In 2021, as a rightfully robust debate comes into full form about what Congress and President-elect Joe Biden should pursue and prioritize in this crisis, one species of bad-faith political argument will face more skepticism from the press than it ever has: deficit hawkery.
Drawing on specious imagery of responsible private-sector bookkeeping, and relying on outdated notions of how to organize the public finances of the nation in control of the world’s reserve currency, deficit hawks in both major parties have led the country into a generational rut of zealously guarding against the threat of inflation at the expense of gains in the labor market for working and middle-class people. This — as many hawks who have now, at least temporarily, been converted into doves by this crisis will now tell you — is a fact.
In 2020, the historic increases in the federal budget deficit caused by the coronavirus economic shock and the initial multi-trillion-dollar federal response to it initially stirred calls for caution among congressional Republicans about spending too much in a follow-up relief bill. Almost to a person, these were politicians that expressed few qualms about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which cost well over a trillion dollars and financed by deficits, not offsetting so-called “pay-fors” in the legislation. Yet with business activity slowing as the pandemic resurges, a few centrist senators have changed their tune and supported nearly another trillion in relief.
Perhaps the most remarkable feat of the Republican Party in the policy discourse of modern American politics has been their ability to convince both a large swath of voters and a significant swath of the mainstream press that they are fiscal conservatives — despite the fact that the party hasn’t had a president preside over a balanced budget since Dwight Eisenhower.
Taking the brazenly disingenuous bait of austerity politics for years was maybe the deepest failure of the mainstream press throughout the 2010s. As my new colleague, Times columnist Ezra Klein, explained back in 2013, deficit reduction boosterism was inexplicably one realm for which “the rules for reportorial neutrality don’t apply” and journalists “are permitted to openly cheer a particular set of highly controversial policy solutions.”
This came about in part because the embrace of austerity was remarkably widespread within the establishment. Democrats from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi supported failed grand bargains and more modest successful deals to decrease annual deficits through cutting back on social spending. And Obama did lower the deficit as a share of G.D.P. throughout his time in office — even in the long wake of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was much higher than it even is now mid-pandemic.
However, to say that the press was simply led astray by the groupthink of elite partisan insiders isn’t an excuse as much as it’s a damning indictment of the profession’s upper echelons. It views its work as a public service, but it failed the public. The prestige press, in hindsight, is just as responsible for the sluggish, unequal recovery that came about as a result of our leading a national discourse that quickly dispensed with asking how to help the vast majority of people still struggling in favor of centrist posturing that made many feel sober, balanced, and exacting.
The good news is that mainstream journalism has been made more empathetic, and less tolerant of hypocrisy, by the Trump era. A swath of Wall Street has become sympathetic to Modern Monetary Theory. And the Biden team economic team is led by a mix of labor-minded experts who are appropriately dovish about public finance and partisan operatives like Neera Tanden who previously advocated austere cuts to social programs but have since changed their tune to be in sync with the party’s shifting center.
And, crucially, some leaders of the former elite policy consensus on deficit reduction have softened their stance to a remarkable degree. In their new paper, “A Reconsideration of Fiscal Policy in the Era of Low-Interest Rates,” Jason Furman, a chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Mr. Obama, and Lawrence Summers, another longtime high-ranking Democratic policy guru, conclude that the American government can afford “deficit-financed” large-scale emergency programs and longer-term investments, at least in the near term, because of historically low borrowing costs.
In part because men like these carry so much clout in Washington and New York, don’t be surprised if suddenly the outlines of their reconsideration are taken as a given on network and cable news as well as in the framing of major news stories.
Talmon Joseph Smith is a staff editor in The New York Times’ Opinion section.
In 2021, as a rightfully robust debate comes into full form about what Congress and President-elect Joe Biden should pursue and prioritize in this crisis, one species of bad-faith political argument will face more skepticism from the press than it ever has: deficit hawkery.
