Dinner conversations at my home often erupt in political brawls, with everyone leaving the table a little annoyed. Recently, my father, grandfather and I got into it about the sequester, the fiscal cliff and the general intransigence of the Republican Party. My father and grandfather both voted for Barack Obama in 2008 but switched to Mitt Romney in 2012: Obama’s lack of “leadership” was their main complaint. “He’s never led anything in his life,” my grandfather repeatedly complained, laying the blame for the G.O.P.’s uncompromising position on Obama’s refusal to compromise more. “He won’t get serious about entitlement cuts,” whined my father, spouting off a popular talking point in the media. My father and grandfather are not political wonks. They get most of their news from mainstream news sources and tailor their opinions from there. These mainstream outlets continue to peddle a crippling bipartisan myth: both sides are to blame for our current bout of fake crises.
This news phenomenon, dubbed by some media critics as “false equivalence,” abdicates true journalistic responsibility in favor of superficially occupying the political middle. Some news organizations obviously fall outside this bubble: Fox News demonizes Obama as a socialist without a birth certificate while MSNBC hails him as a progressive icon. Other media organizations mistake objectivity for feigned centrism and accordingly blame both sides for our cascading series of crisis. Political reality, organizations like The Washington Post assume, must lie somewhere between each side’s negotiation position.
The facts do not support this mainstream false equivalence. Obama prefers not to cut entitlements; the Republicans don’t want to raise taxes. How has each side compromised? Obama has repeatedly offered a combination of entitlement cuts and revenue increases in a middle-of-the-road proposal. The Republicans have only offered spending cuts. The media’s response? Blame both sides. A Washington Post editorial about the sequester sums up this knee-jerk media response by attacking Republican irresponsibility and intransigency, asking, “Why is Mr. Obama not leading the way to a solution?” Nevermind that such a question assumes presidential control over Congress that does not exist; it blames Obama for not catering enough to a party who is refusing to compromise.
Obama obviously deserves some blame for our current situation. His professorial negotiation style only hurts him when negotiating with people who are predisposed to disagree with him. The G.O.P. deserves the lion’s share of the blame, though. Obama recently referenced this unfortunate reality by wryly joking that he cannot “Jedi mind-meld” House Republicans.
More importantly, this faux bipartisanship offers important lessons for our political future. Mainstream political journalism holds up the ideological middle as noble and almost heroic — witness the fawning over “independent” voters during the presidential election. Recent political science suggests this focus is misguided. University of Wisconsin-Madison political scientist Charles Gilbert argues that independents are, by and large, disengaged from the political process; Emory University political scientist Alan Abramowitz’s research suggests that highly engaged and informed voters are more aware of the differences between the parties and thus more likely to be highly partisan. Polarization may actually be the result of the democratically ideal highly engaged electorate, according to Abramowitz.
The cascading series of fake crises gripping our country all too easily inspire cynicism in students of our generation. The issue is not whether Obama’s position is more “centrist,” (hint: it is) but how the media portrays each side. Witness the mainstream media’s feigned impartiality and constant fact-checking of both sides during the presidential debate, for instance. Journalism’s role should not be a lame occupation of a fake middle, but rather a firm stand for truth. If The Washington Post fails us, our generational response should not be to give up or ignore politics. All too often, friends complain that the negativity and polarization of politics incentivizes their retreat from political debate. That’s weak. Cynicism is just fear by another name, fear that our generation cannot overcome the polarization of our parents. Dartmouth students should strive to be Abramowitz’s hyper-engaged electorate by soaking in information from all sides and then taking political stands. We cannot sit on the sidelines and listen to vague Washington Post platitudes about the problems with both parties. They both have problems. You should still choose one.