But Paul Ryan Seems Like Such a Nice Fellow

The big political news today is, of course, Mitt Romney naming Paul Ryan as his running mate. It's hard to keep up with all the coverage on Vice Presidential candidate Ryan, but Balloon Juice has been blogging up a storm today, providing some excellent links. Ezra Klein and Nate Silver provide good background on what it means, Charles Pierce weighs in, and Paul Krugman briefly left his vacation to post.

Paul Ryan was the key figure in the Stealthy Extremist section of my recent looong post, "The Four Types of Conservatives." Ryan's radicalism has been dissected very well many times, and in that post, I linked the archives of several writers and outlets that have done so. Their budget analysis is damning, and it speaks volumes about Ryan's (lack of) integrity.

I wanted to link Jonathan Chait's piece "The Legendary Paul Ryan" again, because it's one of the best introductions to Ryan, especially for people who aren't political junkies. I wanted to feature a different section, though:

How has Ryan managed to occupy these two roles in our national life—Fiscy award-winning spokesman for those Americans demanding a bipartisan agreement to reduce the deficit, and slayer of bipartisan deficit agreements—simultaneously? Here is where, in the place of any credible programmatic commitment, he substitutes his remarkable talent for radiating good intentions. New York Times business columnist James Stewart, for instance, recently opined that Ryan’s plan would usher in an overhaul of the tax code that would raise taxes on the rich, by eliminating special treatment for capital-gains income.

It is certainly true, as Stewart argues, that one could reduce tax rates to the levels advocated by Ryan without shifting the burden onto the poor and middle class if you eliminated the lower rate enjoyed by capital-gains income. But Ryan has been crystal clear throughout his career in his opposition to raising capital-gains taxes. An earlier, more explicit version of his tax plan eliminated any tax at all on capital gains. The current version, while refraining from specifics, insists, “Raising taxes on capital is another idea that purports to affect the wealthy but actually hurts all participants in the economy.” I asked Stewart why he believed so strongly that Ryan actually supported such a reform, despite the explicit opposition of his budget. “Maybe he’s being boxed in” by right-wing colleagues, Stewart suggested.

After Obama assailed Ryan’s budget, Stewart wrote a second column insisting that Ryan’s plans were just the sort of goals liberals shared. He quoted Ryan as writing, in his manifesto, “The social safety net is failing society’s most vulnerable citizens.” Stewart is flabbergasted that Democrats could be so partisan as to attack a figure who believes something so uncontroversial. “Does anyone,” Stewart wrote in his follow-up, “Democrat or Republican, seriously disagree?”

The disagreement, I suggested to Stewart, is that Ryan believes the social safety net is failing society’s most vulnerable citizens by spending too much money on them. As Ryan has said, “We don’t want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency”—which is to say, plying the poor with such inducements as food stamps and health insurance for their children has sapped their desire to achieve, a problem Ryan proposes to solve by targeting them for the lion’s share of deficit reduction. Stewart waves away the distinction. “I was pointing out that, at least rhetorically, you can find some common ground,” he says. Stewart, explaining his evaluation of Ryan to me, repeatedly cited the missing details in his plan as a hopeful sign of Ryan’s accommodating aims. “He seems very straightforward,” he tells me. “He doesn’t seem cunning. He seems very genuine.”

Seeming genuine is something Ryan does extraordinarily well. And here is where something deeper is at play, more than Ryan’s charm and winning personality, something that gets at the intellectual bankruptcy of contemporary Washington. The Ryan brand is rooted in his ostentatious wonkery. Because, unlike the Bushes and the Palins, he grounds his position in facts and figures, he seems like an encouraging candidate to strike a bargain. But the thing to keep in mind about Ryan is that he was trained in the world of Washington Republican think tanks. These were created out of a belief that mainstream economists were hopelessly biased to the left, and crafted an alternative intellectual ecosystem in which conservative beliefs—the planet is not getting warmer, the economy is not growing more unequal—can flourish, undisturbed by skepticism. Ryan is intimately versed in the blend of fact, pseudo-fact, and pure imagination inhabiting this realm.

This dynamic is absolutely maddening – the constant impulse of mainstream media figures to ignore the evidence and anoint even extremists as sensible and responsible. In the terminology of the "four types" post, Paul Ryan is a stealthy extremist, but Stewart is insisting that Ryan is a sober adult. Okay, most of us have been taken in by a politician from time to time. (Although most of us haven't been paid to cover politics, either.) What's most frustrating is that Chait even points out to Stewart that his perception of Ryan is inaccurate – and Stewart replies, “I was pointing out that, at least rhetorically, you can find some common ground,” and that Ryan "seems very genuine.”

This is what sends my blood pressure soaring. Who gives a shit about common ground in rhetoric?!? Politicians lie all the time. They all love America and babies and whatever plays well in the region they're campaigning in that day. It's really not a big challenge to find "common ground" in rhetoric. The question is how much basis Ryan's proposals have in reality. As Greg Sargent likes to say, politics is supposed to be a clash of visions (and his example involves Paul Ryan). If there's no common ground to be found in the actual policies being discussed, and the values underneath them, well then, another speech won't help much – especially if it's bullshit from a charlatan.

One of the benefits of doing at least basic policy analysis – and one of the reasons it's so necessary – is that it helps one evaluate where a political figure is lying, and how badly, and to what consequence. Policy analysis is both a practical matter and a character assessment. Come election-time, voters can pick the candidate that lies less frequently and about less important things, and has higher credibility on delivering the good things and preventing the bad things, and so on. Making such decisions is essential to the whole democracy thing.

In Chait's account, Stewart doesn't care about the reality of Ryan's proposals. He's only valuing appearance. He is only judging by cosmetics. Maybe he's a fine reporter otherwise, and a nice guy in person, but it's appalling... if all too common among mainstream political reporters (the subject of another recent post). Perhaps, like many Americans, Stewart is so desperate to find common ground and get along and see responsible governance that he’ll seize upon any huckster than comes along who says a few nice things. But this is journalistic malpractice, not to mention bad citizenship. Policies should succeed or fail on their merits, and political figures should pay a cost for lying.

For the addled Sensible Centrists that dominate political reporting, "compromise" always seems to entail that liberals should capitulate to the center-left contingent of the Democratic Party, and the Democratic Party should always capitulate to the (mostly) far-right Republican Party. (But somehow, the Republican Party is supposed to heed their rabid base, and never move to the left in the name of compromise. Hmm.) Actually, the true solution is exposing bad ideas and calling bullshit. And in that vein, may the accurate examinations of the Romney-Ryan plans continue!

Update: Greg Sargent, Scott Lemieux and Think Progress weigh in. (More updates to come, perhaps.)

Both Sides Do It: Partisanship Redux

I find I keep on returning to themes explored in a piece from last year, "Partisanship, Policy and Bullshit." Among other things, it contended that Beltway pundits tend to obtusely conflate different types of "partisanship," and explored why there's such a preponderance of bullshit in our national political discourse. Here's a partial recap and riff on that piece, focusing mostly on an extremely popular variety of bullshit: sagely pronouncing that "both sides do it."

Members of the chattering class tend to be well-educated, and it's not that they're stupid per se, but they mistake pedigree and status for merit. They're also lazy and really don't like to do policy analysis. The Beltway Conventional Wisdom is socially determined, not a matter of careful thought and analysis. As a class, pundits are shallow, careless people, and most of their opinions are issued after putting a finger in the wind and judging what will play well with the other club members. (Centrist fetishism, such as saying 'both sides are equally to blame,' goes over very well in what Jay Rosen calls the church of the savvy; it supplies the illusion of independence and insight while obviating any need for critical thinking and qualitative judgment.) Many Beltway pundits do not really think per se as much as they regurgitate unreflective class attitudes; their pronouncements are based on cosmetics, not substance. The Emperor's New Clothes isn't just a parable; it's the eternal ethos of the ruling class. (For the rest of this post, we'll refer to this crowd derisively as Very Serious People, or VSPs, because that's how we DFHs roll.)

