SOMETIMES it seems that an American talent for self-congratulation is surpassed only by a talent for self-delusion. Consider claims by President Obama and Republican leaders that last week’s debt reduction agreement was an honourable compromise and a responsible resolution to an urgent economic crisis.
It was, in fact, a shabby political fix that resolved a short-term political problem while avoiding economic and social reforms and increasing global economic uncertainties. It was an outcome unworthy of a great nation that aspires to world leadership and claims a commitment to freedom and justice for all. The deal showed the US political system working to benefit the most affluent Americans while disregarding the needs of the poor.
It was a massive rejection of the great twentieth-century liberal American philosopher John Rawls, whose A Theory of Justice (1972) proposed what he called a system of justice as fairness, based on the notion that the expectations of better-situated citizens were just only if they worked as part of a scheme that improved the expectations of the least advantaged.
The bill passed by the House of Representatives and Senate confirmed again a political retreat from anything resembling distributional equity and fairness. It was a triumph for laissez-faire savagery and for wealthier citizens and corporations over large and growing numbers of Americans struggling with poverty and deprivation. As such, it was an unqualified victory for the fundamentalist Tea Party God botherers and other backwoodsmen who control the Republican Party and an ignominious defeat for President Obama and the so-called social progressives and liberals of the Democratic Party.
The agreement certainly prevented an immediate default with potentially devastating consequences for the United States and world economies. But the judgement of the markets, international organisations like the OECD, and serious journals as different as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal has been harsh. The agreement is now contributing to instability in the global economic environment.
Moreover, it hasn’t protected the United States from a credit rating downgrade, which will raise US borrowing costs and further compromise the country’s deeply uncertain economic recovery.
Above all, perhaps, the agreement reflected the toxicity and extremism now infecting politics in the United States and other democracies, including Australia. Republicans will do virtually anything to discredit Obama and Obama is in no position to let social principles stand in the way of political survival. It was an irresponsible outcome crafted by politicians who care little about US domestic social and economic justice or about the long-term economic consequences for other countries, including US allies and trading partners.
What President Obama and his Republican opponents care about is next year’s looming presidential race. Obama accepted the savagely regressive agreement, and abandoned his planned tax increases, to help boost his re-election prospects by removing economic uncertainties being exploited by the Republicans. The Republicans, driven by Tea Party economic jihadists, signed the deal because it sheltered privileged and wealthy citizens and corporations from tax increases and preserved the Republican reputation as the low-taxing, low-spending force in national politics.
On both sides of American politics the hypocrisy of the political spin has been breathtaking. Obama’s website proclaims the “compromise stays true to the President’s commitment to shared sacrifice by all Americans.” Rubbish. The spending cuts will have a disproportionate impact on those who bear the burden for US defence and on poorer Americans dependent on social programs like Medicare.
Republican House leader John Boehner strutted before TV cameras claiming to have been a compromiser who had “stuck his neck out a mile.” More rubbish. He was rigidly inflexible, knowing that he had to appease the Tea Party and that President Obama needed a deal in a hurry. The Republicans have further entrenched the growing American underclass and increased the risk of long-term decline.
Despite batsqueak protests from some liberal democrats and from angry Tea Party extremists, the House and Senate majorities for the deal were overwhelming because it was the quick, dirty and convenient fix. Obama and the Republican leaders sought to mollify public dissatisfaction by saying that the agreement was not what they wanted but the best deal available.
Their best was not good enough, and self-serving nonsense about an honourable compromise cannot hide an abject failure of economic, social and political vision. •
