With the U.S. debt ceiling debate now apparently behind us (a Senate vote is scheduled for mid-day today), it’s tempting to dismiss the entire episode as a manufactured crisis. That, not for the first time, Washington politicians held firm to their positions as long as possible, knowing full well that when the Aug. 2 deadline finally came they’d have the political cover they needed to agree to a compromise. I do think that a lot of what we’ve witnessed in recent weeks is exactly that. Still, some good could come from all of this.

Before I get to that, let me say what I found most disturbing about the debate. It was the cavalier way in which expert opinions were dismissed by politicians and more than a few commentators. And I think it has to be said that – if the media I consumed is a fair indication –the far right wing of the debate deserves most of the blame.

Economists, even self-identified conservatives, argued against deep budget cuts at this point in the recovery. Ben Stein (a speechwriter who served both President Richard Nixon and President Gerald Ford) said so on CNN this weekend: “I certainly agree with the idea of trying to cut the budget over long periods of time, but to try to cut it this quickly is just risky and dangerous. It’s a highly mistaken policy idea,” he said. “We have got to get the people in the Tea Party to come on-board and come back to planet earth.”

This is a fundamental point of economic theory: austerity programs do not stimulate growth. They produce the opposite result. And yet members of Congress have glossed over this repeatedly during the debate.

Some have even linked the downturn to U.S. government debt. Last week, in a nationally broadcast speech, House Speaker John Boehner said: “These are difficult times in the life of our nation. Millions are looking for work, have been for some time, and the spending binge going on in Washington is a big part of the reason why.”

By Monday morning however, frustration with this nonsensical debate had reached a point where two more commentators could no longer hold their peace.

First up was Ali Velshi, a co-host of CNN’s American Morning with a background in economics reporting. During a broadcast focused on the emerging deal on Sunday night, Republican strategist Alex Castellanos said this: “No one is going to invest and create jobs in a country that’s spending itself into insolvency.”

Velshi, appearing genuinely incredulous, cut in. “Alex, Alex. What are you talking about: we’re going bankrupt? Come on, what are you talking about Alex? We’re not going bankrupt. America’s never gone bankrupt.” The full segment has been posted on YouTube by Purple Strategies, a public affairs firm. The good stuff starts at 2:12 of part one.

Yesterday morning, an even more respected commentator spoke up. David Frum, a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and proprietor of the excellent FrumForum, criticized those on the far right for their manipulation of the debt ceiling debate. “Only about one-third of Republicans agree that cutting government spending should be the country’s top priority. Only about one-quarter of Republicans insist the budget be balanced without any tax increases,” he wrote. “Yet that one-third and that one-quarter have come to dominate my party. That one-third and that one-quarter forced a debt standoff that could have ended in default and a second Great Recession.”

Frum went on to argue that unemployment is a more pressing priority than government debt; that the deficit did not cause the downturn; that it is a mistake to cut spending before the recovery strengthens and more.

This may all be conventional wisdom, but then that has been in short supply recently.

The chief criticism of the deal being voted on today is that it once again puts off the tough decisions facing the U.S. government. It is remarkable to me that the deal establishes a debt commission less than a year after the Bowles-Simpson commission’s report went nowhere.

That aside though, maybe there is something good that will come from all of this. Perhaps we are seeing the rise of a new, vocal, fact-based centrist movement in U.S. politics. As far as that relates to U.S. economic policy, that would be a very good thing indeed.