Let's start with two statements:

1. My party is morally pure and the other party is evil.

2. This party is better than the other party (on this issue, and/or overall).

Very Serious People tend to conflate these. Every time someone (say an expert or activist) states anything that hints of #2, VSPs will take offense, acting as if that the person was actually claiming #1. Only a hack or zealot would insist on #1. Similarly, only a dogmatic breed of centrist would insist that wisdom hangs precisely midpoint between the two major parties (especially since they do change positions, making this type of "centrism" a shifting, moving target versus wisdom for the ages). Substantive political discussion between adults depends on accuracy and nuance, including assessing the consequences of policies, and when necessary, assigning appropriate degrees of blame.

Let's move on to two related statements:

2a. I support this policy because my party supports it. [Type one partisans, "hyper-partisans," hacks and zealots.]

2b. I prefer this party on this issue (or overall) because their policy positions are better. [Type two partisans, wonks and conscientious citizens.]

Very Serious People tend to conflate these as well. The process by which people come to their positions is very important. Not all opinions are created equal. Not all opinions are equally grounded in reality. Not all opinions are offered in good faith. However, if you're a lazy pundit and don't want to do any policy analysis, or discuss the reasons why someone holds their positions, you'll judge everything on cosmetics, and can opine sagely that both sides are equally valid, equally to blame, etc. Thus, a Very Serious Person or Sensible Centrist might pretend that a climate scientist, an oil company flack, and a religious fanatic all have equally sound views on global warming, that "opinions differ on the shape of the earth," and so on.

Tom Friedman is a classic example. Like many other Very Serious People, he proves he's one of society's indispensable "producers" by essentially rewriting the same column over and over again. He's fond of clutching his pearls over the equally rabid partisans from both sides!, and points to our salvation – Sensible Centrism. The problem is, on multiple occasions, the 'sensible centrist' positions that Friedman has championed are actually held by Barack Obama and other Democrats. The Republican Party has moved far to the right over the past thirty-some years, and for the most part, the range of discourse in D.C. occurs between far right Republicans and left-of-center Democrats (with others mostly excluded). Furthermore, the Republican Party has become obstructionist to an unprecedented degree. Friedman, however, can't be bothered to pay attention to any of this, or simply believes that accurate analysis would not play well with his target audience. It would necessitate calling out one side, and that would be terribly partisan, uncivil and unsavvy, especially in the eyes of the Aspen and Davos set. (You won't see Mann and Ornstein on many talk shows, because the thesis of their book, It's Worse Than It Looks, while well-supported, assigns blame and is thus extremely impolite.) Friedman, like many pundits, is obsessed with selling the image of being a sage, and desperately wants to be seen as a Very Serious Person; he is unwilling to embrace the fact-based analysis, honesty and courage necessary for delivering actual sage insight. The "Both Sides Do It" mentality sometimes manifests in the ol' "Even though I haven't studied this issue, I'm certain that I'm wiser than you" gambit. By legend, a large portion of Socrates' wisdom was that he knew how little he knew; in contrast, Very Serious People feel entitled to opine on matters they are largely ignorant about, and especially entitled to scold those silly "partisans" who surely must be looking at things all wrong.

Here are our next two statements:

3. Winner-Takes-All: We'll take all we can, and screw everybody else. [YOYO; You're On Your Own.]

4. Win-Win: Everybody benefits, there's still inequality, but things are slightly more equal and fair. [WITT; We're In This Together.]

Very Serious People tend to equate these, too. (You may be sensing a trend.) The useful YOYO versus WITT distinction comes from Jared Bernstein. It highlights that liberals and conservatives have very different views on the social contract. They also hold very different views on compromise, with liberals and independents valuing it and many conservatives opposing it. (See also Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson's book, Winner-Take-All Politics.) As we’ve explored before, generally speaking, liberals are concerned with issues of fairness, while conservatives are focused on issues of power. They're simply not speaking the same language, nor are they fighting for the same things. This significantly affects both policy consequences and policy negotiations… although you'd never know it from watching the mainstream Sunday chatter. A black and white, "both sides are equal" worldview presents the illusion of open-mindedness while ignoring reality. Centrist fetishism is as dogmatic as hyper-partisanship (2a above)… and considerably more sanctimonious. It ignores substance, nuance, and important differences, and is thus irredeemably obtuse: Both sides do it. Policy doesn't matter.

Two charts featured in previous posts help illustrate these dynamics. Last year, Nate Silver provided some sharp analysis of the debt ceiling hostage situation (examined here at length in "Extremism in Defense of Nihilism Is a Vice"). Silver observed that the 'Republican's no-tax stance was far outside of the mainstream,' and significantly to the right of even Republican voters. When it came to a debt deal, congressional Republicans even rejected a deal that favored their position by 83 to 17 (the percentage of spending cuts to tax increases). Silver broke down the reasons and supplied a useful chart:

However, all but 7 Republicans in the House of Representatives, or 97 percent of them, have signed the pledge of Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform stating that any net tax increases are unacceptable. One might have believed this to be simply a negotiating position. But the proposal that Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell floated yesterday, which would give up on striking a deal and instead rely on some procedural gymnastics to burden Mr. Obama with having to raise the debt ceiling, suggests otherwise. Republicans in the House really may be of the view that a deal with a 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases is worse than none at all.

If we do take the Republicans’ no-new-taxes position literally, it isn’t surprising that the negotiations have broken down. Consider that, according to the Gallup poll, Republican voters want the deal to consist of 26 percent tax increases, and Democratic voters 46 percent — a gap of 20 percentage points. If Republicans in the House insist upon zero tax increases, there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.

If you remember the coverage from the time, you'll recall that the Very Serious People scolded both sides for their intransigence, ignoring everything Sliver pointed out. They also ignored (among other things) that the very same Republicans who screamed of fiscal Armageddon with a Democrat in the White House eagerly ran up the debt under Bush. (Plus, they fought like hell to keep the Bush tax cuts in place, when letting them expire was/is the single easiest measure to help balance the budget.)

The second chart appeared in "Partisanship, Policy and Bullshit," which I'll just quote:

Policy matters. The consequences of policies matter. This graphic, featured in an excellent series on wealth inequity by Tim Noah, shows a striking difference between America's two major political parties (and the Democratic Party is less liberal and more corporatist these days). The Democratic pattern is one of shared prosperity for everybody, while the Republican pattern is one of funneling more wealth to those who are already the richest. These basic patterns can be seen in the parties on most issues – the Democrats (certainly the liberals) fight for more equality, while the Republicans (and conservative, Blue Dog Democrats) fight for more inequality, seeking to maintain or accumulate more power. This means, if the two parties sit down to negotiate, they are not fighting for the same things, and they are not even fighting solely for their own interests. If the Democrats win and get everything they want, the Republicans, the wealthy and the powerful still do quite well; if the Republicans win and get everything they want, they, the wealthy and the powerful do extremely well, but everyone else gets comparatively screwed. That's the general pattern between the parties, although if we look at every single issue, there's plenty one can quibble about, especially since there are certainly corrupt, plutocratic Democrats. However, the key point is that policy matters, and most media coverage ignores this. They ignore that, in a situation like this, if the two parties negotiate, and meet in the middle, the result will be lopsided toward the Republicans, because what each side is fighting for is not equivalent.

Unless every Beltway pundit has suffered a severe head trauma, describing these dynamics is really not that difficult. It's not a matter of minute nuance, merely a matter of honest evaluation and a few shades of grey. Simply describing policy consequences and who benefits would generally do the trick. Similarly, it's really not hard for columnists (who can issue opinions) to criticize the failings of the Democratic Party (as liberal bloggers do all the time) yet still point out the many areas where the Republican Party is considerable worse. (As a few people have noted, the American Republican Party is really the only major political party in the developed world that denies global warming and opposes universal health care.) But Beltway journalists will do their damnedest to avoid uttering certain obvious conclusions.

