Villain of the Week

Politicians and the news media have many things in common. One common characteristic is that both need a villain to attack on a regular basis. Politicians have discovered the best way to deflect attention away from their own problems is to attack someone else. The strategy, which seems to work, is to make a lot of noise about how evil someone else is with the hope no one will notice the things you are doing that may be even worse. When politicians identify a villain, the news media will quickly jump on board, especially if they favor the politicians who are on the attack and disagree with the political philosophy of the targeted villain.

In some cases, the same person serves as the villain for an extended period of time. For example, Vice President Dick Cheney and White House aide Karl Rove served as the targeted villains during the entire eight years of the Bush Administration. The Democrats and their supporters in the news media pounded Vice President Cheney and Mr. Rove almost every day regardless of what they said or did. The Republicans also have their villains. Today’s top villains for the Republicans are President Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. The Republicans don’t have many friends in the mainstream news media, but there are many conservative political commentators who assist the Republicans in attacking their villains.

In some cases, an individual who otherwise does not have a high public profile becomes a villain for a short period of time because of his or her position on a particular issue. In almost all cases, the truth is irrelevant when a villain is being attacked. The villain’s positions are almost always misrepresented or taken out of context. Regrettably, the news media cannot be relied upon to set the record straight. Instead, the news media frequently becomes a co-conspirator in the political assassination of the villain.

A new villain appeared on the scene this week. The villain of the week is Jim Bunning, a Republican member of the United States Senate from my home state of Kentucky.

What did Sen. Bunning do to deserve becoming this week’s villain? In order to examine his conduct, it is first necessary to go back a few weeks in time. In February, Congress raised the federal government’s debt limit from $12.4 trillion to $14.3 trillion in order to allow the government to keep borrowing money it doesn’t have. At the same time, in order to demonstrate its fiscal responsibility, Congress adopted “pay-as-you-go” rules requiring that any increases in spending be offset by cuts in spending in other areas of the federal budget. President Obama signed the legislation adopted by Congress, including the “pay-as-you-go” rules. After signing the legislation, President Obama said, “In a perfect world, Congress would not have needed a law to act responsibly, to remember that every dollar spent would come from taxpayers today—or our children tomorrow. But this isn’t a perfect world. This is Washington. And while in theory there is bipartisan agreement on moving on balanced budgets, in practice, this responsibility for the future is often overwhelmed by the politics of the moment. It falls prey to the pressure of special interests, to the pull of local concerns, and to a reality familiar to every single American—the fact that it is a lot easier to spend a dollar than save one. That is why this rule is necessary.”

Less than a month after adopting the “pay-as-you-go” rules, a bill was introduced in Congress to extend unemployment benefits that were scheduled to expire. The cost of extending the unemployment benefits was $10 billion. In its wisdom, Congress decided to exempt the cost of the bill from the recently enacted “pay-as-you-go” rules. Sen. Bunning then appeared on the scene as the villain of the week.

Sen. Bunning had the audacity to suggest Congress should follow its own rules. He said he favored the extension of unemployment benefits, but he argued the cost of the extension should be offset by cuts in spending in other areas of the $3.5 trillion federal budget. Sen. Bunning suggested Congress use unspent money from last year’s stimulus legislation to pay for the extension, but Democrats objected. He also suggested other cost reductions, but Democrats objected. Sen. Bunning asked, “If we cannot pay for a bill that all 100 senators support, how can we tell the American people with a straight face that we will ever pay for anything?”

The reaction to Sen. Bunning’s position was as predictable as the sunrise each day. In order to deflect attention from their out-of-control spending habits, the Democrats have unmercifully attacked Sen. Bunning throughout the week. He has been called evil, immoral, heartless, and even worse. He has been accused of wanting to force people out of their homes and of wanting to deny food to the needy. A friend from Kentucky referred to Sen. Bunning as a “nut case” and said he made her ashamed to be from Kentucky.

The news media jumped on board in support of the Democrats who were attacking Sen. Bunning. The television news media painted Sen. Bunning as a monster and ran stories focusing on the victims of delayed spending. ABC News Reporter Jon Karl confronted Sen. Bunning as he entered an elevator and spoke into the camera, “We wanted to ask the Senator why he is blocking a vote that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 340,000 Americans, including Brenda Wood, a teacher in Austin, Texas who has been out of work for two years.” The cameras then turned to Ms. Wood, who talked about her struggles and added, “I don’t know what I’ll do.” ABC World News Anchor Diane Sawyer said Sen. Bunning was denying “life support for the unemployed.”

The heat from the Democrats and the news media became so intense that even conservative Republicans had to distance themselves from Sen. Bunning. Finally, Sen. Bunning retreated under pressure from members of his own party, who had lost the public relations battle on this emotional issue.

Once again, the strategy of finding and attacking a villain worked. Emotion always wins out over logic. Because of all the noise, no one seemed to notice that Sen. Bunning was in favor of the bill extending unemployment benefits. He only wanted Congress to follow its own rules and to offset the cost of extending the unemployment benefits by cutting spending in other areas. He wanted Congress to do the same thing all of us have to do with our family budgets and our business budgets.

I was watching television this week when U.S. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont made an emotional speech during which he said Sen. Bunning was immoral. Sen. Sanders, however, apparently doesn’t think it’s immoral for the federal government to continue borrowing money that will have to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. To Sen. Sanders and many others, there is nothing immoral about imposing a crushing debt load on future generations. Morality and immorality obviously mean different things to different people.

After Sen. Bunning gave up the fight, Congress passed the bill extending unemployment benefits at a cost of $10 billion with no offsetting cost reductions. In a twist of irony, President Obama hosted a reception at the White House the next day to celebrate the passage of the “pay-as-you-go” legislation. Sen. Bunning, the villain of the week, was not invited to the reception. It’s business as usual in Washington, D.C.