Teachable Moments

Steve Benen plucks out another Angle clanger amongst a NYT interview:

Q. Did Keynesian economics, the stimulus spending, work in the Depression of the ‘30s?

A. No. And I think history has really proven that to be true. Most economists agree that the thing that really worked, which is a sad commentary, is the war.

Benen notes the foolishness of this, but dances by the real point (as I see it, anyway). Where was this series of follow-up questions:

Q. So, then, if we accept that WWII was solely responsible for the nation’s economic recovery, what exactly was it about the war that spurred the recovery?

Q. I see. So, where did that money come from. By which I mean: who was buying all the arms and so forth?

Q. So what you’re saying is that massive government stimulus, in this case, a government stimulus that happened to be directed at the construction and production of war materiel is what stimulated the economy and resulted in essentially full employment and a large scale recovery?

Q. Well then, I guess you can explain how this is in any way different from what you decry as Keynesian intervention, but simply on a more massive scale? And how you square that with your previous statements re: the New Deal did nothing?

But we don’t get this. Ever. Instead, the next question is this probing and incisive fastball:

Q. In Washington, you hear various Republican committees talk about trying to remake you or change you. How do you react to that?

I’d rate that right up there with

Q. Mr. Burns, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

Reporters are never prepared, or, alternatively, are prepared but too beholden to power and access to ever ask the appropriate follow-up. Even when getting an answer would mean making real news out of an otherwise milquetoast interview that maybe twelve people will look at. And it’s killing the country. Day by day, week by week, we’re tapping away on the flag way up in the rigging while the ship sinks below us.

I’ve got a little list

From digby:

  • Tea Party’ers are not more likely to have racist tendencies than other conservatives.
    (Except they are.)

  • Democrats are scheming to hit 94 percent of small business owners with tax increases.
    (Except they aren’t.)

  • Bloody violence is out of control along the Mexican border, and illegal immigrants are streaming into America at record levels.
    (Except it’s not and they’re not.)

  • Obamacare will send Medicare spiraling out of control.
    (Except it won’t.)

  • Marriage is a religious union that’s all about procreation.
    (Except it isn’t.)

  • Voters say cutting the deficit is more important than creating jobs.
    (Except they don’t.)

  • Social Security is going broke, it adds to the deficit, and we have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
    (Except it’s not, it doesn’t and we don’t.)

  • The earth is getting cooler.
    (Except it’s really really not.)

Small enough to print, laminate, and keep in your pocket, David Gregory (et al.). Go and do likewise.

Nothing that Does Matter

So good:

It does not matter where presidents or their wives go on vacation. IT DOES NOT MATTER. Presidential approval, election outcomes, support in Congress — nothing that does matter depends on where presidents go on vacation. It did not matter when Clinton apparently polled to figure out where he should go. It did not matter when Bush decamped to Crawford. It did not matter when the Obamas went to Martha’s Vineyard. It does not matter now.

Dowd writes:

In politics and pop culture, optics are all.

By that she means, “In politics and pop culture, optics are all that matters to me.”

You could not ask for a better distillation of why so much political commentary is so completely and utterly detached from what actually affects political outcomes. War and peace, economic prosperity and hard times, real scandals — these things pale beside the fact that the Obamas once went to New York City on a date!

Nothing that Does Matter

Just askin, but do these Republicans want to be tied to wanting to change this historic, post-Civil War amendment, which made former slaves and their children full citizens in this country? At a time of 10% unemployment and two wars, do politicians really want to debate a Constitutional Amendment from the 19th century? For the GOP, does this help them with their problem at wooing non-white votes?

NBC News “First Read; if the MSM is noticing this trend and commenting on it, even in what (to them) is a web backwater for mouth-breathers, I can only assume it’s starting to get some real traction among serious people. This, of course, is bad for The Democrat.

