The 27% Solution

The “new” House of Representatives (where appropriations begin) appears ready to engage in government-stopping budgetary battles over a tiny fraction of the morass we call federal spending, often disguising opposition to specific social programs and environmental policies under a noble cloak of fiscal responsibility. It appears as if we will have a do-nothing Congress until sufficient numbers are replaced in the 2012 elections, one way or the other. If folks really believe the new elected Tea Party representatives prioritize budget busting above all else, might I suggest that they mandate that precious $61 billion reduction – hell make it a cool $100 billion – be implemented by the President. Nuh-uh, not ever! is the likely response; they want to cut only what they want to cut… it’s not really about compromise or even slicing the deficit. It’s about using the purse strings to repeal legislation enacted by a major vote of Congress under an earlier set of sessions that they just don’t like. Forget the democratic process; if it means the government shuts down, well…. Think they can even muster enough support in the U.S. Senate to get the bill before the President?

Those old enough might remember former Vice President Spiro Agnew’s (under Nixon until Agnew was replaced amid a scandal in his home state of Maryland) famous slam at his opponents: “The nattering nabobs of negativism.” Seems he was shocked that political critics opposed his party’s policies. Well, if he were still around today, he might be profoundly “distressed and dismayed” that one of the activities people elected to Congress do the most is engage in “ignominious iterations of insults.” How much of their time is spent in this communications-busting activity?

Harvard University Professor “is the Albert J. Weatherhead III University Professor at Harvard University, based in the Department of Government (in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences). He also serves as Director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science. King develops and applies empirical methods in many areas of social science research, focusing on innovations that span the range from statistical theory to practical application.” Harvard.edu. Even before the current rash of Congressional neophytes took office, King and two his graduate students conducted a computer-driven content analysis of press releases issued by the nice guys – U.S. Senators – between 2005 and 2007. The scanned 64,03 3 such documents, looking for patterns.

The one pattern that really stood out was “insults”: 27% of such materials reflected “taunts” and insults aimed at political opponents. The study expected to find an allocation of materials into the traditional three categories of such political expressions: taking credit for stuff, taking policy positions and doing stuff to get noticed (“advertising” is the word they use). But traditional categories just couldn’t explain the growing tendency of elected officials to engage in continuous trashing of their political opponents… even after the elections. So King and company expanded the list to include this “nattering nabob” equivalent, a pretty standard modern politician’s choice, right, left and even center. It wasn’t a surprise that politicians engaged in such taunting; it w as the sheer volume of the practice at a time when finding political compromise would appear to be an essential to get the country back on track at one of its most difficult times in history.

King spoke to the Washington Post, reported on April 6^th: “‘It’s jarring and surprising,’ … And, King said, probably counterproductive if we want Congress’s members to trust one another enough to make deals… ‘The entire government may go bankrupt, I guess…. We probably want our representatives to be listening to each other rather than calling each other names.’” Yeah, right.

Well not everyone believes that such insulting and taunting behavior is a bad thing. “David Mayhew, a Yale University professor who came up with the original three-part theory of congressional communication, said what looks like taunting might serve a purpose… For one thing, he said, the fireworks might keep people interested… ‘You’ve got to have an opposition that taunts and a government that taunts back’ to highlight their differences on key issues, Mayhew said. ‘For the public, it’s sort of like watching a tennis match. . . . I think it’s productive in that sense.’”The Post. It’s tough for me to agree with the Harvard dude and disagree with the Yalie, but at a time where we are long on rhetoric and short on practical solutions, I can actually think of more productive activities for our nation’s highest elected representatives.

I’m Peter Dekom, and if you don’t like what I am saying, up your nose with a rubber hose!