None of this is to ignore the significant corporatist and imperialist factions in the Democratic Party, or the faults of the Obama administration specifically. But Beltway pundits, VSPs and "Villagers" rarely criticize the Democrats from the left. It's striking that so many pundits have such an off-base view of Centrism, Moderation, and Seriousness (not to mention Liberalism versus Socialism). Republicans can falsely claim that tax cuts to the rich raise revenues and rarely get challenged, and Paul Ryan's fraudulent budget plan will be praised by VSPs who haven't bothered to read the damn thing, but the quite good People's Budget from the Congressional Progressive Caucus is almost completely ignored. (And good luck getting coverage, Green Party.) Digby recently wrote about the supposedly "centrist" group Third Way, and their latest attempt to shred the New Deal and the social safety net, just as she's written frequently about efforts by Pete Peterson and other Very Serious People to do the same (covered in passing here in a post on wealth inequity). Certain opinions are deemed wise or foolish by default in the Beltway, regardless of their merit. This brings us to two stalwarts of the VSP mentality:

5. Shut up, Krugman, the emperor's clothes are gorgeous!

6. The rich are not working because they have too little money, the poor because they have too much.

(#6 paraphrases John Kenneth Galbraith, who also observed that "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.")

If you read Paul Krugman regularly, you know that austerity is all the rage among Very Serious People, despite all the data arguing against it (and the history of such tiny, forgettable events as the Great Depression). Preaching austerity just feels right to them, and expresses a set of moral values that entail... that the very people who caused the global economic mess should continue to stay in power and prosper, while the already-squeezed middle class and the poor should "sacrifice." Similarly, it's terribly rude to question that nice Mr. Cheney about his evidence of WMD in Iraq and a 9/11-Iraq link, or hold the Bush administration responsible for torture, or challenge the surveillance state that still continues, or discuss how other countries successfully deliver universal health care, and so on. Basically, in an amazing coincidence, the ruling class and its courtiers always think they're just swell folks (who should be deferred to, and not held accountable), but that the lower orders are lazy moochers (who need a good scolding and the boot). The more aware among this set are exploiting the shock doctrine (evil in the stupid-evil-crazy vortex), but many in the chattering class don't think that deeply, and are merely expressing unreflective class attitudes. They are simply arguing for what they view as the natural order of things. Part of the problem is that they're terribly cloistered, and cut off from the consequences of their own blithe idiocy (most are in the richest 1%). Not all of them are unredeemable. Still, it shouldn't be ignored that many of them are truly awful people.

To briefly recap the issue of the preponderance of bullshit: the 24-hour news cycle depends on a steady stream of content, or the appearance thereof. Hiring smart people to fill that time would be one solution, but there are only so many Rachel Maddows to go around (and she's got a pesky habit of wanting to research things, which takes time). The simpler, cheaper solution is to hire vapid chatterboxes who can gab away endlessly. (Pick up a dozen Steve Doocys and you're good to go!) Most TV political commentary is no more than gossip, and very insipid, fact-free gossip at that. Basically, the TV news model depends on the constant generation of bullshit. It is the coin of the realm. Cokie Roberts isn't going to call out Newt Gingrich, because he's a member of the club, and lord, it's not as if she wants to be held to any standards, either. Great reporters do exist, and discriminating new consumers do exist, but they do not drive the dominant corporate media model, particularly as exists in television. A corporate media is unlikely to challenge the status of corporations (except on comedy programs). In one sense, the corporate media is selling a cheap, pulpy substance with that genuine newsy flavor to the masses. (As Homer Simpson would say, "Infotainment.") In another sense, news viewers aren't really the consumers at all – they're the commodity being sold by the media to their real customers – their corporate advertisers.

Considering that any honest evaluation of the faults of our national political discourse would condemn most pundits to the pits of hell (well, the journalistic equivalent), it's not surprising that pundits are a wee bit reluctant to acknowledge these failings. (As long as we're talking in metaphors and fantasies, sending a few pundits to Purgatory or Limbo would be lovely. They assure us that suffering is redemptive.)

Most Beltway pundits value the appearance of bipartisanship for its own sake, not bipartisanship as a means of getting things done. They don't care about substantive differences between competing factions, and they really don't care about good policy and responsible governance. A change of the party in power rarely adversely affects them. While civility is a worthy trait, it's of secondary value to honesty and accuracy. But why discuss policy when you can discuss the slighted feelings of the powerful ("fee fees"), and the all-important issue of tone? Rather than criticizing Obama for his actual policies and other valid reasons, why not attack him for being mean? From the earlier post:

Obama has often been criticized for not fulfilling a campaign promise of changing the tone in Washington. Okay, he deserves some blame for that, in that it was a somewhat stupid promise, fine as an aspiration but requiring adjustments to the realities of the political landscape. However, most of the criticism Obama has received ignores that the Republicans play any role in all this. George W. Bush barely won election in 2004, yet this was hailed as a mandate. Meanwhile, the Republican approach was rejected by the American public in 2006 and 2008. In response, the Republican Party did not change their approach, and if anything, became more conservative and extreme. Their policies are neither good nor popular. Most of the corporate media has ignored all of this. Rush Limbaugh announced that he hoped Obama failed, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." As mentioned above, there's ample evidence of bad faith by Republicans on policy (follow the links). Yet somehow, this rarely gets noted by the so-called objective media. While Obama certainly deserves plenty of valid criticism, attacking him for "not changing the tone in Washington," while simultaneously ignoring Republican behavior, is absolutely imbecilic. As it stands, the blind, substance-free "bipartisanship" fervently urged by the DC Village can only be achieved through total capitulation by Obama and the Democratic Party.

The primary "bias" of our media is shallowness. (Although this naturally benefits the reality-challenged, those of bad faith, and the status quo.) When Jimmy Carter called the Bush administration the "worst in history" in 2007 (he later apologized), there was little discussion over whether it was true or not; the discussion wasn't Holy crap, he's right, and that's a serious problem to have a horrible president, and what are we going to do about it?, it was about how terribly mean Carter was, and that it was a breach of decorum. Most mainstream "debates" about torture don't focus on actual facts, including the findings of reports by the Senate and Red Cross, or a study by McClatchy; the Very Serious People have decided that calling someone a "war criminal" is much worse than actually being one. Similarly, why bother to ask what the hell America is still doing in Afghanistan, or press Obama about the high civilian death toll from drone strikes, when you can prove your manhood by attacking Chris Hayes for being un-American instead? Why discuss blowback and serious issues of foreign policy when you can harp about how a flag pin is the ultimate measure of one's patriotism? Occasionally, the truth is harsh. Good government depends on pointing out when the emperor has no clothes, and that's one of the key reasons we have the First Amendment. At times, it really is breathtaking that our national political discourse is so fucking insipid.

Basically, saying "both sides do it" is a form of trolling. In almost every case, when a Very Serious Person says "both sides do it," "both sides are to blame" or any of its variants, it is to shut down discussion, not to bring it to a deeper, more nuanced level. (There are exceptions, but they are few. We'll delve into this further in future posts.) Obsessing about "tone" and other cosmetics serves the same function. 'Sensible Centrism' is very popular because it gives the appearance of wisdom, objectivity, independence, impartiality and so on without having to commit to much of anything. It can adapted to almost every occasion, and is ideal for pundits who don't want to do their homework or deal with backlash from angry hyper-partisans (predominantly right-wingers). The tactic is a bullshitter's dream. Effective government and citizenship depend on making judgments and choices, the more informed, the better. Some level of qualitative analysis is essential for political figures when discussing policy, and for citizens in terms of voting and activism. Typically, our national political discourse shuts down honest discussion and reality-based analysis rather than encouraging it.

"Serious" Culpability on the Debt Ceiling Hostage Situation

The American national media's main failing during the recent debt ceiling hostage situation was its frequent refusal to describe it accurately, instead insisting that 'both sides are equally to blame.' However, some supposedly sober, responsible "serious" journalists and political players not only failed to halt the madness – they joined the far-right and urged it on.

Jonathan Chait identifies some of the culprits in "The Debt Ceiling Crisis And The Failure Of The Establishment" (7/29/11). The "pro-hostage-taking" crowd included the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Concord Coalition, and The Washington Post editorial board. Head over to Chait's post for the evidence and links. As he observes (my emphasis):

The basic problem [with Megan McArdle's analysis] is that Wall Street has massively underestimated the loony determination of the Republican right. McArdle's description reminded me of Ellis, the financial hot shot in "Die Hard" who thinks he can deal with the terrorists the way he deals with corporate takeovers in his regular work…

The failure to understand the crisis we were entering was widely shared among centrist types. When Republicans first proposed tying a debt ceiling hike to a measure to reduce the deficit, President Obama instead proposed a traditional, clean debt ceiling hike. He found this position politically untenable for many reasons, one of them being that deficit scolds insisted that using the debt ceiling to force a fiscal adjustment was a terrific idea, and that connecting the deficit debate to a potentially cataclysmic financial event was the mark of seriousness.

The political assumptions here turned out to be badly wrong. The main problem is that the Republican Party does not actually care very much about the deficit. It cares about, in order: Low taxes for high-income earners; reducing social spending, especially for the poor; protecting the defense budget; and low deficits. The Obama administration and many Democrats actually do care about the deficit and are willing to sacrifice their priorities in order to achieve it, a desire that was on full display during the health care reform debate. Republicans care about deficit reduction only to the extent that it can be undertaken without impeding upon other, higher priorities. Primarily "deficit reduction" is a framing device for their opposition to social spending, as opposed to a genuine belief that revenue and outlays ought to bear some relationship to each other.

The Post has since published a series of increasingly terrified-sounding editorials pleading for a debt ceiling hike backing away from its bold hopes that the debt ceiling would produce a bipartisan compromise. In retrospect, they now see what should have been obvious: Increasing the political leverage of the Republican Party made a Grand Bargain less, not more, likely. Moreover, the deficit hawks who represent the center of Washington establishment thought badly underestimated the danger entailed by tying high stakes negotiations involving the Republican Party to a cataclysmic event. Happy visions of Bob Dole and Tip O'Neill danced in their heads, oblivious to the reality of what they were facing.

Paul Krugman comments on the piece and the mindset of the Very Serious People (VSPs):

This was terrible policy, even if it had worked: now is not the time for fiscal austerity, and the way the VSPs have shifted the whole conversation away from jobs and toward deficits is a major reason we’re stuck in the Lesser Depression.

But it also showed awesome political naivete. As Chait says, the first thing you need to understand is that modern Republicans don’t care about deficits. They only pretend to care when they believe that deficit hawkery can be used to dismantle social programs; as soon as the conversation turns to taxes, or anything else that would require them and their friends to make even the smallest sacrifice, deficits don’t matter at all.

I can’t help but notice that Chait’s list of chumps is basically the same as the list of people who puffed up Paul Ryan and gave him an award for fiscal responsibility. Enough said.

What’s really awesome here is the blindness. Anyone reading the newspapers with an open mind had a pretty good idea of what would happen in the debt fight; only Washington insiders managed to fool themselves.

But they’re Very Serious.

Let's recap. These Very Serious People somehow completely ignored the lessons of the Great Depression, one of the seminal events of the 20th Century, and they don't understand the Keynesian economic principles that drove America's recovery. They're hardly alone in that, with austerity being all the rage these days (for the lower classes only, of course). However, it's further proof that the Beltway Conventional Wisdom is often pretty dumb, and the chattering class just does not know or care much about policy – even if that policy is absolutely crucial. They actually thought (and still think) that cutting government spending in a recession is a great idea.

These Very Serious People also thought that taking a routine but vital action, raising the debt ceiling, and holding it hostage, was a good idea. Seriously. They thought threatening the very functioning of the government and the American economy was a good idea.

The Very Serious People also thought, somehow, against a mountain of evidence, that the Republican Party was at its heart reasonable, and would never actually go all the way through with their threat – a threat the VSPs were cheering on. Even though many of these people are paid to cover politics, they completely misread GOP inflexibility and insanity, which is nothing but, oh, the major political development of the past 10-30 years.

Lastly, the Very Serious People refused to report the debt ceiling situation accurately, continually insisting that "both sides are equally to blame." This made the situation even worse. Needless to say, they also ignored their own culpability in egging it on.

In rough stupid-evil-crazy terms, that would be a whole mess of stupidity, followed by astounding recklessness and irresponsibility, followed by are-you-fucking-kidding-me stupidity, followed by gutlessness and dishonesty.

Unfortunately, this is a recurring pattern, in general terms, at least. Most glaringly, consider media conduct leading up to the Iraq War and afterward. The chattering class does not value policy. That would take time. Plus, as a privileged class, most policies that hurt the middle class will not after the political class much. This means they've both unable and unwilling to make fact-based, qualitative judgments about most political issues. Others will suffer, not them.

Meanwhile, even if they're not right-wing, or don't identify themselves as such, they are often simpatico with the right-wing's goals. At the very least, they are strangely indulgent of, oh, threatening the government's basic ability to function, cutting tax cuts further for the rich and calling war skeptics traitors.

Finally, they whitewash their own role in creating these messes. How many Iraq War cheerleaders have truly repented, and detailed how they were wrong? I can think of a handful, but not many. Many reporters offered unduly rosy accounts of Iraq years after the invasion, I suspect because they thought it would somehow vindicate their colossally poor judgment. They were likewise subservient in the coverage of the Bush administration's torture regime. Similarly, even now, many reporters are reluctant to point out exactly how disastrous the Bush administration was economically.

So, how many supposedly "serious" and "objective" cheerleaders for the debt ceiling hostage situation – an inexcusably irresponsible move – have owned up to their role in manufacturing that crisis? I'm guessing that number is about nil.

It's a Herculean struggle to get accurate media coverage due to journalists' dishonest, shallow, continual insistence that "both sides are equally to blame." But what makes that struggle downright Sisyphean at times is that very often, the media is also to blame for creating the mess itself. If there's one thing harder to say for a pundit to say than "conservatives deserve the overwhelming share of the blame on this," it's "I was completely, utterly wrong." The conservative base is mean, crazy and dumb, while the chattering class is mostly dumb, decadent, craven and vain. They view themselves as savvy, worldly and smart, of course. Upton Sinclair said that "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it." That's true, and it's also true that it's hard to get someone to admit error, even (or especially) a glaring one, when that will shatter their entire self-image.

(Related posts: "Extremism in Defense of Nihilism is a Vice" and "Partisanship, Policy and Bullshit.")

Addendum: Chait's piece isn't the whole story. Digby points out that Obama wanted to make a "grand bargain" cutting programs to at least some degree, and wasn't forced as much as Chait portrays. David Dayen adds more to the picture, exploring how conservative "blue dog" Dems played a key role in introducing the horribly irresponsible notion of a debt ceiling standoff. Meanwhile, driftglass takes Chait to task for his "magical thinking" in a related post. I find Chait to be a mixed bag (and perhaps that's fodder for another post) but it's certainly possible for someone to write well on some subjects but not on others, or to make both good and poor points in the same piece. Hey, give credit where and when it's due, critique with what's sincerely offered but inaccurate, and challenge the outright bullshit.

ACORN, Fake Pimps and the New York Times

Bradblog has been doggedly pushing for corrections on the ACORN "scandal." Major media outlets got played, and most still haven't admitted it. The New York Times' stance has been particularly ridiculous.

Posts one and two should get you up to speed, and the ACORN category has (and will continue to have) much more.

American Political Insanity Explained

For your consideration:

1. The Bush years were absolutely disastrous, on multiple fronts.

2. Those disasters were the direct result of movement conservative ideology, and horrible mismanagement by the Bush administration and the GOP.

3. The majority of the American public rejected the Bush/GOP approach in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

4. The Republicans looked at all of the above, and said: "Let's propose the same policies as Bush."

They added, "Let's obstruct all legislation and presidential appointments, and all attempts to clean up the messes left by Bush and our party."

(The conservative base looked at all of the above, and said, "Bush and the Republicans weren't far right enough.")

5. The American media looked at all of the above, and said: "Obama and the Democrats should adopt the Republicans' policies."

They added, "That would be bipartisan. And America is a center-right nation. When voters said they wanted change, that meant they wanted the Bush approach. They didn't want the Republicans to change their policies or their level of cooperation."

Furthermore: "The million teabaggers gathering on the National Mall to call Obama a fascist, socialist baby-killer who will institute death panels to kill white grandmas have a point."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I could have kept #4 and #5 simpler, but I think this list covers most of the current dynamics. As the saying goes, insanity is trying the same approach over and over again expecting different results. The largest problem in American politics is the failure, or refusal, to acknowledge that the Bush years were horrible (#1) and that this was not accidental (#2). It's struck me that almost everything else flows from these factors – basically, the denial of a glaringly obvious reality. There are multiple theories for this. There's D.C. being wired for Republican rule. There's the Beltway gang's love of "he said-she said" reporting and disdain for discussing actual policies and their probable consequences (who will benefit). There's their isolation from the negative effects of the Bush years, and the simple truth that a ruling class is disinclined to question an establishment that favors them. Still, the biggest reason may be culpability. Bush and the GOP caused most of the damage. The more corporatist Democrats were happy to join in. The media largely said nothing, or acted as cheerleaders, or even as gleeful bullies themselves.

Some journalists and politicians will sorta admit to #1, but not #2 - thus, on economic matters, lately we've been hearing, "It doesn't matter who made the mess - the important thing is that it gets fixed." It's a neat partisan trick, but why the press plays along is another matter. Bush and the GOP nearly doubled the national debt from 5.73 trillion to 10.7 trillion, with 1.8 trillion in tax cuts (overwhelmingly to the rich) and pushed two wars without end – and in the Beltway, it just doesn't matter. Blue Dogs like Evan Bayh can have their Come-to-Ayn-Rand moments, and suddenly discover they're deficit hawks – except when it comes to military spending, which should be unlimited. (On other issues, like torture, the Village position is also that it was no one's fault, but that nothing should be fixed.) While it's fair to judge Obama on how he puts out the fire, it's colossally irresponsible to ignore who set the fire – especially when the same people in Congress and business and on the op-ed pages are trying to set more fires. This dynamic may be most maddening in politicians' reluctance to take on Wall Street, even after Wall Street players tanked the global economy and have shown staggering arrogance since – and eagerness to do it all over again. The Republicans aren't alone in sucking-up on that front, although they are the most shameless and reckless.

Some of this is nothing new. Conservative think tanks have been trying to sell a crucial pair of lies for decades now – that Reaganomics have been great for America, and that the New Deal was somehow a failure. (Even John Yoo's latest groundwork-for-a-torture-defense op-ed attacks the New Deal in passing.) Curiously, for this crowd, cutting social spending and giving more money to the rich are always the magic solutions to every single problem America faces (even though it's never worked out as sold). Meanwhile, there's a direct line from Watergate through Iran-Contra to the abuses of the Bush administration, with many of the same players (and their allies) involved. The Cheney gang felt the real mistake of Watergate was getting caught. Then-Congressman Cheney zealously defended the Reagan administration's abuses of power in Iran-Contra, and the perpetrators were barely punished. Shockingly, when men and women abuse power and aren't held accountable, the consciences they never possessed before do not magically sprout into existence. Strangely, when such abuses and bad policies go unchallenged, they tend to show up again.

As antiquated as the Senate and its rules are, it couldn't do as much harm if the GOP, and the Blue Dogs, and the media, responded to #1 and #2 with honesty, humility and responsibility. However, adopting a responsible, reality-based approach would depend on the culprits forsaking a sliver of personal gain, and might necessitate that they confront their own flattering, delusional self-images. The Conventional Beltway Wisdom is generally wrong - and often inane - but the political class will always believe in self-gratification. Unfortunately, the chances are not high that Paul Ryan will admit his policies will benefit the rich and devastate the middle class, that Jim Demint, Rush Limbaugh or Joe Lieberman will stop being assholes, that the teabaggers will realize they're fighting for the same people who have screwed them for thirty plus years, or that "centrist" David Broder will stop to take a whiff of reality rather than writing his latest Mad Libs column concluding that Democrats should let Republicans call the shots.

If there's a single story that exemplifies (American) politics, it's the Emperor's New Clothes. The only questions are who's the emperor, who are the crooked tailors, who are the public dupes who play along, and who are the truth tellers. No one likes to think he or she is a dupe, but the entire Villager mindset is built upon the painfully false, self-flattering notion that they're the wise, cynical, insightful ones. There's a grain of truth to this, because like members of the Bush administration, they create their own reality, and their inane, counterfactual analysis can become self-fulfilling. But in another sense, even as their games screw over most of the American citizenry, the Villagers are both the grifters and the marks for their own bullshit.

None of this means progress is hopeless, but any strategy that doesn't acknowledge (on some level) points #1-5 is likely to fail. The Democrats want to listen to all ideas? Fine – but they have to acknowledge privately that most of those opposition ideas stink, even if they don't call out every single one of them publicly. They want to keep a civil public image? Okay, that's one way to play it - but they have to acknowledge to themselves privately that the Republicans are obstructionists, and not working in good faith. Many conservatives have openly sought the destruction and failure of the Democratic Party. FDR was denounced as a "traitor to his class" in his day, and gave a great speech where he named his foes and 'welcomed their hatred.' A national political discourse with one party attacking false scapegoats and the other too gutless or corrupt to call out real villainy is simply toxic. The Democrats want to treat TV gasbags respectfully? Fine, that's only smart – but they have to go into those interactions knowing how vapid and superficial most of the chattering class is, and calculate accordingly. The Emperor has no clothes. In the short run, it might be wise to account for the Beltway's love of hippie-punching with some planned concessions, but the long game just can't be won using rules that say you – and the American people as a whole – must always lose.

(A companion piece of sorts is here. This post edited slightly for clarity.)

Our Trustworthy Media

The SNL spoof of Fox News election night coverage (from 11/7/09) was actually pretty good:



Still, no one can touch The Daily Show. They spoof pretty much every political talk show, in perpetuity, near the end of this sequence (from 11/3/09):

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Indecision 2009 - Reindecision 2008 And Beyond
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

If you want a more serious dissection, Media Matters has a rundown on the rise of conservative media from late October (it's good, I wish they'd pay closer attention to sound levels and mixing):

CNN Leaves It There

I imagine most readers of liberal blogs have seen this already, but if you haven't, here's one of The Daily Show's best segments on a typical failing in the mainstream media. Fact-checking? What's that? (Most people following health care as an issue would know, roughly, the population of the United States and the number of people who are uninsured. Why don't paid journalists know this, and point it out?)

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
CNN Leaves It There
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

Chuck Todd and Torture

Last week, Glenn Greenwald took apart Chuck Todd for his stance on torture investigations. Todd contacted Greenwald, and they had a half-hour conversation. It's worth checking out if you haven't already.

