At Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, the president denounced the “blame game.” Later that day, at the White House press briefing, Scott McClellan used the phrase seven times. At yesterday’s briefing, he used it eight more.
The phrase seems to put some critics on the defensive, but as Jonathan Cohn explains in a helpful New Republic column, the so-called “blame game” actually gets positive results.
First, it focuses public attention where it should.
Delaying this discussion until after the waters have receded would undoubtedly allow time for public tempers to cool, so that people are in a more forgiving mood once the debate over responsibility actually takes place. But what’s the virtue in that? If public officials committed an act of gross negligence, as seems to be the case here, it’s best to begin that discussion while the images of suffering are fresh — and the indignation over those images is still raw.
Second, and more importantly, it spurs those on the receiving end of the blame into the action they should have taken in the first place.
The Bush administration might well have dithered even longer if not for the media coverage. While the powerful, startling images out of New Orleans had a lot to do with jolting Washington into action, the flurry of condemnations from pundits aghast at the lack of federal activity surely registered, too.
In other words, blaming President Bush and his advisers likely played a significant role in getting them to act…. Reminding the White House of its accountability for these projects, far from diverting its attentions, might be the only way to keep it focused.
Playing the “blame game,” in other words, may have helped untold thousands suffering in Louisiana.
Besides, as Jon Stewart said last night, “When people don’t want to play the ‘blame game’ … they’re to blame”