Month: July 2008

On Whining

by Chris Bodenner
In the wake of the recent Gaffe-A-Palooza, Andrew Ferguson of the Weekly Standard has a pretty short-sighted piece chronicling the campaigns’ numerous "Kinsley gaffes" — when a politician accidentally tells the truth.  He brings up the technically-true-but-controversial remarks made by Ferraro, Clark, and Black, but fails to recognize how the specific context of those remarks warranted ire.  (Naturally, the media hyperventilated, but their criticism was still valid).  If context counts for nothing, would Ferguson say that Clark’s comments about McCain would have been no different had they been delivered by McCain himself?  Does Ferguson want to argue that Jesse Jackson was technically correct when he said Obama was "talking down to black people," since the 6’2” nominee was speaking before a seated audience? 

In making his case against Kinsley gaffes, Ferguson focuses on the most recent factual faux-pas — Phil Gramm’s "mental recession":

In other words: What Gramm said was true, but it didn’t matter. He wins on the merits — he said the economy wasn’t in a recession, and it wasn’t — but he deserves a reprimand anyway. He had stumbled into a zone of politics where you’re not supposed to say something true, and where you get punished if you do.

Ferguson, of course, is right: a recession technically requires two quarters of economic contraction.  And there’s certainly something to be said for media hype hurting consumer confidence.  But Ferguson completely, and conveniently, ignores the most odious part of Gramm’s gaffe — "nation of whiners."  The treasury-secretary-in-waiting wasn’t nailed for his economic truth-telling (after all, McCain’s several "psychological" remarks weren’t broadcast until Gramm-gate).  He was nailed for his political callousness.  And it’s not like Gramm was some economics professor advising the McCain campaign; he was a senator, whose job is to be sensitive to those paying his or her salary (or at least fake it).  And I’m sure the fact that Gramm is a millionaire bank lobbyist didn’t help him with a nominee trying to woo working-class swingers in the Rust Belt.

Meanwhile, over at the Los Angeles Times, two professors debate the merits of Gramm’s remarks.  Doug Henwood argues that "times are great, but only for the rich," citing a slew of statistics (household income dropped 2% between ’99 and ’06, hourly wages are down 12% from ’78).  Steven Landsburg counters, "We have gotten so used to perpetual income growth that it’s tempting to think of a two-year setback as some kind of disaster." He basically conveys that while the economy’s a bit rocky right now, Americans are still wealthier than any other people in any other period.  Landsburg:

You might also say that the subprime mess has cost a lot of people their homes, but it would more accurate to say that the subprime market allowed a lot of people to live beyond their means for a few years. Those people are understandably disappointed that those years are over, but, having lived in nice houses for a while, they’re still net winners.

I tend to side with Landsburg.  While times are certainly strained for many Americans, the country shouldn’t get carried away with economic angst.  Most poverty in the U.S., after all, is relative, not absolute.  Henwood realizes this relativity, but twists it for his own purpose: "Times are pretty good for tenured professors and economic pundits [how gracious!] — maybe not as good as they’ve been for the titans of private equity, but still a lot better than they’ve been for teachers, hairdressers and computer programmers."  Yes, but teachers are better off than fast-food workers, who are better off than migrant workers, who are better off than subsistence farmers, who are better off than famine-stricken villagers — who, if using Henwood’s logic, should be the only legitimate "whiners.

Reading Henwood also springs to mind a paradox I’ve noticed in the left-liberal discourse regarding class: consumerism is BAD, yet any drop in disposable income (and yes, even a 12% drop in wages — with exceptions — is disposable) is also BAD.  Liberal planks like job insecurity and poor access to healthcare are legitimate grievances to fight against (as I would).  Just because the U.S. economy is comparatively stronger than any other doesn’t mean complaints should be scoffed at, or regulations ignored.  But liberals waging a wage war against the wealthy is not only futile, it’s frivolous — and thus self-contradictory.

Nevertheless, I also find it particularly ironic that the "stop your whining" sentiment is rarely turned against rich Republicans like Gramm who persistently rail against taxes.  Again, like slipping wages, creeping tax hikes should always be checked (though the top .01% whose income has jumped 240% since ’78 could certainly spare some of that excess). But it seems like everyone — upper, middle, and working class — could use a little perspective when it comes to the luck of living in America.

Malkin Award Nominee

Obamaosama

By Patrick Appel
A screenshot of South Carolina Senator Kevin Bryant’s blog. Nico Pitney got an interview:

"It was meant tongue in cheek," [Bryant] said, adding, "I’ve got some questions about Senator Obama’s ties to — such as his comment that we should negotiate with Iran. Iran’s a country that would like to destroy Israel, that bothers me. But is this picture appropriate? I don’t know." He let out a loud laugh. "It’s gotten a lot more attention than I would have expected."