Constitutional Conservatives

I guess the name is meant to imply they are really focused on changing the Constitution in every conceivable way. Jonathan Chait helpfully collects the most recent examples:

  1. The Flag Desecration Amendment
  2. Balanced budget amendment
  3. Supermajority to raise taxes
  4. “Parental rights” amendment – the right of parents to “raise their children as they see fit, introduced last year by Jim DeMint and Peter Hoekstra.
  5. Human life amendment, banning abortion
  6. The Federal Marriage Amendment, banning gay marriage
  7. Believing that the DC Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, Lisa Murkowski proposed an amendment giving the District a single voting representative.
  8. Last year, Jim DeMint introduced a term limits amendment (3 terms in the House, 2 in the Senate).
  9. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.
    McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

Added to the necessary questions queue: To save us some time, which parts of the Constitution do you actually like and wish to preserve?

The Media’s Obsession with Tax Reform

KRUGMAN: No, I think it’s fair enough. But, you know, let me ask — there’s something I don’t understand about this whole thing. There are actually two major investigations of members of Congress underway right now. There’s Charlie Rangel, who’s accused of some fairly petty, although stupid and wrong, ethical violations, and there’s Senator John Ensign, who’s facing a criminal investigation and which actually — it’s even a story that involves sex. And you get no publicity whatsoever on the Ensign investigation. Why is Rangel getting all this attention?
AMANPOUR: Is that fair, George?
WILL: Well, Rangel is much more important, because he’s chairman of an important committee. And in fact, Rangel’s misfortune is a national misfortune, because we desperately need — and after the deficit commission reports in December, we might have had — serious tax reform in this country. That requires a cooperative member leading that committee in the House.

[Journalists] could have made the point that they were important because they were skilled at compiling and communicating what might interest people, or they could cling to their AUTHORITAH and claim they were important gatekeepers, deciding what the rabble should know. They chose the latter, and now they wonder why we don’t applaud.

The Afghan Wikileaks

Jay Rosen makes some important points, among them is:

as Julien Assange, founder of Wikileaks, explained last October, if a big story is available to everyone equally, journalists will pass on it.

“It’s counterintuitive,” he said then. “You’d think the bigger and more important the document is, the more likely it will be reported on but that’s absolutely not true. It’s about supply and demand. Zero supply equals high demand, it has value. As soon as we release the material, the supply goes to infinity, so the perceived value goes to zero.”

The Afghan Wikileaks

Sherroditus

So, we’re entering week two of an event that, thanks to quick thinking, White House officials nipped in the bud and transformed into a one day story.

On the plus side: this OpEd from EJ Dionne is superlative. I don’t share his optimism, but he points out what strikes me as the key facet linking the Sherrod narrative to a much larger issue:

The Obama team did not question, let alone challenge, the video. Instead, it assumed that whatever narrative Fox News might create mattered more than anything else, including the possible innocence of a human being outside the president’s inner circle.

The Facts Do Not Matter. While still folding like a cheap suit, at least the administration seems to have internalized (and fumblingly tried to act upon) this basic tenet of today’s media complex. And that’s the thing that really differentiates the Sherrod dust-up: the fairly counter-intuitive notion that the true facts of the story not only emerged but were covered and became the ongoing core storyline employed by the MSM. This rarely happens.
I’d argue that this is because the truth was suitably damaging to the administration while the “lie” in the matter rather inconveniently put on display the deeply dysfunctional brand of “news” that FOXnews peddles and furthermore highlights a larger media establishment that not only ignores but frequently rushes to defend such behavior.
A truly agile administration would have used this rare opening. Indeed, they should be waiting for such an opportunity, with tightly produced packages ready to drop at the first sign of FOXnews’ exposed flank. Instead, they fired Sherrod. This is why they fail.
But, getting back to the novelty of having a truth emerge from the fiction and actually manage to become the narrative, for how long have we lived with other convenient lies like:

  • Al Gore says he invented the internet
  • Unlike Americans, Al Gore wears four-button suits
  • Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal
  • Al Gore says he was the basis of Love Story
  • Al Gore wore earth tones because a woman told him to

