I don’t know what there is to gloat about. The government is drowning in a sea of red ink, and nothing whatever has been done to address that other than kicking the can down the road – to February 7th, or something.
Despite that, the New York Times editorial board is ecstatic, as if they have been personally vindicated in all the shut-down/default hoopla.
Then again, I suppose the stubborn determination to keep things as they are favors the NYT: the Wall Street-Washington axis gets to continue feeding off the labor of Main Street USA for now. The Times is certainly a cheer-leader non-pareil for that status quo.
Speaking of status quo, I guess “change you can believe in” means…no real change at all.
Now, are the Republicans as a group stunningly incompetent? Yes. The courage of their convictions appears to be lacking not just because they have no courage but because they have no convictions either. Pandering to the intellectually challenged Tea Party people (who can forget: “Keep your government hands off my medicare!!”) obviously doesn’t require much in the way of coherence or intelligibility, but it also doesn’t seem to get you anywhere.
Another problem is that Democrats, for all their terrible flaws – such as devotion to communism – are so much more likeable, agreeable and even more genuine than Republicans, at least at the level of sentiment. At the level of visceral or emotional appeal, there’s no contest. This may be the biggest problem the Republicans have: nobody likes them. Nobody normal, anyway.
But if you want something meaningful or substantial to address the very real issues about the government and its budget and the economy generally, you’re going to have to look elsewhere than either Democrats or Republicans.
The New York Times ain’t much help either.
But here’s someone who is doing something. Imagine that. A lawyer.
As an aside, that linked article recounts the experience of a debtor’s attorney who attended a CLE designed for creditors’ attorneys. This should happen more often – that is, attending the CLE’s of the opposition. For example, criminal defense lawyers should always have someone attending every prosecutors’ convention. I have reason to believe that isn’t happening at all. I might expand on that thought at a later time.