Television People

Notwithstanding the “outsider” shtick favored by right-wing populists in Washington and, on the other side of the political spectrum, progressives’ penchant for waving the “everyday people” banner, the average American sees an unbridgeable chasm between themselves and those who debate the issues that ultimately decide the economic fate of Main Street.

Every evening across the country, working people turn on their televisions or scroll through their social media feeds and see politicians, academics, experts and pundits blaming each other for this or that societal ill, and without fail, each and every one them claims for themselves the mantle of “the American people.” The discussion is often refereed by anchors caked in makeup, who likewise claim to represent the interests of the public.

It’s true that Americans trust some politicians, economists and experts more than others, and the same goes for anchors, some of whom (like Tucker Carlson) are vastly more influential than their guests. That trust and influence has virtually nothing to do with the veracity of any evidence presented, and everything to do with partisan affiliation. But by and large, when Americans watch the news, either on television or via clips posted to social media, they see an argument to which they aren’t a party, and depressingly, the outcome of that argument has the potential to impact their lives, despite their having no seat at the discussion table. The idea of representative democracy in America is a sad joke, unless by “representative” you mean special interests. This perpetuates a cycle of disaffection and disengagement, which only makes the situation worse, and it’s also conducive to the latent build up of anger.

The television arguments are resolved or they aren’t, and most regular people’s daily lives aren’t affected in the very near-term. That’s problematic enough on its own. Ideally, policymaking should have a perceptible positive impact on the lives of those for whom policy is made, and people shouldn’t have to wait around on it forever. But the real issue is that the cumulative effects of the decisions made by a relatively small cadre of politicians, academics, economists and corporations have been absolutely ruinous for Main Street over the long-term.

On rare occasions, the television people make decisions that are near-term ruinous, which is what’s on the verge of happening with the US debt ceiling. I’ve lamented the absurdity of this “Capitol offense” repeatedly. This is the issue du jour for the television people, and Americans are currently being subjected to an especially contentious round of finger-pointing and an especially disingenuous cacophony of fiscal and social virtue signaling.

At some point over the next eight or nine months, America could fail to meet its dollar-denominated financial obligations, an outcome so absurd that it should be impossible. In a philosophical sense, you can’t “default” on financial obligations payable in a currency that you issue, and in the US case, that truism is even truer because other than happiness, there’s nothing in the world that US dollars can’t buy. In short, the US government is now so broken that the sheer quantum of ineptitude concentrated inside the Beltway is powerful enough to overcome the rules of logic.

On Friday, two-dozen Republican senators sent a letter to Joe Biden emphasizing that “any increase in the debt ceiling must be accompanied by cuts in federal spending of an equal or greater amount as the debt ceiling increase, or meaningful structural reform.” “We do not intend to vote for a debt-ceiling increase without reforms,” the lawmakers said, grandstanding.

Mitch McConnell has variously insisted this isn’t the Senate’s problem. Instead, he claims, it’s an issue to be resolved by Biden and Kevin McCarthy. That’s not entirely true, but even if it were, it’s problematic because in order to secure the House gavel, McCarthy made a laundry list of concessions to his far-right flank, most of whom evidence nothing in the way of appreciation for the gravity of the debt ceiling discussion, just as they evidenced nothing in the way of appreciation for why peaceful transfers of power are important in a democracy.

For his part, Biden has taken to calling Republicans the party of “chaos and catastrophe,” which is objectively true, but unhelpful for at least three reasons. First, he’s one of the television people, and Americans who identify as Republicans don’t enjoy being called anarchists by the president. Second, McCarthy is beholden to the “chaos and catastrophe” contingent, so if negotiating with him is imperative, it’d be better not to publicly castigate the anarchists. Third, and mostly importantly, if the White House does indeed fear “chaos and catastrophe” and is serious about not allowing the country to be taken hostage via the default threat, one way to expedite a fix is to tell the American people, unequivocally, that in the event the situation isn’t resolved in time, Biden will simply instruct the Treasury department to pay, in full, the country’s existing obligations both domestic and foreign-facing, legislation or no legislation.

