President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden keep reciting one particular argument for their jobs legislation, the American Jobs Act (AJA). They argue that, since both Republicans and Democrats have supported elements of the AJA previously, Republicans are being partisan and hypocritical not to support the AJA now.
I’ve outlined the poor reasoning in this argument before, but it still won’t go away. So let’s once more run down all the ways in which this argument goes wrong:
1. What standard of “bipartisan support” is being used here? If there’s 100 Democrats and one Republican supporting something, does that count as bipartisan legislation? If that’s the standard, then 100 Republicans and one Democrat opposing something in the AJA would amount to bipartisan opposition, wouldn’t it? (Keep in mind: Sens. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Jon Tester (D-MT) both voted against the AJA.) And it would be just as hypocritical for a Democrat to shift away from that “bipartisan” opposition to now support some element of the AJA, right?
2. Just because Republicans previously supported some things that are in the AJA doesn’t mean they have to support them now. After all, the AJA is a mix of a whole bunch of different proposals. Someone might have supported some of those proposals when they were mixed with others, but not in the current combination laid out by the AJA. Or, they may have supported them during economic circumstances different form today’s. In other words, just because years ago I voted for legislation that included — among dozens of other things — a payroll tax cut doesn’t mean that I’m in favor of every bill at any time that includes a payroll tax cut, right? (Analogously, just because I like one sport — say, baseball — doesn’t mean I like every sport, right?)
3. Does the same reasoning apply to Obama? He once had “bipartisan” positions on a variety of issues: Obama agreed with Republicans that the debt ceiling should not be raised (he called borrowing more money “unpatriotic”), that there should be no individual mandate to purchase health insurance, and that health care reform should not be passed via reconciliation. He has since reneged on all those positions. Does that make him a partisan, crassly political hypocrite?
4. People change their minds on political issues, there’s nothing intrinsically sinister or hypocritical about that. Though, if there is something intrinsically sinister or hypocritical about changing your position, then it applies to Obama (see point #3).
5. Above all, just because both parties support something doesn’t make it good policy. That’s what should guide the discussion, not consistency with past positions. Don’t tell me who did or didn’t support such-and-such in the past: Prove to me that this is the right thing to do now. Even if it’s true that Republicans are just being partisan obstructionists, that doesn’t prove the AJA is good policy. And citing “independent economists” who support the AJA doesn’t finish the job: You still have to show that they have good reasons for supporting the AJA.
As usual, that’s what’s missing in the current political debate: A discussion about why this is the best path forward. Obama’s argument is just the usual descent into unrelated issues and attempts to demonize opponents.