Does he think Obama is actually has terrorist ties? "I don’t think he’s tied to terrorists, no. I do think he’s probably more sympathetic to nations that allow terrorism than I would prefer. And that’s why I posted it. Am I saying that him and Osama work together? No, I’m not saying that at all."

And what religion does Bryant think Obama practices? "That’s a good question. I don’t know."

Quote For The Day

By Patrick Appel

Despite the common delusion to the contrary the philosophy of doubt is far more comforting than that of hope.  The doubter escapes the worst penalty of the man of faith and hope; he is never disappointed, and hence never indignant. The inexplicable and irremediable may interest him, but they do not enrage him, or, I, may add, fool him. This immunity is worth all the dubious assurances ever foisted upon man. It is pragmatically impregnable.  Moreover, it makes for tolerance and sympathy. The doubter does not hate his opponents; he sympathizes with them. In the end he may even come to sympathize with God.  The old idea of fatherhood submerges in a new idea of brotherhood. God, too, is beset by limitations, difficulties, broken hopes. Is it disconcerting to think of Him thus? Well, is it any less disconcerting to think of Him as able to ease and answer, and yet failing?"- H.L. Mencken. From "Damn, a Book of Calumny" (now out of print, but available in "A Mencken Chrestomathy"; p.96)

Blame The Media!, Ctd

By Patrick Appel
Marc on McCain’s media bashing:

Media-bashing is a time-honored tradition patented by Republicans in the 1970s as a key feature of grievance politics. So successful, in fact, that it’s become a mainstay of the new liberal activism. Unlike other conservatives, until now, McCain hasn’t had to worry about bypassing the media and hasn’t been a media decredentialist. (Truth is, the media, like most other major American institutions, has been slowly losing influence since the 60s.)…This is part-feint, part-passive-aggressive jab, part political tactic. Campaign officials sincerely believe that the media has completely abandoned its objectivity and collective responsibility. Not that they’ve given the media the benefit of the doubt: since the beginning of the campaign, McCain’s team has sent out regular e-mails criticizing news coverage using all the familiar tropes.

Excuses, Excuses

by hilzoy

Yesterday, Jonathan Chait (who I normally like) wrote a piece about John McCain in which he said:

“McCain is pretty easy to take. His demagoguery comes with an awkward forced smile, which doesn’t make it more forgivable but does make it less irritating.”

Call this the Chait/Cohen/Kristof line on McCain: yes, he’s willing to throw his principles overboard, but the fact that he hates doing it (and we are supposed to take their word for that) makes it all rather endearing, somehow. I find this baffling: why the fact that John McCain knows that what he’s doing is wrong makes it “less irritating” is a mystery to me.

Chait also says:

“The best aspect of a McCain presidency is that, while it would probably follow the policies of George W. Bush, it would put an end to the politics of Karl Rove.”

Really? In that case, I’m at a loss to explain not just McCain’s willingness to take Rove on as an informal advisor, and to staff his campaign with Rove proteges, but his willingness to say things like this (h/t):

“I had the courage and judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Sen. Obama would rather lose the war in order to win a political campaign.”

I don’t know what Chait et al mean by ‘the politics of Karl Rove’. To me, it has always involved a willingness to do just about anything to win, and in particular to make deeply dishonorable attacks on one’s opponent. Saying that one’s opponent would lose a war on purpose, for political reasons strikes me as pretty deeply dishonorable. Duels have been fought for far less.

McCain does have an “awkward forced smile” at the end of the clip I posted, but while that might make it less irritating to Chait, it does not have the same effect on me. Likewise, I’m sure Senator McCain knows that what he’s saying is not true. But, as I said, I have no idea why the fact that he’s lying about his opponent’s patriotism and honor on purpose is supposed to make me think better of him.

John McCain is an adult. No one is forcing him to say these things. It’s time people stopped making excuses for him.

Pixels Of Color

by Chris Bodenner
John Dickerson makes the case for Twitter journalism:

We can all agree that journalism shouldn’t get any smaller, but Twitter doesn’t threaten the traditions of our craft. It adds, rather than subtracts, from what we do. As I spend nearly all of my time on the road these days reporting on the presidential campaigns, Twitter is the perfect place for all of those asides I’ve scribbled in the hundreds of notebooks I have in my garage from the campaigns and stories I’ve covered over the years. Inside each of those notebooks are little pieces of color I’ve picked up along the way. Sometimes these snippets are too off-topic or too inconsequential to work into a story. Sometimes they are the little notions or sideways thoughts that become the lede of a piece or the kicker. All of them now have found a home on Twitter.