If you’re inclined to say that latter suggestion isn’t possible, I’d be inclined to tell you that it certainly is from a technical perspective, and further, that if Biden were to make such a promise to the American people (say, in a prime time television address to the nation) and explain, in simple terms, what’s at stake, that’d put both Republicans and Democrats in Congress in a very difficult position. Assuming Treasury went along with what — I guess — would be a technically illegal decree, lawmakers would have to decide whether to save face by striking a deal ahead of time, or else impeach Biden for the “high crime and misdemeanor” of preserving the country’s full faith and credit, averting a global financial meltdown, paying the military and making good on financial obligations to America’s elderly and veterans. My guess is that, faced with such a decision, Congress would make a deal.

Of course, the White House would never do such a thing. The brinksmanship in D.C. around the debt ceiling will continue. Politicians, economists, pundits and anchors will stand on their soapboxes. And Americans with either stare vacantly at the poisonous rhetoric and petulant sniping or engage in some themselves on social media, because that’s what counts as political participation in the era of Twitter and Facebook.

At the end of the day, the television people don’t care. Why would they? Right-wing media provocateurs; high-profile Democrats; rich businessmen-turned Republican lawmakers; famous left-leaning public intellectuals with lucrative writing gigs and book deals; titans of finance preaching ESG one day and flirting with oil-rich autocrats the next; the living, breathing paradox of the millionaire “progressive”; C-suite suits making 300 times the salary of the people who actually make the widgets; all of them. They all live in the same neighborhoods. Figuratively, but also literally. They walk their dogs together, they have coffee together, they attend HOA meetings together and they have cocktail parties together.

Let’s be clear about something: It’s not a conspiracy. That’s the line the right-wing media provocateurs feed you during the day while they’re monetizing your time. Later on that evening, they have dinner with the left-wing academic down the street. I can attest to that dynamic personally. I had several dinners in the heart of Manhattan with a right-wing provocateur. He knew of my left-leaning views but, as he patiently explained, “It’s not about that. It’s about making us rich.” So no, it’s not a conspiracy. It’s a cooperative kleptocracy cynically masquerading as a competitive political duopoly.

The system is broken for everybody but the television people, and they have every reason to assume that regardless of how any given debate turns out, their positions in government, academia and the C-suite are safe and secure, gated away from the near- and long-term outcomes of the decisions they make. Decisions made with no actual, real, direct input from a thoroughly disengaged populace. Despite recent events, the television people are oblivious to the tail risk of a disengaged populace suddenly becoming highly engaged as a result of some near-term ruinous decision or indecision.


 

Leave a Reply to TBCancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

10 thoughts on “Television People

  1. “It’s a cooperative kleptocracy cynically masquerading as a competitive political duopoly.”

    An all-time great line — concise and incisive.

    We need not look any furtther than the handful of things most Americans seem to agree upon but remain firmly out of our reach — sensible gun control, access to abortion rights, banning Congressional securities trading, term limits, affordable health care, limits on political donations, higher taxes for the super rich, etc.

    The government of the people continues to drift further and further away from the being for the people.

  2. Well said. Brilliant description of the power structure. “Talented liars,” as Chris Hedges would say.

    This congress strikes me as somehow even more capable of going through with a default than the tea party since, as far as I can tell, their sole mission is to get on TV and feel gangster. Am I wrong to suspect there is a decent chance they will at least convince the national “dialogue” that they are willing to go through with it?

    And how far out will that spook markets? Won’t that totally mess with the bond market? My understanding is there is already some heavy issuance coming on 1H ‘23.

    Anyone? Thanks

  3. I guess i am in a weird spot a “television” person who got so annoyed by being laid off from the semi conductor industry due to macro conditions after moving out of state to grab the brass ring in the late 90’s, that i started paying attention to the macro with prejudice in the early 2000’s.