Drawing on specious imagery of responsible private-sector bookkeeping, and relying on outdated notions of how to organize the public finances of the nation in control of the world’s reserve currency, deficit hawks in both major parties have led the country into a generational rut of zealously guarding against the threat of inflation at the expense of gains in the labor market for working and middle-class people. This — as many hawks who have now, at least temporarily, been converted into doves by this crisis will now tell you — is a fact.
In 2020, the historic increases in the federal budget deficit caused by the coronavirus economic shock and the initial multi-trillion-dollar federal response to it initially stirred calls for caution among congressional Republicans about spending too much in a follow-up relief bill. Almost to a person, these were politicians that expressed few qualms about the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which cost well over a trillion dollars and financed by deficits, not offsetting so-called “pay-fors” in the legislation. Yet with business activity slowing as the pandemic resurges, a few centrist senators have changed their tune and supported nearly another trillion in relief.
Perhaps the most remarkable feat of the Republican Party in the policy discourse of modern American politics has been their ability to convince both a large swath of voters and a significant swath of the mainstream press that they are fiscal conservatives — despite the fact that the party hasn’t had a president preside over a balanced budget since Dwight Eisenhower.
Taking the brazenly disingenuous bait of austerity politics for years was maybe the deepest failure of the mainstream press throughout the 2010s. As my new colleague, Times columnist Ezra Klein, explained back in 2013, deficit reduction boosterism was inexplicably one realm for which “the rules for reportorial neutrality don’t apply” and journalists “are permitted to openly cheer a particular set of highly controversial policy solutions.”
This came about in part because the embrace of austerity was remarkably widespread within the establishment. Democrats from Barack Obama to Nancy Pelosi supported failed grand bargains and more modest successful deals to decrease annual deficits through cutting back on social spending. And Obama did lower the deficit as a share of G.D.P. throughout his time in office — even in the long wake of the Great Recession, when the unemployment rate was much higher than it even is now mid-pandemic.
However, to say that the press was simply led astray by the groupthink of elite partisan insiders isn’t an excuse as much as it’s a damning indictment of the profession’s upper echelons. It views its work as a public service, but it failed the public. The prestige press, in hindsight, is just as responsible for the sluggish, unequal recovery that came about as a result of our leading a national discourse that quickly dispensed with asking how to help the vast majority of people still struggling in favor of centrist posturing that made many feel sober, balanced, and exacting.
The good news is that mainstream journalism has been made more empathetic, and less tolerant of hypocrisy, by the Trump era. A swath of Wall Street has become sympathetic to Modern Monetary Theory. And the Biden team economic team is led by a mix of labor-minded experts who are appropriately dovish about public finance and partisan operatives like Neera Tanden who previously advocated austere cuts to social programs but have since changed their tune to be in sync with the party’s shifting center.
And, crucially, some leaders of the former elite policy consensus on deficit reduction have softened their stance to a remarkable degree. In their new paper, “A Reconsideration of Fiscal Policy in the Era of Low-Interest Rates,” Jason Furman, a chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under Mr. Obama, and Lawrence Summers, another longtime high-ranking Democratic policy guru, conclude that the American government can afford “deficit-financed” large-scale emergency programs and longer-term investments, at least in the near term, because of historically low borrowing costs.
In part because men like these carry so much clout in Washington and New York, don’t be surprised if suddenly the outlines of their reconsideration are taken as a given on network and cable news as well as in the framing of major news stories.
Talmon Joseph Smith is a staff editor in The New York Times’ Opinion section.
