Schultz lambasted Congress for its "lack of leadership" in combating fiscal problems, and called on business leaders to exercise their influence and convince everyone to come together, compromise, be more bipartisan, show more leadership, work across the aisle, and fix the "dysfunction of Washington, D.C."
Those might not have been the exact words he used, but it doesn't particularly matter, as his exact words appear to be the same bland flavor of "centrist" mush of which we've seen a lot over the last few years.
Congress is dysfunctional and partisan. Basically everyone agrees on that. And the rhetoric used by these partisans is too often empty, buzz-worded, and sound-bite-ready, focused more on saying the right things than actually providing functional proposals.
But as Mr. Schultz so finely illustrates, that's not at all exclusive to the right and left. What we often miss is how equally vacuous the rhetoric used by our self-proclaimed centrists is.
Schultz isn't giving us any solutions. Despite how dire he sees our fiscal outlook, the most specific Schultz will get is this vague exhortation for business leaders to exercise "influence" to convince Congress to make a budget deal.
We see this far too often (look no further than the comically unsuccessful Unity '08, No Labels, and Americans Elect campaigns). What passes for a centrist movement these days needs no ideology, no defined goals, no specific platform. Only the requisite hand-wringing about the lack of Civility, wistful outcries for Real Leadership in Washington, the essential avowal that Both Sides Are to Blame, and just wishing that those gosh-darn politicians will be nice to each other and compromise.
I'm not talking about the oft-maligned false equivalency; that's another argument entirely. I usually align with the Democrats, but I recognize the need for a real centrist movement, as well as more bipartisan cooperation. What I fail to see is how this sort of vagueness is all that helpful.
I have respect for centrists and independents. Genuine ones. I don't always agree with Michael Bloomberg, but to his credit, he generally avoids drivel like this. His mayorship has allowed him to implement real, tangible ideas for solving educational problems, gun violence, and public health issues. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992 not because he had the rosiest stories about civility, but because he went around with his easels and charts and offered specific solutions to the nation's problems.
Howard Schultz is right that Washington needs leadership. But if he wants to have the sort of real impact on politics that he seems to want, he could offer some of that leadership too. Give us a tax proposal. Tell us what budget cuts he would make. Give some thoughts as to what "compromise" actually looks like.
Otherwise, he's really just part of the problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment