"When You Really Go after Each Other, We Get a Spike."

Robert Reich is worried about "gladiator politics":

The Real Source of Gladiator Politics, by Robert Reich: I was on television recently, debating a conservative. ... During a commercial break, the producer spoke into my earpiece. "A bit more energy," he said. ... "Rip into him. Only three minutes in the next segment and we want to make the most of it."

John McCain says he's intent on waging a respectful and civil presidential campaign. Barack Obama says the same. Is it possible...?

We've grown so accustomed to gutter politics we've even turned it into verbs -- "to bork" (to impugn one's opponent's character), "to swiftboat" (to lie about a critical fact in one's opponent's biography), and, perhaps, "to reverend wright" (to create the impression that one's opponent shares a set of beliefs with a person he has associated with).

All three require a relentless attack that feeds on itself. Unproven allegations are repeated so often that the attack itself becomes news, as does the manner in which the target responds, after which point the question becomes whether the attack has hurt its target and, if so, whether the damage is fatal. The target is then watched for any signs of personal distress, defensiveness, or anger. Can the target take it? Will the target recant, backtrack, cover up, apologize, reveal more, disassociate himself, go on a counter-attack? What does the target's response tell us about his or her character? The story then shifts to the media -- are they continuing to report it? Are they being responsible in doing so? And after this self-referential orgy, the story moves to the polls -- is the public losing confidence in the candidate? In the days or weeks this goes on, the target has no opportunity to talk about anything other than the attack, and the public hears about nothing else, so the target’s polls may fall, which creates the final story: Can the target ever come back?

Character assassination, outright lies, and guilt by association are hardly new to American politics. Aaron Burr, New York City Parks Commissioner Robert Moses, Senator Joe McCarthy, and J. Edgar Hoover were avid practitioners. But the modern media, coupled more recently with the blogosphere and YouTube, have made these kinds of attacks even more potent. Political consultants -- those snakelike creatures who slither through the swamps and sinkholes of politics -- have turned all three into low-brow but highly lucrative art forms, cynically valued by the media for their effectiveness. And so-called “527’s -- the headless and mysterious bodies that grow in the interstices of our election laws -- have become their launching pads. In the logic of this underworld, "going negative" is no longer considered a campaign option; it is a necessity. ...

So what are the odds that McCain and Obama will make an historic break with this sordid tradition...? Each man may sincerely wish to do so. Both have based their candidacies, to some extent, on creating a new politics that rejects the gutter-ball tactics of the old. ... Each is distancing himself from his party’s mud-slinging... Mostly, though, the public is fed up with the rancor -- isn't it?

I asked the producer who was talking into my earpiece why I had to rip into my opponent. "We see viewership minute by minute," he said, hurriedly (the commercial break was about over). "When you really go after each other, we get a spike."

It's the spike I'm worried about. I chose not to rip into my opponent but, then again, I'm not running for president. The public says it's tired of gladiator politics. But take a closer look. Political ripping and slashing is is one of America's favorite spectator sports. And the media that informs us about the candidates, and the advertisers who dictate the terms by which they do so, have data to prove it.

But what makes one attack resonate over another? Attacks occur every day, some capture our attention and others don't. Why is that? I really don't understand what captures the herds attention. Does the media simply mirror our desires as Reich implies, or does the media decide for itself what to hype? Is it because control of the media is concentrated in just a few hands allowing certain issues to be trumped up until they become the news? Is more competition the answer?:

Obama --Let's Challenge the Murdochization of Our Media, by Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation: In a speech Sunday, Barack Obama said he would pursue a vigorous antitrust policy if he becomes U.S. president and singled out the media industry as one area where government regulators would need to be watchful as consolidation increases.

His statement signals a key opening for media and democracy reformers and the movement they have spawned in this last decade...

Obama's speech comes on the heels of a sweet victory: Senator Byron Dorgan's successful push back against the Republican-dominated FCC's efforts to repeal the cross-ownership rule --which would allow media oligarchs like Murdoch to gobble up more outlets in one city. Dorgan's Senate resolution --which would work to ban a single owner from controlling a tv station and a newspaper in the same market--has 25 co-sponsors and corresponding legislation has been introduced in the the House.

Obama is tapping into the powerful and passionate view shared by millions of Americans that our current hyper-consolidated media landscape--with 90% of it controlled by some six corporations- is a disservice to a democracy which demands diverse voices and views.

I wish it was as simple as adding competition. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see less concentration in this industry, that's needed, I'm just no sure that we can blame the "gladiator politics" problem on lack of effective competition. If anything, it probably comes from competition.

I do think it is a market failure, but it's an incentive compatibility problem, not a problem with competition. What entertains people, what captures their eyes and ears, may not be what's best for them as voters. Because their votes are unlikely to make a difference, given a choice between watching an entertaining exchange, or watching something less entertaining but more informative in terms of the issues that matter in the election, they'll choose the entertainment. So the maximization of profit does not result in the maximization of informed voters.

Sometimes bloggers like to think they are different, but they also play the "monitor the viewership and see what generates spikes" game (checked your site meter lately?). Snarky, shrill, combative "gladiator politics" tend to get the most play among the brand-name blogs just as it does in more mainstream media outlets. Of course the trick is to get both, someone with the talent to be entertaining but also knowledgeable on the issues they are discussing, but you get the sense that when push comes to shove, entertainment does not always take a back seat to news in blogland. I don't mean to equate the blogs and traditional media on every level, that would be silly, but in this respect there are common features. In both cases, the incentive to provide entertainment is strong and as much as we would like journalists to maintain certain standards of professionalism, the economic incentives work against them and in the long-run, left unchecked, the market usually wins.

So what is the answer? If it were a firm trying to maximize profits, I'd recommend a change in the rules or structure that brings incentives into alignment, e.g. to overcome problems where a manager's personal interests are different from what's best for the firm. For a firm, the goal is known and measurable, it's to maximize profit, so the changes can be gauged against this standard. But if we intervene on behalf of voters, who decides what is in their best interests, what information should get more or less attention, what subjects should be covered, etc.? How do we decide what it means to be informed, and even if we know, how do we measure it to see if our policies are effective? I'm not sure I know how to answer that. If we know the goal, we can look for policies that get us there, but if the goal is vague, how do we determine policy, how do we institute changes that bring the profit motive in line with the motive of having optimally informed voters go to the polls? Maybe you have the answer?

Comments

[Joe Twelvepack]

FYI, There's a very worthwhile discussion right now of a topic that overlaps greatly with this one over at Capital Gains & Games http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/stan-collender/325/disinter-media-tion

[Joe Twelvepack]

I see that links don't automatically go live here. Here's the link to that Capital Gains & Games page Disinter-MEDIA-tion

[bullbust]

Bread and circus?

Asset bubbles and mudslinging.

[Mark Thoma]

I had a section comparing news frenzies to asset price bubbles, but I took it out because it was taking too long to get the parallels right, and I wasn't sure it fit exactly. But it's interesting to think of the similarities.

[Joe Twelvepack]

Media consumers share the blame with media content providers. Many people find it much easier and more emotionally satisfying to dismiss someone presenting a challenge or an opposing view as a liar or an idiot rather than listening and considering if he has a point. Americans are getting increasingly intellectually lazy and immature, and they are taking the easy way out of dealing with cognitive dissonance. So in their passive media choices, people often prefer to watch chair-throwing rather than serious discussion, and in participatory media like blogs they often gravitate to partisan "echo chambers" that reinforce all of the above.

[hari]

This is a very tricky social indicator of massive dose of what's called by media *lowest common denominator* shrill index. It more or less reflects Marks assumption - ie. the viewer is basically dumb to decifer the intrinsic value of the discourse - so don't allow serious fact based dialogue which are very dull for the viewers (no advertizing gain).

Cultures seem to pass thru these waves from generation to generation. YouTube and other (shrill) blogs are actually contributing to set *marks* for what's marketable today.
Moreover, it denotes the decline of culture to its lowest common denominator - when Reich has to admit the insinuation from *life* media debate based on instant measurement of audience....

It all goes to prove that even on this thread we've serious problems of staying *sobre* at the risk of being classified as trolls!

[reason]

Maybe if the US moved away from personality based politics? Move to a preferential or proportional parliamentary system like most of the world uses that allows smaller parties to play a role and policies to take the front stage. Sorry that I spoke, I know, I know, the US constitution came from heaven.

[reason]

Yes, but given you are stuck with the stupid system you have that makes people think electing the government is the same as deciding who to throw out on reality TV. Maybe there is a role for an independent electoral commission that also sees its role as educating people about democracy (starting in schools of course). I know from Australia that public interest compaigns can be very effective - I remember one anti-litter campaign that used children to shame adults, and fear mongering anti-drink driving campaigns. They really did work wonders. A statutory non-partisan body for promoting a healthy democracy is a good idea.

[anne]

"We've grown so accustomed to gutter politics we've even turned it into verbs -- 'to Bork' (to impugn one's opponent's character), 'to swiftboat' (to lie about a critical fact in one's opponent's biography), and, perhaps, 'to Reverend Wright' (to create the impression that one's opponent shares a set of beliefs with a person he has associated with)."

To Robert Reich (to impugn, to lie about, to create a false of Hillary Clinton's character)....

[anne]

Oops:

To Robert Reich (to impugn, to lie about, to create a false impression of Hillary Clinton's character)....

[Andrew]

A bit of chicken v egg here. While the media is certainly complicit, I am inclined to believe that divisive politics rose with divisive politicians. The media simply responded to consumer demand.

Gingrich and Co. raised the level of vitriol starting in the 80's, and there has been a steady climb ever since. As our leadership polarized the public, media outlets picked a side and provided viewers with pundits and a perspective which conforms to their worldview. No one ever has to be confronted with disagreeable facts or opinions. Blogs are usually no different.

In short, I believe this is a leadership failure more than a media failure, but it is surely a bit of both.

[Joe Twelvepack]

Andrew,

Blame is shared by (at least) three parties: politicians, media suppliers and media consumers, and all three are mutually reinforcing and exacerbating. The media are both serving and stimulating a consumer need, and they are both generating and seeking material for that purpose.

By the way, regarding \"chicken v egg\", I can\'t resist: It comes down to one\'s definition of a chicken egg. If a chicken egg is defined as an egg from which a chicken emerges, then the egg came first (and in that egg was the first mutated organism that we call a chicken). If a chicken egg is defined as an egg that comes from a chicken, then the chicken came first.

[swells]

Well, I try to follow the maxim that "it's what is said that is important, not who said it." There are things that are relevant to at least my political choices in some of these "smears". For instance, when I learned that George Bush had used eminent domain to line his own pockets when he was building his baseball stadium, I noted that he seemed willing to misuse the coercive power of government. When I learned that Dick Cheney had, during his time at Halliburton, contracted with the government of Burma (as a subcontractor I think in respect to Halliburton's role) I noted that he seemed willing to profit from slave labor.

Some of the "smear" stuff is important to know. The trick is knowing what is trivial attack politics and what tells you something important about a politician's character.

Personally, I am more concerned by Barack Obama being a Christian than I am about what his pastor says. Don't get me wrong, I plan to vote for him in the general (and did in the primary) but I do have to question the sanity of someone who believes that Mary was a virgin and that her son came back from the dead and floated to heaven.

I still don't know how to get my head around people believing stuff like that.

[Bupa]

ah, count on anne the gladiator to go for the character assassination. Robert Reich has written criticisms of HRC. Therefore he must hate HRC. Therefore we lovers of HRC cannot take anything he says seriously. in fact we should assassinate him. anne the gladiator. go get him anne.

[robertdfeinman]

TV is very bad at presenting ideas, it is a visual medium. The things that have succeeded the best in attracting an audience over the decades are just those things that make use of this characteristic.

What has lasted are shows based upon human emotion, whether quiz shows, tell-alls, shouting heads, or reality eliminations. Also sports, and frenetic music and action programs. People know this and the type of person (or one in the mood for this type of entertainment) turns to TV.

Blogs appeal to readers and thinkers and ideas tend to be more important. Even the trollish behavior and character assassination is based upon ideas and "facts". The picture is getting a bit blurred as YouTube creates a certain intersection where video is coupled with the ability to comment.

The broadcast media always pushes the horse race aspect of politics. It can be talked about endlessly, everyone has an opinion about the candidates and the on-air personalities don't have to know anything about the issues - which fits well with the empty, but attractive, heads sitting in front of the cameras. It's also cheap to produce. The first move by Thomson, now that it has taken over Reuter's, is to fire several hundred people in the news operation.

And don't forget that keeping real information away from citizens makes it easier to control them via propaganda.

[Cynthia]

This recent rise of gladiator games and chariot races in American politics is just another ominous sign that America is falling in the footsteps of Rome...

[zak822]

"Does the media simply mirror our desires as Reich implies,
or does the media decide for itself what to hype?"

The media does not "simply mirror our desires". If it did, it would gratify the huge numbers of the male audience in the most desirable viewing demographics who want female nudity. Yes, I'm using a bit of exaggeration to make my point.

The media hype all kinds of stories that polls show viewers are not interested in, and ignore many that polls show people would be interested in. The ownership and upper management of media conglomerates have their own agendas, and they hype them.

Some have made the point that consumers can change media behavior. Good luck with that.

[Eric Dewey, Portland OR]

Hmmm...Mark said "the maximization of profit does not result in the maximization of informed voters."

The utilitarian ideas that permeate classical economics never really defined "utility", but did suggest that utility has very strong links both to profit and to happiness.

Here we seem to have a situation where maximizing profit (which is viewed as having a lot of utility) is perceived to be minimizing "happiness" (in the sense that uninformed voters make poor decisions which lead to more social and political problems rather than less).

This seems to suggest that we're in a time when there are fundamental disagreements about the concept of "utility" that are held by the millions of individuals that make up the political market in the US (and other markets as well?).

And the success so far of McCain's "straight talk" and Obama's "change" messages (neither of which may be authentic) suggests that a significant number of individuals are considering a change in their view of political utility. Then again, it's not really possible to know in advance how strong this desire is, or whether the political market wants this change enough to withstand the power of negativity.

Is this quantifiable? Probably not unless (until?) there's an ability to look inside the brains of the millions of individuals who make up the market.

But the point about markets on which classical economics was clearly correct is that they always respond as required to maximize their "utility" - once they "know" what they think "utility" means ...

[Gerard MacDonell]

There is no chance that John McCain wants to take the high road.

[donna]

Well, there are attacks and then there is intelligent snark. O Reilly bores the crap out of me, and makes me angry but not entertained. Keith Olbermann entertains me, but I really don't watch him much. I'm sure some people feel the opposite way depending on their politics. Stewart and Colbert are entertaining enough that even the kids watch, and even learn something from it. The snark makes the idiocy of our media blatantly obvious, and the kids can be entertained while also being intelligently informed that the "adults" around them seemingly can't discuss things very intelligently at all.

Obama inspires me and gives me hope we might get somewhere in the future. McCain bores me and makes me feel stuck in the mire of the present. Hillary offers me nothing new but only a return to the nineties.

Gladiator politics? If only. We have no gladiators, and yet the media tries to act as if we do. Treating politics as yet another reality show is a serious symptom of exactly how broken our political discourse, and our media, really is.

[Cynthia]

Let's just hope that swiftboaters (and other such political gladiators) will soon jump the shark (much like Fonzie did in Happy Days), thereby causing them to go extinct throughout America's political landscape.

[anne]

There will be no civility in the campaign, it it too late for that, and besides I have found no special civility in those who call for civility, but the fierceness of the campaign is already having the effect of blending policy definition so that choosing a candidate based on policy becomes harder. McCain and Obama, and even more so supporters, may be fierce in campaigning, but pay attention to policy and notice little or lessening differences. This worries me, since I would like well-defined policy differences to argue.

[richard]

Citizenship has rights and responsibilities; one of the responsibilities is being informed.

There will always be political discord, if only because people will process the same information in differing ways.

Broadcast media offers little in the way of information, but increasingly basic information that an individual might want for his or her education is available, a keystroke away.

[Sufferin' Succotash]

Broadcast media offers little in the way of information, but increasingly basic information that an individual might want for his or her education is available, a keystroke away.

Bingo. It's going to take a few years for this to become readily apparent, but I'm betting that the Internet will prove to be the antidote to televised gladiator politics.
Of course the glassy-eyed partisans and assorted loonietunes will always go to the places where they want to go. I'm talking about the majority which doesn't fall into either of those categories which will actually use the Net to check out the truth of something outrageous they see on the air.
Google will set them free.

[methinks]

The problem is: we think the electronic and print media is there to inform us. Wrong! It is there to sell advertising revenue.
And since the "silly season" is upon us, it should be comforting to know that neither your vote nor mine will count. That is not where the decisions are made.

[Eric Dewey, Portland OR]

Methinks, that's a very good point. But the question may end up being, what counts as information?

The market for information in the form of well-defined policy arguments like Anne wants to have is relatively small, and composed of educated individuals like Anne who are highly resistant to advertising.

The market for information about snarky items like sexual habits, fashion faux pas, angry outbursts, etc. is huge - even universal - and also contains many less-educated individuals who have few defenses against advertising traps. (Which is not to say that educated individuals are not interested in snarky gossip. They're just hard to sell to.)

Snarky items about politicians is still information - the difference is that there is a market of individuals who believes that snarky information, while perhaps necessary, is not a sufficient basis upon which to make an electoral decision.

And in this election, that market appears to be growing larger. Is that because the electorate has learned something? Or do you think the candidates learned how to fake it better?

Ultimately, the question comes down to trust and learning. If you as a voter have learned that you can't trust the information from one source, what do you do? Give up - or find a source that you think you can trust?

The answer to that says more about you than it does about mass media. And the fact that you're reading this comment on this blog suggests that you are not the type to give up...

[methinks]

Was anyone able to glean from GW Bush the candidate, that he would start 2 wars, almost double the deficit, create a new Gilded Age, deregulate and politicize all agencies of the federal government, destroy the Bill of Rights and put into place what is rapidly becoming a police state? I don't think so.
Nothing has ever been changed by voting. Those are not our candidates. Whether it was civil rights, suffrage, abortion, birth control, women's rights, social security, stopping a war, ...etc. We have only won concessions from our rulers when we have been angry, aroused, and in the streets.
In 2006, things were going to change if we elected enough Democrats. Did it? I haven't quit wanting social change and actively working toward that end. However, not by legitimizing this dog-and-pony show they call an election.

[Eric Dewey, Portland OR]

Methinks, my young heart burns with joy to hear your passion - but my old head reminds me that all change takes time.

No one can tell in advance exactly what another person will do - so please don't listen to anyone who tells you there a way to figure that out. You'll go mad, as many others have.

(If you have the time and inclination, read up a bit on Supreme Court Justices Earl Warren and Harry Blackmun. They were both quite a surprise to the Presidents that nominated them.)

However, elections and votes do make a difference. One year's set of candidates may not be what you want them to be, but in the US at least, you do have a choice. (You might also be interested in Francis Fukuyama's book "The End of History")

Being angry and in the streets will definitely influence things - but think carefully about what end that will lead to, and whether the ends really do justify the means...

[donna]

methinks,

it's called PNAC. They told us EXACTLY what they were going to do.

It's just that most of the media didn't bother pointing it out, or analyzing it enough to let us know what a freakin' disaster it all would be.

All you had to do was look at Dubya's record of failure and being bailed out by Daddy, as I did and as others did, and it was obvious. There were plenty of us screaming at the time. I lost a LOT of friends who thought I was nuts to be saying what was so damned obvious to me.

[Lafayette]

rich: Broadcast media offers little in the way of information

You are quite right. And, something should be done about it.

But, hey!, something IS being done about it. Here or
here.

