the earth our children and their children will inherit based on decisions we're making today and during the next few decades. The illusion of having time to correct past actions must be comforting to some who won't be around to bear the brunt of inaction now. Guess what though, their children or those of others will be, and the consequences for them may be more serious than we can imagine.

    Collapse
  6. Kevin Ford

    I couldn't help but notice while traveling that Democratic congressional ads in different parts of the country seemed to have been written by the same source--saying their opponent wanted to destroy Social Security. For suggesting it needed to be fixed. At the time I assumed it was simply an effective attack ad. It never occurred to me that anyone was denying that there was a problem!

    Collapse
  7. Eric.Carman76

    Upfront, I will say that, no, I did not read the full Trustees Report. (Yikes!!) And I'll never claim knowledge of the complexities of Social Security funding. But here is what I think I understand. And it seems fairly simple. The report, even as quoted here, does not say Social Security is going to be insolvent in 2035. The report says that if measures aren't taken, and if their current assumptions hold true, resulting in the current hypothetical projection, the Fed's ability to pay 100% of benefits would require drastic and painful interventions if we wait until 2035 to do anything.

    Even then, In 2035, under current assumptions and hypotheticals, 80% of benefits would still be paid, because the DI reserve and other sources will continue to enjoy long-term fiscal health. If we make incremental adjustments now, the problem could be solved for the foreseeable future. Seems doable, but with political agendas that have little to do with governing or solving problems, that may be a bridge too far for this current class.

    The report also links to several reasonable and viable potential policy solutions, none of which entail scaring people or telling them disaster is imminent. Again, it is so very doable. And the report makes that clear as well. It should be a slam dunk for both parties, if they really wanted to get it done.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Michael Dan Martin

      If a business reached the point where it could pay only 80% of its debts, I think we would be justified in calling it insolvent. From Merriam-Webster:

      1a : unable to pay debts as they fall due in the usual course of business
      b : having liabilities in excess of a reasonable market value of assets held
      2 : insufficient to pay all debts

      Collapse
    2. Genehoward92603

      Thanks for this intelligent and thoughtful response. Most of the responses in the Dispatch comments section are reasoned and thoughtful, but this one was especially informative. It gives a lot perspective to the conversation.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    John Mc.

    You know, I don't mind proclaiming my ignorance on American politics or our constitution and founding documents on a webpage that brings about the most productive and intelligent conversations I've ever seen on any internet message board.

    So, that's exactly what I'm going to do. I work in a laboratory and all jokes aside about being a lab rat, I am quite honestly, politically illiterate. I just don't get politics. National, local, heck, even office politics. But, recently I endeavored in purchasing Penguin random House's "The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution." I learned so much about our government and foundations - straight from the actual documents - that I admit I was not all too familiar with beforehand. So, it was with some slight pride that I understood the workings and life of a bill. You can laugh, as I realize this is quite elementary. It didn't take all that much effort, sure the language is different today, but that's the beauty of reading, you can take as long as you want and make it a thought exercise about what is being said. Active reading! That's all it takes to learn!

    But, I think this is what is lacking in today's society. I find a lot of people are just too ignorant to our government's inner workings and how our institutions work as a whole (I know I am and was in some areas). Too complacent with listening to what others are saying and getting their perspective on it, rather than going to a primary source and reading about it. There just needs to be more effort. It seems to me, fresh off of KDW's newest newsletter, that if we were to actually have an educated populace, these frauds and grifters wouldn't be as commonplace in our government as they are today. What is the best armor for bullsh** than knowledge?

    I'm just one person, and not to be a fatalist, but our comforts and luxuries may be the downfall of us.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Normb1442

    Thanks for pointing out the major objection I have to so many, which is the idea that the government, by taking measures that are logical and necessary, is somehow "picking winners." It was the concept I was trying to express, and your use of the phrase is what I had in mind.

    If you accept that global warming exists and needs to be dealt with, it is not picking winners when the government acts to do so. Yet this is the defense one hears from the fossil fuel industry all the time. It's not a principled defense of the private sector, it's trying to cloud the issue in order to preserve the existing energy market share of fossil fuels.

    Collapse
    1. Georges

      Norm,
      “ If you accept that global warming exists and needs to be dealt with, it is not picking winners when the government acts to do so.”
      Sorry, the govt _is_ picking winners and losers here. Cloaking these choices in some moral imperative does not change that.
      You might also take a hard look at the known facts about global warming - the scientific literature that is. Your position is probably not as firm as you think.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kizedek

        A govt has every reason, and responsibility to its citizens, to not put “all its eggs in one basket”.

