We wouldn't need the metaphors if the press would do its job
by David Atkins
Paul Krugman is the latest to try his hand at a metaphor to explain the shutdown and debt ceiling crisis in terms everyone can understand:
So you have this neighbor who has been making your life hell. First he tied you up with a spurious lawsuit; you’re both suffering from huge legal bills. Then he threatened bodily harm to your family. Now, however, he says he’s willing to compromise: He’ll call off the lawsuit, which is to his advantage as well as yours. But in return you must give him your car. Oh, and he’ll stop threatening your family — but only for a week, after which the threats will resume.
Not much of an offer, is it? But here’s the kicker: Your neighbor’s relatives, who have been egging him on, are furious that he didn’t also demand that you kill your dog.
And now you understand the current state of budget negotiations.
Pretty good. Jon Stewart had his own as well:
So let's talk about what's really happening at that store. Everybody chipped in and gave you money to go to the store to buy milk, bread and eggs. And then you decided on your own, 'You know what? I don't even like fucking eggs. Eggs are a communist menace turning our country Muslim, so I'm just going to buy milk and bread.' And everybody else is like 'We passed a law that said you'd buy milk, bread and eggs. And the Supreme Court upheld that shopping list.' And that's when you burned the fucking store down.
But we really shouldn't need these metaphors, should we? After all, it's a pretty simple situation: Republicans and Democrats both know (despite a few crazy outliers like Gohmert or Yoho)) that raising the debt ceiling and reopening the government are essential. They're not a favor to either side. So using them as leverage to extract concessions for public policies opposed by both the Senate and the White House is nothing but hostage taking. It's not rocket science, and we wouldn't need metaphors if the press would just call it like it is.
Unfortunately, this is the "press" the country has to deal with:
Speaking a couple hours before congressional Republican leaders were due at the White House for a meeting on the matter, Carney said it remained to be seen whether the opposition would "put the matches and gasoline aside when it comes to threatening default."
He also said the proposed short-term extension of the debt ceiling, which would the government would hit next week without congressional action, was a way for Republicans to keep the "nuclear weapon" of undermining the economy in their "back pocket."
But it was "ransom" — a word Obama has used repeatedly to describe Republican negotiating tactics — that struck the last press corps nerve. The usual briefing room decorum, such as it is, broke down entirely when Carney said finally that Obama would sign a debt-ceiling extension but not if it meant "paying a ransom" to Republicans.
"The president will not pay ransom for ... " Carney began.
"You see it as a ransom, but it's a metaphor that doesn't serve our purposes ... " NPR correspondent Ari Shapiro shouted back with broad support from other confused reporters.
"You guys are just too literal then, right? Carney said.
"We just want to accurately report," Shapiro began before Carney interjected. "We're trying to be accurate in our description of what's going on."
Ari Shapiro of the "liberal" NPR doesn't think the ransom metaphor "serves his purposes." Apparently the gaggle of reporters agrees.
Guess what? Bread and eggs are metaphors. Neighbors and lawsuits are metaphors. "Ransom" isn't a metaphor. It's an on-its-face accurate description of what is going on. Keep in mind that this wasn't a GOP operative declaring that the ransom "metaphor" didn't "serve his purposes." It was a reporter, from a supposedly left-leaning outlet.
What purposes do the assembled press have in not telling the truth? No one would need to resort to the metaphors if the press would simply accurately relate the situation. Is it really so necessary to lie in the interest of "balance"?
.