Blaming Obama for Blaming Bush
A Very Puzzling Washington Post Article
or:
Everything That Isn't Clinton's Fault Is Obama's

I've posted several times on the tightrope that liberals have to walk with regard to bipartisanship. In short, they have to urge us to come together while also making it clear that our recent polarization is almost entirely the fault of conservatives. And, though there are actual quantitative studies that support this claim, it's not an easy case to make, rhetorically speaking.

What's surprising about this Post article is that it's central thesis is that there is something like an inconsistency between (a) Obama's calls for bipartisanship and (b) his reminders that he inherited this mess from Bush. I find this very puzzling.

It is clear to any even vaguely objective and minimally knowledgeable person that the current mess is Bush's fault. There is no question about that, no serious debate to be had. It's a fact. (Remember facts? They're the hard things that you can't wish away. The things the Bush administration didn't believe in...)

Of course, some conservatives (like Rush "Big Pharma" Limbaugh) were trying to "re-brand" this as "the Obama recession" even before Obama took office. Apparently they believe in backwards causation. (But, hey, if you get everything else backwards, why not causation, huh?)

Consider the following astonishing bit of sophistry by GOP Minority Whip Eric Cantor:

"It is the Obama economy and the Obama stock market...This is about today, and he's assumed his post."

These are the same people who tried to blame Clinton for everything that went wrong in the Bush administration, up until two months before Obama took office, when they began blaming him. These people are sophistical infantile shitheads. But I state the obvious.

One wonders: is it a coincidence that the party that is incapable of taking responsibility for its errors is also the party that cannot admit any errors by the nation as a whole? A pattern seems to be emerging here...

The confusion in the Post piece is more-or-less summarized by/concentrated in the following quote from Lawrence R. Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota:

"What the administration is involved in now is the politics of attribution. Each week that goes by with falling job numbers and Republican criticism of the administration's flaws means falling approval ratings. What's the antidote? That the guilty party is George Bush."

"The trick," Jacobs said, "is how do you shift blame to George Bush and retain any credibility on the idea that you are looking past partisan warfare? This looks like a doubling down on a very partisan approach."

"The politics of attribution"??? Is this some kind of joke? People get tenure for this kind of analysis (and I use the term loosely)? Pointing out, e.g., that Obama inherited a war that Bush started is "the politics of attribution"??? (Insert incredulous stare here)

The confusion here is to think that a commitment to bipartisanship requires us to step into a fantasy world in which everyone is equally responsible for everything that has ever happened. Pointing out the obvious--that Bush is responsible for the current mess--is not a "trick" nor an "antidote." It is simply stating facts. Should Obama stand up and say, e.g., "Of course I am completely responsible for the Iraq war. I am now president, and hence 100% responsible for everything that has ever happened to this country."

Is Obama responsible for the Revolutionary war? Is he responsible for slavery? Is he responsible for making us the world's sole superpower? If he's responsible for everything about our current status, then he's done a damn fine job all things considered. Nice work, Barack!

Or is he responsible only for the bad things?

Of course that's the GOP's actual position.

A thought-experiment: were the economy to suddenly turn around, which of the following would conservatives say:

(a) "It is the Obama economy and the Obama stock market...This is about today, and he's assumed his post." Good job, President Obama!

(b) Well, this is obviously attributable to the policies of George W. Bush and the Republicans. Obama hasn't been in office long enough to effect this kind of change. The seeds of this were sown over the last eight years, and conservative policies are just coming to fruition.

Is there anyone anywhere who thinks (a) is even a remote possibility?

A wee principle:
Although this is far too simplistic, I'm going to propose this as a starting point for serious discussion here. 9/11 happend eight months into Bush's tenure; the economy was already in the crapper when Obama took over. So, on the face of it, we have to do one of the following:

(i) Blame Bush for 9/11 and Obama for the economy.

(ii) Neither Blame Bush for 9/11 nor blame Obama for the economy.

(iii) Blame Bush for 9/11 but not blame Obama for the economy.

The one option that cannot, prima facie, be on the table is:

(iv) Don't blame Bush for 9/11 but do blame Obama for the economy.

The GOP, of course, employs flexible principles when attributing responsibilty. Clinton is responsible for every bad thing that happened even 7.5 years after he left office...until Obama's backwards causation powers made him responsible for any bad thing that happened after that. The GOP is, of course, responsible for any good thing that happened...which basically means only: aside from the worst terrorist attack in history, they "kept us safe." No doubt Bush will continue to be responsible for "keeping us safe" unless/until there is another attack, at which point it will be Obama's responsibility.

One conclusion we can take away from all this, though, is:

Although bipartisanship is a useful approximation, it's not what we really need. What we really need is reasonableness. We don't need to split the difference on everything, we need to be able to state the facts without spin. Though partisanship is the enemy, bipartisanship is not exactly the opposite of partisanship. And what we most need is an end to partisanship. The respective parties need to be reasonable, to take responsibility when that's appropriate, and to cut the manichean tribalistic bullshit. The GOP has been far, far more partisan/tribal than the Dems have. So the cure for the debilitating partisanship that plagues our politics lies mostly with the GOP.

God help us, but that seems to be the way it is.