That the first of these is actually mentioned by Dionne is as shocking as it is unusual. Polite people never mention these facts.
Admittedly, these examples are merely a smattering from the Al Gore section of the Convenient Media Storybook. There are many more, and innumerable sections; Social Security is soon to be insolvent, tax cuts have always paid for themselves, and etc… Al Gore makes an interesting case because the man has been out of Presidential politics since he was elected President back in Campaign 2000. These and other lies about him still appear on a daily basis in the mainstream press. But, of course, these things cut both ways. The Church of the Savvy tells us that both houses are always equally flawed. False equivalency is the stock and trade of the business. So let’s give equal time and run down all the manifold lies that are repeated daily about disgraced former Speaker Newt Gingrich:

The typical evolution of stories like Sherrod’s goes something like this:

  1. Wrong but convenient and story-making non-fact is put “out there.”
  2. Serious people like Cokie Roberts and Juan Williams pick it up and uncritically repeat it
  3. Truth of matter emerges on A19. Is ignored. Derided as too complicated, booooo-ring, or “old news.”
  4. When directly challenged with (3), serious people like Cokie will haltingly agree with its ultimate veracity, but continue to treat (1) as fact because it’s “Out there.” And then proceed to recall (1). Forever.

The Sherrod case is playing out very differently. Not only did the reality emerge, it was accepted and propagated. Dionne continues:

The traditional media are so petrified of being called “liberal” that they are prepared to allow the Breitbarts of the world to become their assignment editors. Mainstream journalists regularly criticize themselves for not jumping fast enough or high enough when the Fox crowd demands coverage of one of their attack lines.

This is true to a point, however he’s either forgetting or just avoiding the key lie. The key myth that makes it all possible: that the MSM is, in and of itself, liberal. A false attribution, but one that is (surprise, surprise) frequently repeated. This is what movtivates the fear of being called liberal. It’s the frame that drives NPR to run stories worrying over three hours of clearly differentiated msnbc editorial programming alongside 21 hours of straight news (three of which are dominated by a former Conservative member of Congress) whilst merrily whistling past the fact that FOXnews runs a 24/7 propaganda mill, complete with “serious” stories like the entirely false notion that the Obama Justice Department categorically refuses to prosecute black men; it would be one thing if this nonsense was limited to FOXnews, but it is not. Dionne picks up this thread:

Thus did Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander ask this month why the [Washington Post] had been slow to report on “the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party.” Never mind that this is a story about a tiny group of crackpots who stopped no one from voting. It was aimed at doing what the doctored video Breitbart posted set out to do: convince Americans that the Obama administration favors blacks over whites.

[…]

Now, [Bush Justice Department official J. Christian] Adams is accusing the Obama Justice Department of being “motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” This is racially inflammatory, politically motivated nonsense – and it’s nonsense even if Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talk about it a thousand times a day. When an outlandish charge for which there is no evidence is treated as an on-the-one-hand-and-on-the-other-hand issue, the liars win.

Again, Dionne soft-pedals it. It’s not just Hannity saying this during “editorial” hour; it’s the entire “news” operation on FOXnews doing it. Presenting it as fact. Repeatedly. Which, for unclear reasons, positively compels the rest of the MSM to do likewise and ponder why they didn’t report on this falsity more aggressively and sooner without ever pausing to consider that the story is baseless and more often than not invented out of whole cloth. Thus do people like Drudge, Limbaugh, Beck, and O’Reilly become the assignment editors for the MSM. Many say the world is round. Others say it is flat. Opinions differ.

Thus does the nation die at the hands of invincible ignorance.

A|B Testing

Which of these tacks do you suppose the MSM will take up?

A:

-or-

B:

Answer: Serious people know it’s always bad for the Democrat. Get ready for the Demcrat Tax Bomb of 2010! Just you try and refudiate it. True deficit hawks know that, if you’re serious about the deficit you make the tough choices: like lowering taxes.

We know this is coming. Are we busily inoculating?
Are you fucking kidding me?