I give credit to Todd for showing up, and being mostly honest about his views (sometimes he needs to be pressed or makes pretty unconvincing explanations). However, he is also shockingly uninformed on the timeline and the major issues of this story. It's especially troubling because Todd is the Political Director for NBC News. Todd's seeming ignorance of major reports and facts is bad enough, but it's his general attitude opposing investigations and accountability that remains the most disconcerting.

Here's three reactions. First up, Digby:

Todd is a perfect example of a village reporter. He sees the world entirely through the lens of beltway conventional wisdom and obviously hasn't taken even five minutes to consider whether or not it's right, much less what the implications of blindly following its edicts might be. From this interview, I'm not sure he would even know how to do it. He's so ill-informed, even about basic facts about the US Attorney firings, that I don't think he has the tools…

I would just write him off as another fluffy spokesmodel except he's got a real job as political director at NBC news. As shocking as it seems, he's really quite powerful. His shallow understanding of the issues at stake --- the reduction of absolutely everything, (even torture and murder) to the insider political parlor game are the most important requirement for advancement in the beltway press and he has that function totally mastered.

After quoting Todd's key claims, Guardian of the Timeline Emptywheel observes:

That is, we can't hold Dick Cheney accountable for his crimes because the media--including Todd himself--is incapable of reporting the story as anything but a partisan story (in spite of the fact that--Glenn points out--there is bipartisan support for a torture prosecution), which guarantees that any investigation would turn into a show trial.

But it's even stupider than that. Todd says we shouldn't investigate the past administration becaues if we do the rest of the world might think we're a banana republic (as if decorum and not rule of law is the example the US wants to set for the rest of the world). For Todd, it's enough that we punish Administrations through the ballot box--but of course, we didn't punish Bush in 2004 after he started an illegal war, and by the time 2008 rolled around, Bush was term-limited and Cheney was not on the ballot, so we have not, in fact, punished the criminals at the ballot box.

In addition, Todd repeatedly says this is an ideological question, because it is not black and white whether Cheney and his torturers broke the law, in spite of:

• The psychologist/interrogator/contractor quoted in the OLC opinion admitting he exceeded John Yoo's guidelines
• The OLC memo's descrption of CIA HQ ordering up another round of waterboarding for Abu Zubayah when that violated the OLC memo's clear prohibition on waterboarding when the detainee was compliant
• The near-daily White House authorization of torture before John Yoo crafted a memo saying it was legal

These guys broke even the perversion of law they themselves instituted, so there's no question of ideology. To say nothing of the fact that St. Reagan's DOJ found waterboarding to be illegal and Republicans like Phillip Zelikow are among those demanding an investigation.

Which is Chuck Todd, noted journalist's, real problem: he's not aware of the facts. At a time when (as Glenn points out) Nora Dannehy continues to investigate the US Attorney firings, Chuck Todd declares that firing those US Attorneys was "perfectly legal." He apparently doesn't know--or won't report--the many pieces of evidence that show the Bushies violated the law, and so can conclude that any investigation would be "cable catnip," and so can claim that because the media won't do its homework we can't ask DOJ to investigate either.

In other words, we can't hold Dick Cheney accountable for his crimes because the beltway media can't help themselves but turn any investigation of crimes into a political trial.

Finally, here's Hilzoy:

First, the idea that we should not prosecute government officials who break the law whenever it would cause some sort of political fight amounts to the view that we should never prosecute government officials who break the law at all. And this idea is incredibly dangerous. We are supposed to have a government that is bound by law. If no member of the government is ever prosecuted when there's evidence that s/he broke the law, then the only reason why government officials would obey the law is their own conscience and sense of duty. Sometimes that's sufficient, but we'd be fools to rely on it.

Second, the idea that we should not prosecute politicians who break the law is just one more example of the idea that people with power should be able to live by different rules. When someone borrows an ordinary person's car and, unbeknownst to her, uses it to sell drugs, sending her to jail is "being tough on crime"; when a government official abuses his office, even hinting at prosecution is just "cable catnip" and a sign that you're a member of "the hard left".

This idea is odious, and it's antithetical to everything this country is supposed to stand for. People with power and privilege have a lot of advantages already. In particular, they will probably always do better in the legal system than the rest of us, since they can afford to hire very good lawyers. For that very reason, we should resist with all our might the idea that they should be given even more privileges.

Third: the reason why Chuck Todd seems to think that it would be "dangerous" to prosecute government officials when there is evidence that they have broken the law is that it might turn into what he calls "a political trial", and might even become "political footballs". I do not believe that this is a good reason not to investigate crimes. (Lots of trials become "political footballs": the trial of the officers who beat Rodney King, for instance, or Marion Barry's trial for crack cocaine. Does anyone think that we should simply have given those officers or Marion Barry a pass?) But politicized trials do do damage, and so it's worth asking: how might we minimize the chances that some trial might be unduly politicized?

The best answer I can think of is: the media might really try to do a good job of explaining the issues. When someone tried to say something misleading, they could call that person out. When prosecution of a government official was unwarranted, they could make that clear. And when there really was a plausible case that a government official had committed a crime, they could make that clear as well.

Which is to say: if Chuck Todd were really worried about trials being politicized, he would be in a wonderful position to prevent that from happening.

But I don't see much evidence that he is interested in that. In the podcast with Glenn, Chuck Todd makes (by my count) plain errors on five important factual questions. He is wrong about the kind of prosecutor under consideration, he is wrong to think that what Holder is proposing to investigate is interrogations that conform to Yoo's legal opinions, he is wrong about the duties of Justice Department lawyers, he was wrong about the legal status of firing the US Attorneys, and he was wrong about the state of American public opinion. And those are just the plain, obvious errors: I'm not counting things like his claim that prosecutions would harm our image abroad, or that there's a serious debate about whether Yoo's memos were defensible.

That's a lot of factual mistakes for one short podcast -- enough to make me think that Chuck Todd is not as concerned as he ought to be about getting it right. If he were, and if he could bring some of his colleagues along, we might not have to worry nearly as much about politicization.

Todd's ridiculous claim that prosecutions would harm our image abroad, and his suggestion that anyone seriously thinks Yoo's memos were sound legal opinions written in good faith, were actually the two assertions I found the most astounding. Accountability would be hailed overseas – Todd would be hard-pressed to find a foreign editorial arguing against it. Meanwhile, the memos were shoddy, cover-your-ass measures written after torture had started, that ignored existing law, and which were not even followed – even the supposedly "legal" torture guidelines the memos set were violated. At the very least, surely a full investigation is warranted, as is required by U.S. law where there are credible allegations of torture.

Chuck Todd isn't a dumb guy. However, he's more a trend man and a political commenter than an investigative reporter. I continue to think that the Beltway gang probably make the most sense when viewed in anthropological/ sociological terms. In his discussion with Greenwald, Todd reflects the Beltway consensus – a set of general attitudes opposing disclosure and accountability, along with an ignorance of key facts. Todd isn't informed because there is no social expectation that he be informed. (The same dynamic holds true for most policy matters.) If a pundit works from the conclusion backwards, that nothing should be done, ignoring facts and substance is hardly surprising - even if it is appalling.

If Attorney General Eric Holder or Congress initiated an investigation, the scope of acceptable opinions among the chattering class might eventually broaden. A full investigation needs to happen. Meanwhile, in order to reform the corporate media, somehow it needs to become the social norm and commercially appealing for talking heads to be well-informed on substance and committed to accountability journalism.

Take the GOP Talking Point Quiz!

You've seen Howard Kurtz cheerlead "the Surge" in defiance of the facts. You've seen him cover for Michelle Malkin's campaign of hatred against a severely-injured 12-year old boy. You've seen him quote Malkin to push a false equivalency about hatred on the left and continue to ignore the eliminationist rhetoric commonplace on the right. You've seen him write a puff piece on Malkin. Oh, then there's all the Obama non-scandal scandals that could have been made into a bigger deal. So here's a little quiz. How many right-wing talking points can you spot in his write-up on Barack Obama's infomercial?