Railing in a blog is dead easy. Committing personally to action is something else quite altogether.

[Lafayette]

ED: The market for information in the form of well-defined policy arguments like Anne wants to have is relatively small, and composed of educated individuals like Anne who are highly resistant to advertising.

Let's not get elitist. Mind you, that is not particularly any reproach of the citation above.

I mean by that, this:
* It is foremost a responsibility to get unbiased journalism/information out to play. Who picks up the ball and runs with it is an altogether different matter. And,
* One that we have little control over. But, look, neither should anyone have control (over how information is packaged, orientated or directed) -- that would be a contradiction in terms as regards Press Freedom. And,
* Let's not underestimate the innate ability for common people to demonstrate common sense, even if they are called Joe & Jane Sixpack.

So, let's just try to assure that we all have an unbiased media selection to chose from -- not just the neatly packaged and heavily-sanitized Nightly News that is media-pap for the masses.

Fundamentally, I don't think it is intrinsically possible for a major broadcast station, dependent upon advertising for its existence, to be fully impartial in formulating the Nightly News.

Anyone who thinks the contrary, I'd welcome greatly reading from them here. You probably have personal knowledge that you may like to share with us over the ether?

My own experience IS personal: Due to the nature of American news, in Europe there is very little possibility that any political pressure should be brought to bear on the editorial content. (Unless the news conveyed is injurious and therefore libelous.) I see things on French TV that I doubt seriously would ever be seen on American TV.

Of course, I'd really like to see a definitive, unbiased analysis of editorial content between the two media outlets, US and EU.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

RR said.....

"......"to bork" (to impugn one's opponent's character), "to swiftboat" (to lie about a critical fact in one's opponent's biography), and, perhaps, "to reverend wright" (to create the impression that one's opponent shares a set of beliefs with a person he has associated with)......."

That's entertainment...... ! Is this something new.... ? Are we collectively better than this.... ?

I don't think so.... Does anyone reading these posts have any illusions about this subject.... ?

If you do, I'd like to hear them....

Best regards,

Econolicious

[anne]

What is astonishing to notice in the very few blogs I ever look to, is the continuing and continual raving about Hillary Clinton. There is seemingly no way for self-styled progressives to refer to Clinton that is not belittling or worse. The same of course among conventional press analysts, seemingly there is no difference between the hostile analytical attitudes of women or men, so that reading a Maureen Dowd has become as impossible as reading a David Brooks.

That Clinton has come to so far with such support is all the more impressive, but that the discriminatory treatment of Clinton is overlooked is astonishing and chastening.

But, the experience has taught me much about being cautious and I have long known that in any event.

[swells]

methinks, I believe the specifics of what Bush has done is contingent on the specifics of what he encountered; i.e., what opportunities for mischief presented themselves, but yes, I think it was perfectly possible to predict no good would come of his presidency. All you really had to know was that he misused eminent domain to line his own (private) pockets when he started his baseball team. It spoke volumes about who he was and where he was headed. It told anyone who paid attention what was in store for the country; i.e., a lucrative round of looting for those exalted connected ones who matter.

says...

I'm with you Anne... the media's treatment of Clinton has been pitiful. The same goes for the Democratic Party. And even worse, David Brook's editorial yesterday made far more sense than Dowd's did today.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp&pagewanted=print

May 20, 2008

Talking Versus Doing
By DAVID BROOKS

In 1965, Mancur Olson wrote a classic book called "The Logic of Collective Action," which pointed out that large, amorphous groups are often less powerful politically than small, organized ones. He followed it up with "The Rise and Decline of Nations." In that book, Olson observed that as the number of small, organized factions in a society grows, the political culture becomes more divisive, the economy becomes more rigid and the nation loses vitality.

If you look around America today, you see the Olson logic playing out. Interest groups turn every judicial fight into an ideological war. They lobby for more spending on the elderly, even though the country is trillions of dollars short of being able to live up to its promises. They've turned environmental concern into subsidies for corn growers and energy concerns into subsidies for oil companies.

The $307 billion farm bill that rolled through Congress is a perfect example of the pattern. Farm net income is up 56 percent over the past two years, yet the farm bill plows subsidies into agribusinesses, thoroughbred breeders and the rest.

The growers of nearly every crop will get more money. Farmers in the top 1 percent of earners qualify for federal payments. Under the legislation, the government will buy sugar for roughly twice the world price and then resell it at an 80 percent loss. Parts of the bill that would have protected wetlands and wildlife habitat were deleted or shrunk.

My colleagues on The Times's editorial page called the bill "disgraceful." My former colleagues at The Wall Street Journal's editorial page ripped it as a "scam." Yet such is the logic of collective action; the bill is certain to become law. It passed with 81 votes in the Senate and 318 in the House — enough to override President Bush's coming veto. Nearly everyone in Congress got something.

The question amid this supposed change election is: Who is going to end this sort of thing?

Barack Obama talks about taking on the special interests. This farm bill would have been a perfect opportunity to do so. But Obama supported the bill, just as he supported the 2005 energy bill that was a Christmas tree for the oil and gas industries.

Obama's support may help him win Iowa, but it will lead to higher global food prices and more hunger in Africa. Moreover, it raises questions about how exactly he expects to bring about the change that he promises.

If elected, Obama's main opposition will not come from Republicans. It will come from Democratic leaders on Capitol Hill. Already, the Democratic machine is reborn. Lobbyists are now giving 60 percent of their dollars to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The pharmaceutical industry, the defense industry and the financial sector all give more money to Democrats than Republicans. If Obama is actually going to bring about change, he's going to have to ruffle these sorts of alliances. If he can't do it in an easy case like the farm bill, will he ever?

John McCain opposed the farm bill....

[anne]

[Spam test....]

[anne]

[Again, I am sorry but Mark Thoma seems to understand the problem I have been finding with Typepad. I think I am posting properly.]

[Eric Dewey, Portland OR]

Lafayette - agreed; elitism is not my intent.

Also agreed that J&J 6P do have the ability to exercise common sense - but that's a pretty normative term; do I get to define it, or do I have to care what people who like GWB say about it? (It might even be elitist to think that one has a lock on what it means...)

With regard to an unbiased media selection to choose from, I'm afraid that may be a bit idealistic. The marketplace of ideas is vast, but each player has their own axe to grind. Good journalism, like all forms of good writing, is rare, and cannot help but carry some element of the writer's opinion, if only in the choice of arguments to make.

What we do have, with satellite dishes and hi-speed Internet, is lots and lots of information to wade through. J&J 6P are likely finding it at least as hard as I am to separate the journalistic wheat from the chaff.

The question may be "When will J&J 6P begin looking for information from media sources outside the US?". In my discussions with my younger colleagues, I'm seeing that this trend has begun...

Anne, I do agree that Hillary has been poorly treated by the press. What astounds me is that someone as savvy as she is about how the media works would have made some of the choices she has in responding to that treatment. As the son of a 70's feminist (who was a classmate of Betty Friedan's), I would have loved to see her prevail in the nomination and take the White House, and fully expected she would do so.

But I have to say that I disagree with many of her choices about how to present herself - and we've had too much incompetence in the handling of Presidency's power of the bully pulpit in the last eight years for that not to matter a lot. In contrast, the way in which Obama has worked the media element has, I think, been taken by many as an indication of the character of the man. His initial speech in response to the Rev. Wright crap is for me an example of what a leader can, and should, do in response to spurious journalistic criticism.

[anne]

Eric Dewey:

"I do agree that Hillary has been poorly treated by the press. What astounds me is that someone as savvy as she is about how the media works would have made some of the choices she has in responding to that treatment."

Though I failed to understand for a while, there was never a choice for her; the choice was made by the press.

says...

No; the issue was never how Hillary Clinton presented herself. There was reason to have fought her over policy as Molly Ivins did, and I did, but all that time I realized that there were significant numbers of people who resented Clinton as a woman. I would be careful in criticism for just that reason.