    The thing is that even though my friends and family span almost the entire wealth spectrum, nobody talks macro unless it is to grumble out some commentators narrative. That is a political isolating condition for me especially after coming to the conclusion based purely on non political investing research that Trump was a crook. I voted for him the first time, the thing that put me in his camp originally was the fact that he understood that invading Iraq was a huge mistake. I had on my own come around to understand (exactly what Rush was preaching at the time that Iraq is a great opportunity for Bush re-election because voters do not change horses in the middle of a war) was the real reason we invaded to begin with.

    It is in my opinion a lack of macro finance knowledge that keeps “television” people sidelined, and effectively passive. Macro should be a required education for the sake of democracy. Even my own flawed macro self study has improved my understanding of the world around me to the degree that that the increased knowledge is overall a financial positive to my little household.

    I have been behind some closed doors that remind me of what that H mentioned, and that leads to another point: most people are adverse the septic banter on the other side of the wall. It really stinks in there. Maybe that is why they call it stinking rich.

    1. Spoiler alert: The only thing Donald Trump “understood” about Iraq was that a lot of people were disillusioned with it, and he knew he could leverage that. He didn’t (and doesn’t) care any more about the tragedy of Iraq than he cared about the tragedy of left-behind blue collar workers. If you voted for him, you got duped just like anybody who bought a “Trump steak” or went to “Trump U” or loaned him money for a building. The only thing he understands is how to dupe people. The man is only semi-literate. And I don’t mean that in a pejorative way. I mean that in the most literal sense possible: I do not believe that Donald Trump can read and write at a middle school level, let alone a college level.

      Also, you seem to have missed the point of the article: The television people are the country’s kleptocracy. So, the people on television, not the people watching it.

      1. Thanks for this, H. I was taking post-graduate courses at Columbia when Trump purchased the Commodore Hotel in the mid-70s and swindled then nearly bankrupt New York City in the process. I’ve despised him ever since. The truth about him cannot be said enough. He IS only semi literate. Even that is probably giving him too much credit.

  4. Oh i see “on TV”, my bad i did not finish my coffee this morning and that can be problematic. Should have read it twice.

    As far as being duped, you are right i did not understand Trump was crooked and that his assertions on Iraq were purely political. That makes me wonder why people keep voting for the same party who indebted us in blood and money big time via Bush’s re-election invasion of Iraq. Now the same people (republicans) responsible for that grand staged political evil seemingly want to introduce new found financial anxiety into the service members with lost limbs, busted brains, and haunted souls.

  5. “Despite recent events, the television people are oblivious to the tail risk of a disengaged populace suddenly becoming highly engaged as a result of some near-term ruinous decision or indecision.”

    Wouldn’t that require some support from various local and state police agencies OR the military itself? Even really violent riots (not protests, but actual riots) would probably end up getting put down by the police, national guard, etc. Support from people who normally guarantee security would, I think, have to be from an economic catastrophe occurring specifically to them.

    The only other image I can envision is rule by mob where citizens go after individuals–the ultra-wealthy, politicians, etc. and the police just stand back. And it’s not like the US doesn’t have a history with that (just not against the kleptocracy).

  6. Republicans have already lost the debate on government debt. Even prior to the pandemic, voters generally blamed Republicans for shutting down the government. Now post-pandemic, the average voter doesn’t care about the deficit anymore and is slowly coming to the realization that the government’s budget is not like a household budget. Biden is right to paint the hostage takers as the party of chaos and catastrophe as it’s a winning issue politically for him and the Democrats.

    Now if only Democrats could disabuse voters of the notion that Republicans are better for the economy…

  7. What about writing to your “Television Person” and letting them know what you think about an issue?

    My understanding is that they pay very close attention to a voter’s messages. Isn’t there a formula where they assume that for every one voter who goes to the trivial trouble of writing an email (not any more time than writing a comment on this website) that there are 200 who feel the same way but don’t go to the trouble?

    If you don’t like what is happening in “TV Land” I think it valid to ask if you’ve expressed that to your local TV land representative. I have, many times and as recently as the last month. If nothing else I feel that I’ve done what I’m supposed to do but it appears the majority do not – participate in the democracy that I value and done something other than complain.

NEWSROOM crewneck & prints