It was like a well-produced "60 Minutes" report on the struggling middle class, if those who are struggling all happened to live in swing states. Call it "30 Minutes."

Obama did the voice-over, playing the role of correspondent, and the goal, of course, was to intertwine his personal story with the difficulties and aspirations of ordinary Americans whose votes he needs to put him over the top.

The Obama infomercial last night began in a faux Oval Office -- the desk, the tree behind the windows, the flag pin on the man who once disdained them -- that to my eye seemed a tad presumptuous. It was, naturally, designed to get you to envision him as the 44th president.

The mini-portraits -- the injured tire worker in Missouri, the retired railroad worker in Ohio, the widow with two jobs in New Mexico, the teacher in Colorado, the auto worker in Kentucky -- were polished and, at times, quite moving. Obama wants it known that he is fighting for them.

What also worked was depicting Barack in people's living rooms, talking about what he wants to do for them. (Although how did the tax cuts suddenly move down from people earning $250,000 to those at 200K?)

What didn't work were the brief tributes by senators and governors -- who might as well have been touting the slice-o-matic -- and the snippets of Obama's Greek column convention speech. We've already seen that, and it was out of sync with the tone of the ad.

Which brings me to the final three minutes. The idea of moving from the safety of a videotape to a live event was inspired. But doing it in a cheering Florida stadium with Obama going to the overblown rhetoric and vowing to "change the world," not so much. The whole idea of the show was to bring Obama down from the clouds and into the street. The big rally came close to canceling out the man-of-the-people image so carefully constructed in the previous 27 minutes.

Still, the show was on CBS, NBC, Fox and four other networks -- the biggest such splash since Ross Perot's pie charts -- and it probably helped at the margins. Even if it didn't, I don't get some of the advance criticism that the show would boomerang because of its excessive nature. No one had to watch. They could always switch over to "Pushing Daisies" on ABC.

If the press were inclined to hammer the Democratic nominee for buying the election after blowing off public financing, the infomercial would be Exhibit A. But the press is giving him a pass on the issue.

One other observation: Has Obama been watching too many Palin speeches? He kept talking about "workin' families" and was in full g-dropping mode.

How many GOP talking points did you spot? I see at least four. In paragraph 3, Kurtz writes about a "faux Oval Office." Other commentators did as well, which I suppose is fine, although you'll notice it's all brown wood versus the white of the Oval Office, and I don't think appearing in an office is the slightest bit remarkable for a political ad. But Kurtz calls this move "a tad presumptuous." Gosh, we've never heard that one before, have we? It's awfully "presumptuous" for Obama to think he might actually be elected somehow? Kurtz also accuses Obama of 'disdaining' wearing a flag pin. This is a common right-wing talking point, and Kurtz repeating it is unconscionable bullshit. After the flag pin idiocy was finally pretty much dead back in July, Kurtz repeated the smear by agreeing with a disingenuous National Review piece that resurrected it yet again. At the time, rather than blogging about it, I actually wrote Kurtz a detailed e-mail with links (such as this one) debunking the claims. He never replied, and that's fine. But he really, really should know better. At best, it's a contentious charge that shouldn't be presented as fact, but the truth is it's an ugly smear. Yet he clearly has no compunctions about tossing it off, facts be damned.

In paragraph 5, Kurtz expresses confusion about Obama's tax plan. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that Sarah Palin and other McCain surrogates have been making this attack for the past week or so. Seriously, how can Kurtz possibly be ignorant on this subject? Biden did make a misstatement within the past two weeks his critics seized upon, but the campaign immediately corrected it, and it's not as if Obama's tax policies are some big secret. Obama's described them in at least two debates, and his nomination speech, among other places. (Update: Per CNN, Biden didn't even really misspeak, unless we define "misspeak" as "saying something accurate that an opponent can quote in misleading way." McCain's just lying.) Here's one chart that explains the Obama-McCain differences, and a Hilzoy post that goes in more depth. Basically, Obama is raising taxes on folks making over $250,000 a year. Those making between $200,000 and $250,000 will not see their tax rate move much at all. Those making less than $200,000 will see a tax break – and it's a larger break under Obama than McCain, who is giving bigger breaks to the wealthiest Americans (like his wife) than even George Bush did. Thus, as Obama has often said, roughly 95% of Americans will not see their taxes go up under an Obama presidency, and most of that number will see a tax break. Seriously, how could Kurtz not know this, or not research it to refresh his memory? Does Kurtz just have a crappy memory, does he not want to do research to solve his confusion, or does he just take most of his cues from Republicans attacking Obama?

In paragraph 6, I'd say Obama's decision to cut to his nomination speech was an effective choice. It reminded people of the power of the speech, and it reinforced that he's been saying this stuff for a while now. Kurtz is free to disagree on that. But mentioning the Greek columns is just pathetic. As you may remember, right-wing blogs were obsessed with this, even though Bush accepted his nomination in 2004 in front of Greek columns. Apparently Kurtz missed the many mentions of that hypocrisy on liberal blogs and establishment outlets such as The Politico, or the terms "nomination speech" or "convention speech" just didn't appeal to him.

As to the public financing charge, while it's a conservative talking point, it's a fair criticism up to a point. Still, Kurtz has never to my knowledge pointed out that McCain has violated campaign finance laws (Talking Points Memo, a blog Kurtz typically reads, has done numerous posts and at least one video on this subject). I don't remember Kurtz hammering the Republican Party for its massive spending advantage in 2004, or criticizing how the GOP hit Kerry with the Swift-Boat ads at a point in the campaign cycle when Kerry's funds were curtailed by finance laws. Kurtz buds Mark Halperin and John Harris wrote a whole book extolling the virtue of Rove's sleazy, win-at-any-cost, bigger war chest brand of politics. Now, Kurtz isn't too blame for their book, of course, but he shares many of their views, and the whole gang are pretty selective when it comes to fairness.
Kurtz is entitled to his other opinions. The Florida rally wasn't live out here in California, so its special nature was lost on me. I don't have an issue with the old speeches and the new rally being intercut with the informercial stuff, which also intercut Obama speaking directly to the American people, mini-docs on families, and Obama listening to and talking to American citizens. But hey, Kurtz is free to feel differently.

All that said, if Kurtz isn't aware of what he's shilling, boy, he's been duped, and if he is aware, it's even more shameful. I think it's a mixture of both. In any case, while Kurtz has his moments, his blog's main virtue is as a conservative blog round-up, but Kurtz still affects a persona of being fair and balanced, ample evidence to the contrary. Once again, he's adopted a right-wing framing and legitimizes bullshit.

(Oh, and Pushing Daisies is a good show, but I don't think even Ned could resurrect McCain's campaign at this point.)

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)

The Truth on "The Surge"

Within the past 12 months, Charlie Gibson, Katie Couric and Tom Brokaw (among others) have badgered leading Democrats to proclaim "the Surge" a success. In each case that I've seen, the Democrat (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, John Edwards) has given a serious and accurate response, to which the reporters have been dismissive, pushing on with their same insistence – 'Say it! The Surge has worked! Hallelujah!' There's some good reporting on Iraq in the newspapers, particularly from McClatchy, but the reporting on television is often frustratingly misleading. As we've often discussed, any drop in violence is most welcome, but the supposed purpose of "the surge" was to buy time for a political reconciliation that hasn't occurred yet, and may be very far off. The drop in violence has multiple causes, including the escalation of American troops, but there are other extremely significant factors it would be dishonest (and folly) to ignore. That said, while things may no longer be horrifically dreadful, they're still quite dreadful. There are still 4-5 million displaced Iraqis, a staggering number especially give the population size, and basic services such as water and electricity are still below pre-war levels for many Iraqis. There is some sincere disagreement on whether withdrawal is the best move, and at what pace - although given the feelings of the Iraqi people and the position of the Maliki government, currently all American troops would be out by 2011 (we'll see how that plays out). Regardless, there's much less room for wild disagreement when it comes to (ahem) serious discussion of the realities of Iraq – realities which are complex, thorny and dire. The occupation cheerleaders rarely mention those realities, preferring to present an extremely narrow, misleading, sometimes Pollyanna view. Some go further, and add the vile McCarthyist rhetoric employed by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham at the Republican National Convention, where he all but denounced Barack Obama and other Democrats as traitors. Some of this is an extremely repulsive breed of politics, some of it's myopic zealotry, some of it's a fervent desire for vindication - but it's all dangerous.

