Why I'll be avoiding the sequel to the 'fiscal cliff' drama

I invested a great deal of time following the Fiscal Cliff Drama and its main characters, John Boehner and President Obama. But the great fight over taxes and spending cuts ended with a cop-out. There was no satisfying dénouement, and the ticking time-bomb turned out to be fake.

J. Scott Applewhite/AP
House Speaker John Boehner arrives at the House of Representatives, Jan. 1 for the final vote on legislation to avoid the 'fiscal cliff'. Op-ed contributor Jim Sollisch says 'President Obama and John Boehner were two powerful, contrasting characters' in the fight over taxes and spending cuts. 'And yet, they had a shared goal: to save the kingdom. It was almost Shakespearean.'

The ‘fiscal cliff’ deal left a lot of people disappointed. Liberals think the rich got off too easy. Conservatives can’t find the spending cuts. Economists believe all it does is preserve the status quo. Me? I just feel completely ripped off.

I invested a great deal of time and energy following the Fiscal Cliff Drama. I suspended my disbelief (not to mention my cynicism) about the possibility of a blockbuster bargain. I took the dramatic bait – that this was a crisis to end all crises. It was all there: tension, conflict, history, character.

The ticking clock was a brilliant device. Like an episode of "24" – or any movie where a bomb needs to be diffused – time became a character in the plot. Final. Absolute. Not negotiable. And then it was. If this were an episode of "24", it might have been called "24-ish".

And to think how hopeful I was at the start – that the ticking bomb would force the characters to definitive action. President Obama and John Boehner were two powerful, contrasting characters – one riding a wave of history, the other stubborn and principled in defeat. And yet, they had a shared goal: to save the kingdom. It was almost Shakespearean.

The stage was set. The risks were real. All the major characters said so. There was a cliff. And a runaway train. We were running out of track. Would we fall? Oh, such sweet drama and brilliant metaphor. The Fall: it’s at the heart of every story since Eve took the apple and our first literary heroes were cast out on their quest.

Then, like any good story, it got a bit more complicated. Minor characters whispered that maybe the president actually wanted to fall off the cliff. And we heard that the speaker might be motivated to jump as well. Edgar Allen Poe called it “the imp of the perverse.” His characters suffered from it – that irrational urge, when looking over a precipice, to want to jump. Was there a streak of Thelma and Louise in Barack and John?

Several plots and subplots emerged. The cliff grew closer. Then we were told it was only a hill. And there were good reasons we should go over it. So many points of view. A wild, sprawling narrative. But which narrator could we trust?

There were betrayals (See Rep. Tom Cole (R) of Oklahoma urging Republicans to take a deal back in November). And public shaming. (See the collapse of Mr. Boehner’s Plan B). And rhetorical flourishes: “We should not take a package put together by a bunch of sleep-deprived octogenarians on New Year’s Eve,” said retiring Rep. Steven C. LaTourette (R) of Ohio.

But in the end, there was no satisfying dénouement. No catharsis to unwind the dramatic tension, fanned by the fatalistic media (a fair match for any Greek chorus). On the last page, we found out that the ticking time-bomb was fake.

My New Year’s resolution is to avoid the sequel (see debt ceiling). But then again, if there’s another time bomb ticking and the markets hang in the balance, I may not be able to resist.

Jim Sollisch is creative director at Marcus Thomas Advertising.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.