Normally, I am a staunch advocate of the Washington Post. However, every once in a while they let some
real tripe pass into their pages.
Mr. Samuels' stupid moustache aside, this editorial is so full of logical holes, unfounded conclusions, and dichotomous, oversimplified issues summaries that it could hardly pass as a high school five paragraph essay exercise.
He begins with the premise that the problem with democracy is democracy. Which, ok, I'll give him that. I'd say the problem with democracy is the voters, but that's sort of nit picking and we don't do that here.
But if you read the piece you almost get the feeling that Congress has put him up to it. He criticizes the public for having contradictory demands, such as wanting more services while paying less (or, not more) in taxes, wanting to pay less for gas while wanting more gas (without acknowledging the role politics plays in preventing any forward movement on that front), and complaining about how taxing illegal immigrants are on our system while at the same time not being willing to send them all home. I will admit, the public has demands on these issues that are not fluidly compatible and seamless.
But wait. Isn't that the job of Congress? To take account of the public demands (all of them), synthesize them, and produce comprehensive legislation that addresses as many of the issues as possible? It's like saying "The public doesn't want us to be in Iraq any more, but they don't want us to leave a broken, failed state. Their demands are unreasonable." No, their demands are not unreasonable, their demands simply require a bit of creativity and hard work on the part of Congress. If only!
Oh, but that's not all. Not only are the government's policies "ignorant, confused and contradictory," it's the public's fault that because public opinion is that way. What a complete load of garbage. Let me give you a basic summary of public opinion: "I want
my life to be easier, more comfortable, and longer, and I don't want to pay more taxes for it." That is about the extent of public opinion. It in no way bleeds into specific policies. Only end points.
Which is why another point that he makes, that "Democracy is working, because public attitudes remain the dominant influence -- not 'big money' or 'special interests,' as many believe" is, as we all know, complete BS.
Completely! This assumes things like A) the public is involved in policy development but the special interests aren't, B) the public knows what policies are being enacted, C) public opinions are shaping and sculpting actual policy and not just setting vague boundaries for what Congress can get away with legislating.
I won't even get into the more fundamental flaws with his assessment, such as the fact that there is no "public opinion" in the first place. People in the public have opinions, sure, but that does not translate into something that can be called "public opinion" or "public will."
So, way to go, WaPo. I hope this little stint into slumming it for a day on your Op-Ed page has satiated your taste for pure garbage for a long time.