The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent posed aninteresting theory yesterday that is quickly making its way across theInternet. He calls it the “Beltway Deficit Feedback Loop” – a theory in whichthe “relentless bipartisan focus” on deficits is what is driving “people totell pollsters they’re worried about it.”In other words, he argues that peoplearen’t really concerned about the deficit, they’re just hearing about it somuch that they’ve forced themselves to seem concerned.
Here’s Sargent’s argument as fleshed out on hisblog,
When you have leading officials in both parties — starting with allRepublicans and a handful of moderate Dems — acting as if reining in thedeficit is so urgent that it requires more attention than creating jobs, peoplestart to tell pollsters they agree. This helps create a climate in which Demslose any incentive to make the case for more government spending to prime therecovery, which begins to vanish from the conversation.
Meanwhile, the other side continues to hammer away at reining in spendingas the way to resuscitate the economy. Dems, anxious that Republicans will beseen as the only ones proposing solutions, nod in agreement and pick a fightover how much we should cut. The public hears an ever growing chorus ofbipartisan agreement that the deficits and spending are our number one problem.The case that government can create jobs continues to fade. And so on...and soon...
This argument is ridiculous to me for a number ofreasons.
First, it comes off as nothing more than a cleverway to get ignore poll results. If all you have to do is argue that people arepure lemmings, incapable of doing anything but staring blankly and nodding theirhead while politicians discuss issues, in order to dismiss public opinion, thenyou’d never lose an argument. The fact is, a lot of Washington doesn’t wantvoters to care about a deficit, (a few of whom actually believe in Keynesianstimulus, most of whom are worried about the political impact of the deficitdebate) so being able to dismiss poll results makes it a lot easier torationalize their agenda.
Second, it’s not very plausible. If it was as easyto sway public opinion as Sargent believes, then almost any issue that receivessignificant news coverage and is being talked about by both parties shouldshoot up the polls. But I’m not sure the data bears that out. Take health careas an example. In the 2008 elections both parties were talking about the needfor reform and it largely dominated the political discourse for the ensuing twoyears. Yet according to a Washington Postpoll, 96 percent of respondents said it was a high priority in2005, but it consistently tapered off to the point where only 84 percent nowfeel the same.
Third, he ignores the fact that Americans view thedeficit and jobs as interrelated problems. Sargent, like many liberals, or as someprefer, progressives, believes that more government spending is needed to fosterdemand and get the economy on its feet. In an attempt to rationalize why thedeficit, and not this supposed jobs agenda, has become the discussion du jour,Sargent postulated his “deficit feedback loop.”
This argument fails to consider that given the twocompeting visions – the Republicans who argue deficit reduction is need to getprivate investment off the sidelines versus the Democrats’ desire to spendmoney and rack up deficits to get the economy humming – voters preferred theformer. A recent Gallup poll confirms as much.
When asked what the best approach to deal with theU.S. economy was, 39 percent said reducing the deficit while only 5 percentsaid increasing stimulus spending. In other words, there is no feedback loop,or really any need to explain away the data, because it is an accuratereflection of the mood of America.
As Derek Thompson wrotein The Atlantic,
In 2009, the economy was in the dumps, and Democratsborrowed a lot of money to fix it. The deficit went up but that didn't stop thejob losses. This hurt the case for more spending. In 2010, Republicans ran on apromise to cut spending. They won a landslide. Washington heeded the public"mandate" by focusing on spending cuts. That's not a feedback loopbetween the politicians, the public and the media. It's just economic fundamentalsdriving elections, and elections driving policy.
Bingo.