Ben Collins We need to learn how to talk to (and about) accidental conspiracists
Parker Molloy The press will risk elevating a Shadow President Trump
Alicia Bell and Simon Galperin Media reparations now
Bo Hee Kim Newsrooms create an intentional and collaborative culture
Catalina Albeanu Publish less, listen more
Rodney Gibbs Zooming beyond talking heads
Danielle C. Belton A decimated media rededicates itself to truth
Tim Carmody Spotify will make big waves in video
Marcus Mabry News orgs adapt to a post-Trump world (with Trump still in it)
Mike Caulfield 2021’s misinformation will look a lot like 2020’s (and 2019’s, and…)
Ashton Lattimore Remote work helps level the playing field in an insular industry
Andrew Ramsammy Stop being polite and start getting real
Nisha Chittal The year we stop pivoting
Cory Bergman The year after a thousand earthquakes
Tonya Mosley True equity means ownership
Joshua P. Darr Legislatures will tackle the local news crisis
Marissa Evans Putting community trauma into context
Jessica Clark News becomes plural
Jonas Kaiser Toward a wehrhafte journalism
Whitney Phillips Facts are an insufficient response to falsehoods
Zainab Khan From understanding to feeling
Logan Jaffe History as a reporting tool
Tauhid Chappell and Mike Rispoli Defund the crime beat
Jeremy Gilbert Human-centered journalism
Pablo Boczkowski Audiences have revolted. Will newsrooms adapt?
Richard Tofel Less on politics, more on how government works (or doesn’t)
Renée Kaplan Falling in love with your subscription
Hossein Derakhshan Mass personalization of truth
Celeste Headlee The rise of radical newsroom transparency
J. Siguru Wahutu Journalists still wrongly think the U.S. is different
Rishad Patel From direct-to-consumer to direct-to-believers
Brandy Zadrozny Misinformation fatigue sets in
Anthony Nadler Journalism struggles to find a new model of legitimacy
Astead W. Herndon The Trump-sized window of the media caring about race closes again
Rachel Schallom The rise of nonprofit journalism continues
Rachel Glickhouse Journalists will be kinder to each other — and to themselves
Mariano Blejman It’s time to challenge autocompleted journalism
Meredith D. Clark The year journalism starts paying reparations
Masuma Ahuja We’ll remember how interconnected our world is
Heidi Tworek A year of news mocktails
Annie Rudd Newsrooms grow less comfortable with the “view from above”
Eric Nuzum Podcasting dodged a bullet in 2020, but 2021 will be harder
Nikki Usher Don’t expect an antitrust dividend for the media
Robert Hernandez Data and shame
Don Day Business first, journalism second
Moreno Cruz Osório In Brazil, a push for pluralism
Ben Werdmuller The web blooms again
Nicholas Jackson Blogging is back, but better
Garance Franke-Ruta Rebundling content, rebuilding connections
Marie Shanahan Journalism schools stop perpetuating the status quo
Imaeyen Ibanga Journalism gets unmasked
Brian Moritz The year sports journalism changes for good
Steve Henn Has independent podcasting peaked?
Christoph Mergerson Black Americans will demand more from journalism
A.J. Bauer The year of MAGAcal thinking
Gonzalo del Peon Collaborations expand from newsrooms to the business side
Ståle Grut Network analysis enters the journalism toolbox
Stefanie Murray and Anthony Advincula Expect to see more translations and non-English content
David Chavern Local video finally gets momentum
Kate Myers My son will join every Zoom call in our industry
Jennifer Brandel A sneak peak at power mapping, 2073’s top innovation
Ryan Kellett The bundle gets bundled
José Zamora Walking the talk on diversity
Jacqué Palmer The rise of the plain-text email newsletter
Ariane Bernard Going solo is still only a path for the few
Matt DeRienzo Citizen truth brigades steer us back toward reality
Cindy Royal J-school grads maintain their optimism and adaptability
Charo Henríquez A new path to leadership
Julia Angwin Show your (computational) work
Sarah Stonbely Videoconferencing brings more geographic diversity
Gabe Schneider Another year of empty promises on diversity
Jesse Holcomb Genre erosion in nonprofit journalism
Pia Frey Building growth through tastemakers and their communities
Francesca Tripodi Don’t expect breaking up Google and Facebook to solve our information woes
Burt Herman Journalists build post-Facebook digital communities
Natalie Meade Journalism enters rehab
Patrick Butler Covid-19 reporting has prepared us for cross-border collaboration
John Davidow Reflect and repent
Jennifer Choi What have we done for you lately?
