Dumb down to Brown?

Here’s an excerpt from a supremely depressing piece in The New Republic on Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown:

So let’s stipulate that Brown isn’t the most sophisticated member of the U.S. Senate, and that he isn’t likely to distinguish himself for his intellectual heft… He is nonetheless self-aware enough to realize that he is uniquely well-positioned to influence policy in Congress…

As the 41st Republican in an institution that requires 60 out of 100 votes to pass legislation, he’s had the power to stop, or at least massively slow down, everything from health care to financial reform. But Brown actually looms much larger than even this calculus would suggest. In his concerns, priorities, and, maybe most important, his confusion about the economy, Brown has come to represent the average voter in 2010. If Democrats are going to be successful this November, they’ll have to figure out a way to seize the territory that Brown currently holds.

Emphasis mine. The crux of the piece is that although the electorate wants Congress to focus on job creation, “deficit hawks” have ginned up enough hysteria about the deficit to stop or slow down any spending that might, you know, create jobs, and the public doesn’t oppose that because it soothes their anxiety about the deficit.

Brown embodies this confusion: The author suggests that whereas most Republicans (and some Blue Dogs) understand the relationship between spending and job creation perfectly well and are willing to let the citizenry take it in the shorts for political gain, Brown seems to truly not get this issue and therefore makes illogical and counterproductive demands, like insisting that jobless benefits be paid for via money set aside to grow jobs.

The author suggests that if the Democrats can crack the carapace of confusion that enshrouds Brown’s teeny, tiny brain, they might make some headway with the equally dumb electorate. Well, maybe. But I’m not so convinced that Brown isn’t playing the cynical game even if he is a dumb ass. After all, his political mentor is Multiple Choice Mitt.

I’m also skeptical of the suggestion that the public would react in a logical way even if someone could articulate the link between spending and jobs in plain, easy-to-understand English that even Brown could grasp. Dumb, panicky herds aren’t known for their circumspection. If the economy still sucks in November, the Democrats will lose big, regardless of whether or not Brown receives adequate on-the-job training along the way.

Posted by Betty Cracker on 07/12/10 at 10:38 AM • Permalink

Categories: Politics • Election '10 • Bedwetters • Nutters • Teabaggery •

Share this post:

Aside from targeted high-tech sector initiatives, the whole notion of “job creation” is a red herring under the current circumstances. Unfortunately, “job retention” or “loss prevention”—which is about the best we can hope for, in the short-term at least—isn’t a sexy campaign issue.

And, of course, neither party is going to run on the Truth, which is that this is just the first shock in a series of painful ratcheted lifestyle adjustments that will accompany America’s belated recognition that, in order to survive, it must compete in a commoditized, global, low-bid labor pool.

Consequently, for the foreseeable future, we can expect to witness a fairly surreal pageant of mostly political posturing between those who hope to soften the transition through continued deficit spending, and those who aim to “create jobs” by slashing taxes and public spending, and pretending the resulting hemorrhage of government employees and dependent contractors doesn’t count because those were only “artificial” jobs to begin with. (And that’s not even factoring in the collateral catastrophes that will result from cutting social services and assistance to Americans who are already barely hanging on.)

I’m sure that, for Brown, the choice between trying to explain the concept of “economic entropy” to an anxious public and just saying “Taxes…Bad!” over and over again is a no-brainer…which is a rather fortunate stroke of luck for a man with no brain.

Comment by StrangeAppar8us on 07/12/10 at 12:05 PM

I wish I could disagree with you, Strange, but I’m afraid you’re right. Still, it’s precisely these high-tech sector initiatives and infrastructure rebooting projects that could result in actual job creation being tanked by Brown and his ilk. It’s maddening.

Comment by Betty Cracker on 07/12/10 at 12:22 PM

Well, yeah—it’s a damn shame that the deciding Senate vote is likely to come from a guy who’s not quite clear on the difference between attempting a dicey landing without a nose-wheel and just flying the airplane into a mountain like the Teabaggers want.

Comment by StrangeAppar8us on 07/12/10 at 12:32 PM

Well, given my family health history, I’ll probably be dead of cancer before the worst shocks hit the system. Good luck to the rest of you suckers, though.

Comment by Oblomova on 07/12/10 at 12:43 PM

Well, at least Brown’s seen the light on one issue:

“I’ve spent the past week reviewing the Wall Street reform bill. I appreciate the efforts to improve the bill, especially the removal of the $19 billion bank tax. As a result, it is a better bill than it was when this whole process started. While it isn’t perfect, I expect to support the bill when it comes up for a vote. It includes safeguards to help prevent another financial meltdown, ensures that consumers are protected, and it is paid for without new taxes. That doesn’t mean our work is done. Further reforms are still needed to address the government’s role in the financial crisis, including significant changes to the way Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac operate.”

Comment by StrangeAppar8us on 07/12/10 at 02:24 PM

’m also skeptical of the suggestion that the public would react in a logical way even if someone could articulate the link between spending and jobs in plain, easy-to-understand English that even Brown could grasp. Dumb, panicky herds aren’t known for their circumspection.

I’ve thought that Obama should become America’s remedial-economics teacher, imagining that he might carefully explain stimulus in terms of pump-priming or car-jumpstarting or putting the paddles on a coronary case, but you’re probably right—Americans can’t handle it right now. I just don’t know if there was a window of opportunity in early 2009 when they might have been able to handle it.

Comment by Steve M. on 07/12/10 at 04:43 PM

Steve, I’m remembering a Dan Aykroyd sketch from SNL, in which he played Jimmy Carter leaving the White House and giving a farewell address. He said something like this (paraphrasing from faulty memory):

During my years as president, I’ve tried to explain the importance of energy conservation and lessening our dependence on foreign oil, particularly in the Mideast. I’ve explained this using simple, two-syllable words, such as Oi-el. And Ga-yas. But you didn’t want to listen to me. And many years from now, when things are really bad and gas prices are sky-high and we’re bogged down in Mideast wars, you’re going to come back to me and say “Jimmy, we’re so sorry. You were right. We’re in a mess of trouble now. Won’t you please help us?” And you know what I’m going to say to you then? “Honk off, bozos! You had your chance!”

So yeah, I’d say that “We have met the enemy, and he is us” has been in effect for quite some time, aided and abetted by cynical media and our own desire (noticeable on all parts of the political spectrum) for short-term profit and/or instant gratification/easy solutions/soothing words.

Turning that mindset around in less than two years was never going to happen, no matter how much time Obama spent pounding the Magical Bully Pulpit, and even if Congress (well, the Senate) weren’t the collection of feckless a-holes that it is.

Honestly, I think it’s time to start trying out the meme that “The GOP loves America the same way your creepy stalker ex-boyfriend loved you. If they can’t have their country, no one can—and if you try to leave, they’ll throw acid in your face, kill your cat, and burn down your house.”