THE EDITORIAL PAGE, predictably, sadly, does not.
Wednesday's three-star front page offered this subhead: "Congress: Obama backlash routs Dems." The corresponding story said:
Political scientists also described the results as a backlash against Obama's activist liberal agenda, including a trillion-dollar economic stimulus package and a sweeping overhaul of the American health care system.
"Democrats are fooling themselves if they think it was only about the economy," said Steven E. Schier, a political science professor at Carleton College."
(Dunham, "Obama backlash routs Dems," Houston Chronicle, November 3, 2010)
The Chronicle editorial board, which apparently bothers not to read its own front page, used 611 words to say the election were something other than a repudiation of Obamism.
It was just something that happened. A force of political nature, of "raw political energy," a "harvest for the GOP."
But why, why, why did it happen?
The real problem, we learned more than 300 words in, is that Mr. Obama did not communicate well enough -- precisely the view of the matter shared by Mr. Obama himself.
Obama was subdued, somber and serious as he conceded that he had lost track of the ways he had connected with people in the first place. And so he has. Obama must reconnect if he is to be more than a one-term president.
What's missing here is any thought that his policies were wrong or that American voters had expressed what George F. Will calls "a nationwide recoil against Barack Obama's idea of unlimited government."
While giving Mr. Obama a pass -- except only for failing to "connect" -- the Chronicle described the Tea Party movement as primarily [meaning here, first in order] a reaction against -- grab your hat with both hands so it doesn't blow off -- George W. Bush.
We well recall that the tea party movement that boosted GOP elelction totals on Tuesday was born out of outrage at Republican majorities in Congress that stood by and allowed federal deficits to soar during the presidency of George W. Bush.
Read that again. Savour it. Enjoy the rich bouquet. Wash it around your intellectual palate. Swallow it slowly to enjoy the full bloom of flavor.
Full-bodied denial with a hint of cluelessness.
That is, so far as I can remember, the one and only complaint -- if complaint it be -- about soaring federal deficits since . . . well, forever. We certainly have never read that deficits soared in the last two years.
The newspaper's occasional feeble plaints about the need to really, really think about the national debt don't count. Likewise, a mention of debts and deficits in this same editorial (see below) don't count.
The debt/deficit editorials never explain whence the debt is coming and how the president and his party have conspired to keep it coming, long after they are collecting their federal retirement checks.
And the Chronicle's occasional mentions of deficit and debt never arrive at the certain destination of any serious thinking about the subject, which is: Whoa! We need to stop doing this!
The Chronicle's problem, as has been mentioned here once or twice, is that Tuesday's repudiation of Obamism is also -- at its core and in its spirit -- a repudiation of Chroniclism or Hearstism or whatever -ism you want to call it.
Clever Peopleism, perhaps.
The consent of the governed has been snatched without ceremony from the president of the United States and his enablers -- governmental and NGOs alike.
There will be no more massive bailouts, no more takeovers of new industries, no more new taxes, no more massive regulation schemes to strangle life from the American economy.
The real problem now is how to reverse the extravagent and promiscuous government actions of the past two years, which will certainly be difficult and may be impossible -- at least before 2012.
The Chronicle uses not one of its 611 words on how to fix what has been done wrong. Instead it looks at the horizon, sees problems galore, and exhorts Congress and the president to cooperate in solving them.
But that same turned-over world remains one beset by the urgent problems troubling voters before Tuesday's transforming elections. The list begins and ends with jobs, but also includes enormous concern about federal deficits and government spending, as well as ongoing worries about terrorism, America's competitiveness in today's world and threats to traditional notions of American exceptionalism. Rejoicing Republicans and disheartened Democrats alike will ignore these voter concerns at their peril.
In substance, the Chronicle is hinting that we need more programs and more spending.
But the three problems mentioned by the editors have three simple and elegant answers:
Jobs? Get the government out of the way of the economy.
Deficits and debts? Stop spending so much.
American exceptionalism? Get a new president.
And while we're at it, get a new newspaper -- one that likes and respects Texas and America, and that joins with its readers in celebrating the Fourth of July and other civic holidays to celebrate our sweet nation.
The elections have renewed our government. Pity we have no systematic way to renew our newspaper except, perversely and in a way that hurts us as well as our intended traget, by hanging up on subscription vendors.
(Editorial, "Tea leaves:Tuesday's election re-energized [read reenergized] Republicans. Now comes the opportunity for both parties," Houston Chronicle, November 4, 2010)
Note to readers: I declared defeat on trying to get the fonts straight. Typepad has the most miserable font controls in the business. They've improved a bit lately, but not enough. I've fixed this stuff five times. Now I'm giving up. Sorry forthe ragged read.
Comments