Jean Friedman-Rudovsky and Cassie Haynes A shift from conversation to action
Anna Nirmala Local news orgs grasp the urgency of community roots
John Garrett A surprisingly good year
Sarah Marshall The year audiences need extra cheer
Laura E. Davis The focus turns to newsroom leaders for lasting change
Jody Brannon People won’t renew
Sue Cross A global consensus around the kind of news we need to save
Nabiha Syed Newsrooms quit their toxic relationships
Michael W. Wagner Fractured democracy, fractured journalism
Julia B. Chan and Kim Bui Millennials are ready to run things
Loretta Chao Open up the profession
Edward Roussel Tech companies get aggressive in local
Chicas Poderosas More voices mean better information
Joni Deutsch Local arts and music make journalism more joyous
Ariel Zirulnick Local newsrooms question their paywalls
Colleen Shalby The definition of good journalism shifts
C.W. Anderson Journalism changed under Trump — will it keep changing under Biden?
Benjamin Toff Beltway reporting gets normal again, for better and for worse
Samantha Ragland The year of journalists taking initiative
John Ketchum More journalists of color become newsroom founders
Delia Cai Subscriptions start working for the middle
María Sánchez Díez Traffic will plummet — and it’ll be ok
Hadjar Benmiloud Get representative, or die trying
Doris Truong Indigenous issues get long-overdue mainstream coverage
John Saroff Covid sparks the growth of independent local news sites
Rasmus Kleis Nielsen Stop pretending publishers are a united front
Mark S. Luckie Newsrooms and streaming services get cozy
Tamar Charney Public radio has a midlife crisis
Sara M. Watson Return of the RSS reader
Taylor Lorenz Journalists will learn influencing isn’t easy
Rick Berke Virtual events are here to stay
M. Scott Havens Traditional pay TV will embrace the disruption
Jer Thorp Fewer pixels, more cardboard
Chase Davis The year we look beyond The Story
Kawandeep Virdee Goodbye, doomscroll
David Skok A pandemic-prompted wave of consolidation
An Xiao Mina 2020 isn’t a black swan — it’s a yellow canary
Kristen Muller Engaged journalism scales
Beena Raghavendran Journalism gets fused with art
Errin Haines Let’s normalize women’s leadership
Francesco Zaffarano The year we ask the audience what it needs
Candis Callison Calling it a crisis isn’t enough (if it ever was)
Sumi Aggarwal News literacy programs aren’t child’s play
Alfred Hermida and Oscar Westlund The virus ups data journalism’s game
Zizi Papacharissi The year we rebuild the infrastructure of truth
Matt Skibinski Misinformation won’t stop unless we stop it
Mark Stenberg The rise of the journalist-influencer
Alyssa Zeisler Holistic medicine for journalism
Joanne McNeil Newsrooms push back against Ivy League cronyism
Ernie Smith Entrepreneurship on rails
Victor Pickard The commercial era for local journalism is over
Janet Haven and Sam Hinds Is this an AI newsroom?
Mandy Jenkins You build trust by helping your readers
Andrew Donohue The rise of the democracy beat
Gordon Crovitz Common law will finally apply to the Internet
Sam Ford We’ll find better ways to archive our work
Amara Aguilar Journalism schools emphasize listening
Kevin D. Grant Parachute journalism goes away for good
Talmon Joseph Smith The media rejects deficit hawkery
Sonali Prasad Making disaster journalism that cuts through the noise
Raney Aronson-Rath To get past information divides, we need to understand them first
Juleyka Lantigua The download, podcasting’s metric king, gets dethroned
Ray Soto The news gets spatial
Mike Ananny Toward better tech journalism
Bill Adair The future of fact-checking is all about structured data
Shaydanay Urbani and Nancy Watzman Local collaboration is key to slowing misinformation
Jim Friedlich A newspaper renaissance reached by stopping the presses
Kerri Hoffman Protecting podcasting’s open ecosystem
Linda Solomon Wood Canada steps up for journalism
Nico Gendron Ask your readers to help build your products
Aaron Foley Diversity gains haven’t shown up in local news
Megan McCarthy Readers embrace a low-information diet
Tanya Cordrey Declining trust forces publishers to claim (or disclaim) values