        The fossil fuel industry already has outsized influence, and made itself a “winner” for decades, through lobbying, etc.

        There is no reason not to “hedge bets” about the future, and encourage a diversity of approaches through some kind of incentives. This idea that a corporation should make decisions that always maximize return to the shareholder in the short-term should not be applied to nations, as though something that might temporarily cost more, or require a little more austerity in the short term, is some kind of great evil.

        Anyway, this type of thinking is how the US gets behind in various things. The US is probably not as modern and advanced in a number of areas as you think.

        Collapse
        1. Georges

          "A govt has every reason, and responsibility to its citizens, to not put “all its eggs in one basket”."
          So finance research in the universities. A better battery, for example, would change everything for electric cars and electric utilities.
          Surely we can figure out how to generate electricity safely from nukes.
          Alternatives such as hydrogen should be looked at hard too.
          I agree with hedging bets. We're not doing it.

          The fossil fuel industry has outsized influence? Well, not enough to prevent policies & laws that will put it out of business.
          But before you do that be aware the massive infrastructure build out to realize the current thinking is not going to happen quickly and will probably prove to be a budget buster as well.
          So yes, diversify those bets. We need better solutions than what exists today.

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Normb1442

    You don't know what you think you do.

    There were roads in 1900 or, for that matter, in 1800. They were, however, roads designed for HORSES, not the kind of paved roads which automobiles need. They weren't roads capable of handling heavy traffic for heavy vehicles which moved at high speeds, and became impassible in heavy rains. There were no interstate roads until the completion of the Abraham Lincoln Highway in 1915. Even then, there were few interstate roads until the mid-1920s.

    And virtually all of the infrastructure that allowed the automobile to achieve it's total dominance over the horse was built by governments. That was a good thing. I'm glad it happened. Just as I'll be glad if governments enable us to shift from fossil fuels to renewables, because I think it's necessary to deal with global warming caused primarily by fossil fuels.

    If you disagree with that last point, go with God but we have no basis for discussion. If you agree, then how in Earth do you expect the problem to be addressed solely or even primarily by the private sector? The pretense that the private sector is going to be up to the job without substantial government help is something the fossil fuel industries promote because they know that on that basis it will never happen.

    Collapse
    1. BadgerBill

      Yes. Yes. There has been a government-private enterprise partnership to solve certain problems/challenges since the beginning of the republic (and even longer in human history). You cited the example of road building for automobiles, but could have cited canal building in the early years of the republic and railroad building (Lincoln supported the subsidy to build the transcontinental railroad and the Homestead Act was passed, in part, to support the building of the transcontinental railroad).

      I think of it that the government can help with the “why” and “what” and the private sector can help with the “how”. The argument that the government shouldn’t “chose winners” is patent nonsense. The government has contracts with private parties all the time, every hour of every day. (Eg-the government decides national security is important and a navy is needed (the why and the what), but hires private companies to build aircraft carriers, tanks, and ready to eat rations (the what).

      As to your final comment relative to not getting into a conversation regarding anthropomorphic reasons for global warming, while I agree with general frustration regarding willful ignorance of or flat out denial of the obvious causation, I’m not sure you can just disengage from conversation, depending on the source of denial. Yes, if I hear “there’s no global warming”, (aka a flat out denial of evidence) I’m not sure it’s worth the discussion (it’s like arguing with someone who denies evolution because the Bible says the world is 6,000 years old. Yeah, not gonna continue the conversation). If the objection is “There is global warming, but I’m not convinced it’s caused by humans”, I can actually have the conversation. In that case, at least there’s not a denial of the existence of warming, just not a clear understanding of the why.

      Collapse
      1. Kevin Dolan

        It’s so much more complex than that. Yes warming exists, even yes there is some human activity causing it, but…
        How much is human activity, how much isn’t?
        How accurate are our projections 20, 50, 100 years out?
        How certain are we in how much intervention will mitigate?
        How confident are we that everyone we need to cooperate will do so?
        Who is going to tell poor countries they can’t use fossil fuels to improve their populations’ lives?
        Whither nuclear?

        I’m sure I haven’t begun to scratch the surface of the complexity of the issue.

        Collapse
Load More
Worth Your Time

How Trump’s New York Criminal Trial Might Play Out

and

Private Affairs

Fancy Nancy

Bodega Campaign Tactics

, and

Echoes in the Echo Chamber

Photo of Jonah Goldberg

About Jonah Goldberg

Editor in chief & co-founder of The Dispatch and Remnant podcast host. A scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, an L.A. Times columnist, CNN commentator, and author of three NYT bestsellers. Goldberg worked at National Review for two decades.
More from Jonah Goldberg