Some of the press might also seek this justification, however unconsciously, given that so many pushed a "pro-Bush, pro-war narrative" and so many still feel they did a good job in the run-up to the war. A large number of prominent reporters (especially on television) never seem to consider for even a moment that a key goal of "the surge" was to influence American politics, a critique confirmed by Bob Woodward's latest book (the basic game was long ago figured out by liberal bloggers, Tom Tomorrow and The Daily Show). But then, this is a group who all but ignored the story about an illegal, domestic propaganda campaign by the Pentagon they abetted, rather than admit that they were, yet again, credulous dupes.

There are a number of excellent media outlets and bloggers for Iraq news and analysis, and we have several fairly extensive pieces among the BH and VS posts on Iraq. Meanwhile, Dan Froomkin's 9/9/08 column, "Inside Bush's Surge," spurred by excerpts from Woodward's book, provides a good overview of the complex realities of "the surge." For instance:

In a sidebar, Woodward criticizes the conventional wisdom that the surge worked. "[T]he full story was more complicated. At least three other factors were as important as, or even more important than, the surge. These factors either have not been reported publicly or have received less attention than the influx of troops.

"Beginning in the late spring of 2007, the U.S. military and intelligence agencies launched a series of top-secret operations that enabled them to locate, target and kill key individuals in groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Sunni insurgency and renegade Shia militias, or so-called special groups. The operations incorporated some of the most highly classified techniques and information in the U.S. government. . . .

"A second important factor in the lessening of violence was the so-called Anbar Awakening, in which tens of thousands of Sunnis turned against al-Qaeda in Iraq and signed up with U.S. forces."

(Woodward neglects to mention the $25 million a month that the U.S. government is paying those Sunni gunmen for their services.)

"A third significant break came Aug. 29, when militant Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr ordered his powerful Mahdi Army to suspend operations, including attacks against U.S. troops," Woodward writes.

And there are some other factors Woodward leaves out. Consider, for instance, the possibility that years of ethnic cleansing have left a formerly integrated country fragmented into internally peaceful but heavily armed pieces. And there is growing evidence that all sides are now just patiently waiting until we leave to start fighting again -- this time with plenty of American money and weapons on every side.

Froomkin's intro spells things out very well (emphasis added):

It's not exactly news that President Bush dismisses the advice of his military commanders when it doesn't suit him -- and did so, most notably, when he ordered a surge in troops to Iraq early last year over the intense objections of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his top commanders in the region.

Bob Woodward's new book calls renewed attention to Bush's problematic decision-making style, but leaves unanswered some key questions. Among them: Were Bush's motivations in pushing through the surge noble or self-serving? And was he, ultimately, right or wrong to do so?

A lot rests on the answer to those questions -- maybe even the November election. And although Woodward doesn't appear to be quite ready to weigh in, he does provide some hints. He accuses Bush of deception and disengagement. He airs top military leaders' well-founded concerns that the surge would do enormous damage to the long-term fighting ability of the armed forces. And he argues that the surge is far from the sole reason for the reduction in violence in Iraq.

He also raises the distinct possibility that domestic political factors were a big factor: He quotes Bush telling soon-to-be-ousted Central Command commander Gen. John P. Abizaid at a National Security Council session in December that the surge would "also help here at home, since for many the measure of success is reduction in violence."

But you could also reasonably read Woodward's book as primarily a complaint that it took Bush so long to act, rather than that he did the wrong thing. Woodward is much more critical of the process than of the decision.

Indeed, conventional wisdom in Washington has coalesced around the notion that surge -- a plan Woodward describes as being masterminded by retired Army Gen. Jack Keane, using his back-channel relationship with Bush and Vice President Cheney -- has been a success.

But the evidence actually suggests that its most dazzling success has been the effect here at home -- precisely the one Bush had in mind.

The surge, among other quite possibly more significant factors, has dramatically reduced violence in Iraq, leading the American public to turn its attention elsewhere, and leaving the issue of withdrawal for the next president to worry about.

But has it led to the sort of Iraqi political reconciliation Bush promised would come as a result? Hardly.

Has it overstrained the army to the breaking point? The stress fractures we see so far, including the incredible burdens on the troops and their families, have yet to fully express themselves.

Has it led to a faster pullout than would have otherwise been possible? Certainly not. Given the political tenor of the country shortly before Bush announced an escalation, a lot of our troops could well have been withdrawn by now had things gone otherwise. Instead, as Bush made clear this morning, there will be more troops in Iraq when he leaves office than there were in January 2007.

Meanwhile, the BBC interviews General Petraeus, who is still offering variations on his "fragile but reversible" assessment. The web summary is titled "No victory in Iraq, says Petraeus":

The outgoing commander of US troops in Iraq, Gen David Petraeus, has said that he will never declare victory there.

In a BBC interview, Gen Petraeus said that recent security gains were "not irreversible" and that the US still faced a "long struggle".

When asked if US troops could withdraw from Iraqi cities by the middle of next year, he said that would be "doable"...

Gen Petraeus took up his role in Iraq in February 2007, as President Bush announced his "surge" plan.

He has overseen its implementation, including the deployment of nearly 30,000 additional troops to trouble spots in Iraq.

In an interview with the BBC's Newsnight programme, Gen Petraeus said that when he took charge in Iraq "the violence was horrific and the fabric of society was being torn apart".

Leaving his post, he said there were "many storm clouds on the horizon which could develop into real problems".

Overall he summed up the situation as "still hard but hopeful", saying that progress in Iraq was "a bit more durable" but that the situation there remained fragile.

He said he did not know that he would ever use the word "victory": "This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not war with a simple slogan."

He said al-Qaeda's efforts to portray its jihad in Iraq as going well were "disingenuous". It was, in fact "going poorly", he said.

Of his strategy of establishing joint security stations in key locations, Gen Petraeus said that "you can't secure the people if you don't live with them".

He said it was now fair to say that the Iraqis were standing up as US forces stood down. The confidence and capability of Iraqi forces had increased substantially, he said.

In a post titled " We’ll always do just well enough in Iraq to never leave," John Amato remarks, "Long struggle, not irreversible, still hard, many clouds on the horizon… These aren’t words of praise about Iraq being uttered by the General. Once again we hear the "fragile" word. Is that what success is, fragile?"

I guess Petraeus just doesn't know what military genius and Iraq expert Jonah Goldberg does, since Goldberg crowed that "America is very close to flat out winning in Iraq," thanks almost entirely to the Republicans, of course. (Goldberg's latest bullshit is ably challenged by Warren Street and Blue Girl).

On the one hand, we have deluded and/or dissembling hacks like Joe Lieberman, who's shamelessly trying to have the Senate proclaim "the surge" a success. On the other, if one but reads a decent newspaper - or good roundups by bloggers such as Cernig – one can get a sense of what "fragile" really means. I'm anxious about the presidential debates and more potentially misleading Iraq questions, because the stakes are just too high for that. To date, far too many leading television journalists have pushed the hack view, and have shown but a "fragile" respect for the truth.

(Cross-posted at The Blue Herald)