THE GREATEST STORY NEVER TOLD

         One of the most interesting, but frustrating, books I have read in a long time is Michael Grunwald’s 2012 book THE NEW NEW DEAL.  It’s a wonkish, dense, but highly readable 400-plus page book about the Recovery Act, or as it is more widely commonly known, the “stimulus.”  As you recall, the stimulus was passed in the early days of the Obama Administration to help keep the U.S. economy from plunging into another great depression.   

           The book’s wonkishness, density, and length are not what make it frustrating.  These are its best features.  Author Michael Grunwald, a senior national correspondent at Time magazine, did an exhaustive research job, working his way through countless documents and interviewing more than 400 sources on both sides of the aisle.

          What’s frustrating is that the “stimulus” – while not perfect -- actually did a lot of what it promised – helping people keep their jobs or get back to work, steadying the economy, placing the country on the path to recovery and attempting to put the economy on solid footing for the future.  But, most glaringly, it didn’t do what the Administration, in a self-inflicted wound, foolishly predicted it would:  keep unemployment under 8 percent.  The Republicans seized that blunder to characterize the bill as a failure and a spending boondoggle.  

Unfortunately, the Administration early on lost control of the message on the stimulus and health care reform, among other initiatives, allowing the GOP to define them.  These GOP distortions have taken deep root among the electorate at large, making it virtually impossible at this point, in the midst of a presidential campaign, to set the record straight.

          It all started with the stimulus.  This early gift from the Democrats put the Republicans on a trajectory that ultimately led the party to victory in the 2010 off-year elections.  Stung by the electoral defeats in the 2006 and 2008 elections, the party leadership decided that its only hope of becoming the Majority Party was to become the “Party of No” on its way to grabbing the leadership reins once again. Translated, that meant whatever the Obama Administration proposed the Republicans in the House and the Senate would oppose – even while showing up at local events claiming credit for projects made possible by the stimulus.

          I am not making this up.  Check the record.  The GOP leadership in both the House and the Senate imposed strict discipline on the members of their caucus.  The members were told:  Be resolute; don’t cooperate.  If you do cooperate, we’ll punish you.  And, by and large, the GOP members slavishly followed their lead.  They also were told to characterize the stimulus as just another Liberal spending bill and that’s the story that has taken root.

          One can only imagine what otherwise might have been if President Obama did not believe that if he got “the policies right, the politics would take care of themselves” and his Administration had done a better job countering these distortions right away.  The one that is most galling, perhaps, is that President Obama did not follow up on his campaign promise to bridge the partisan divide in Washington and get politicians working together to solve the problems facing the country.  This from the “Party of No” that pledged to block anything the President sent to the Hill.  Chutzpah does not even come close to capturing that level of brazen mendacity.

           And now they’re down in Tampa peddling their distortions on Medicare and other issues in prime time. Will they ultimately get away with it?  It’s frightening to think so.  That said, I still believe enough Americans, initially lured by the siren’s call of lower taxes and other appeals to self-interest at the expense of the common good, will come to their senses and see the GOP platform for what it is – a ticket back to what got us in this mess in the first place.

           Gerald E. Lavey

SIZING UP THE ODDS

         Although some conservative politicians and pundits are proclaiming this the “dirtiest” Presidential campaign in memory, I would suggest they have a selective memory.  What they don’t remember is Democratic candidates fighting back so ferociously, as Dana Milbank noted in his Washington Post column today.

Usually, the Democratic candidates go limp in the face of GOP charges, however outrageous, figuring that the electorate couldn’t possibly believe such outlandish claims.  The Swift Boating of John Kerry in 2004 comes to mind, as does the Willie Horton smears of Michael Dukakis in 1988.  The list is long and dirty and although Democrats also resort to negative campaign tactics they are pikers compared to the GOP.

         Like most people, I would like to see the campaigns take the high road and revolve around a discussion of serious national and international issues, but that is naïve.  So, I am glad to see the Democrats counterpunching and fighting fire with fire.  Elections, sad to say, are won in the trenches and they aren’t pretty.  If you want help to separate fact from fiction on the issues – practically a full time job, by the way – don’t listen to the campaign ads.  You need to regularly go to one or more of the independent on-line fact checking sites.  They are very revealing – and helpful.

         With the GOP’s sizeable lead in fund raising, I fear the Romney/Ryan team will be able to win the mudslinging contest, and that could make a decisive difference late in the campaign, but I am cautiously hopeful it won’t be enough to decide the election. 

There are three reasons for my optimism.

         For Romney to win, he has to capture the majority of undecided voters who for the most part are moderates.  And putting a radical like Ryan on the ticket doesn’t help there.  Governors Chris Christie or Bob McDonnell, or Bob Portman, or Mitch Daniels, maybe, but Ryan, no.  Ryan can recant on his Ayn Rand fixation all he wants, but his record is clear and unavoidable and he can’t expunge that record regardless of how much air brushing the GOP does between now and November.  Ryan will help solidify the Tea Party base, but the GOP had that locked up anyway.  So, the Ryan selection doesn’t make sense in terms of wooing the undecided.

         Besides the undecided/moderates, Romney and Ryan need to do very well among Jews and Catholics and that’s a tall order.  One of the main reasons Jews have traditionally voted Democratic is that they have had a strong belief in America’s social compact – to take care of the poor and the disadvantaged in our society. That is a belief rooted in Jewish Scripture and tradition.  And although the GOP thinks its unconditional support of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu will dislodge a chunk of American Jews, it won’t make a significant difference despite the deep pockets of the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson.  Jewish American support of Netanyahu is spotty at best. 

         Likewise with Catholics, the GOP thinks it will reap a windfall of Catholic votes by repeating the charge that the Obama Administration has “waged a war” against the Catholic Church on the contraceptive provision in the health care law.  While this tactic may win some Catholic votes because a few American Catholic bishops are spouting the same nonsense, it won’t sway the majority of Catholics who understand that the core of the Catholic teaching and tradition is taking care of the poor and the disadvantaged among us.  And, to its credit, the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference has underscored that commitment. 

So, for Romney to pick a Catholic as his running mate shouldn’t make a decisive difference among Catholic voters.  Ryan is among the conservatives – despite his Catholic faith -- who believe that the only people who count in our society are those who pick themselves up by their own bootstraps, ignoring the fact that some people don’t have bootstraps to begin with. 

My hope and trust is that most of my fellow Catholics understand that crucial difference.

Gerald E. Lavey