The criticism of Clinton as a woman for years mildly surprised me because it came from people in positions where they should have been especially sensitive about such discrimination but just weren't. Also, I would have expected criticism from conservatives but what I became accustomed to was coming from supposed liberals. And, the discriminatory criticism was not on the war. All sorts of supposed liberals supported the war in and occupation of Iraq.

[anne]

Ivins and I fought Clinton on the war, but I was wildly against the war and have wanted us to leave Iraq every darned day since. Lots of prominent liberals however supported the war and excused the occupation continually. Heck, I am still waiting for an economist other than Mark Thoma to show the least sympathy for the work of Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes. All sorts of supposedly liberal bloggers were would-be warriors, which is why I ceased reading almost all blogs. I was actually shouted at by a lout, with students all about, while stretching on the stadium track because I simply refused to listen to loutish idiocy about why we needed to occupy Iraq.

The issue was not Iraq, save for a few, the issue was an unwillingness to tolerate a woman running for President.

[anne]

[Sorry, the computer refused to enter my name above. Good grief, between Typepad and my computer I am beset.]

[Eric Dewey, Portland OR]

To some extent, I agree - Obama has benefited too much from the crush the press had on him, and Hillary was not given much room to change her own image.

My problem is that, when she had the opportunity to do so, she didn't do it very well. I really think her advisers, particularly Mark Penn, were not the right people to craft her image. When the February switch to Maggie Williams happened, there was some improvement, but then they got stuck in a rut again.

I've felt for some time that one needs to look carefully at the people a candidate chooses to surround themselves with, since they will likely play a big role in the administration - and I really didn't feel as if Hillary's team was really helping her.

I do hope that, IF she doesn't get the nod this time, she will try again. It's weird how US history is littered with presidential candidates that should have made it on the first try, but didn't - and with those who didn't seem ready on the first try, but won anyway...

[anne]

That is an interesting summary, which makes sense. I gave little attention to the campaigns as such, mainly listening to the candidates. But, I have been critical of Samantha Power (over Iraq) and Austan Goolsby. I have never understood what Mark Penn represented other than being a poller.

[david]

Penn represents her strategy, and her likely governing style. Small favors, conciliation of conservatives, tough talk, neocon foreign policy, neolib economics. He's more worth paying attention to than her lip service to liberal policy objectives -- because there's a Clinton track record of tacking right.

[anne]

"Penn represents her strategy.... He's more worth paying attention to than her lip service to liberal policy objectives -- because there's a Clinton track record of tacking right."

Lie on, lie on, lie on, lie on, lie on.

[anne]

Remember, Hillary Clinton must be destroyed; so lie on, tacking right.

[Lafayette]

Serious muckraking

Econ: Does anyone reading these posts have any illusions about this subject.... ?

Probably not. It's about par for the course, so far.

It takes less than three months into presidential electioneering for candidates to get beyond pat platform policy, which they cooked up with their advisors and spin mechanics. Then the thrashing gets right down to character assassination -- at least in American politics in a way unseen or unheard of elsewhere in the world.

Winning is everything in a binary America. Either you win or you're a has been. No two ways about it.

So, the Dems are now all a tither about what to do with Hillary, so as to provide an "honourable exit" for milady. Time to heal the wounds and get on to the bigger effort of defeating McBush.

And, boy, we ain't seen nothin' yet when it comes to dirty politics. Hey, it's the presidency up for grabs! That's gonna take some Serious Muckraking.

PS: The "cheese eating surrender monkeys" broadcast Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 on French TV, again, last night. Boy, am I gonna break out the Champagne when, after next January, lead-head set's foot in some European country and gets a summons for Crimes Against Humanity. (Which is now an indictable offense in a few European countries).

They got Rumsfeld last time he was prancing about recently. That sumbitch was in Paris and not one TV station invited him for an interview. Even if the ghost of Attila the Hun showed up mysteriously on the Champs Elysees, they'd want to interview it. The Media Beast must be fed hourly.

Talk about toxic waste ... hell, the whole bunch of 'em are untouchables.

[Lafayette]

The rot

ED: When the February switch to Maggie Williams happened, there was some improvement, but then they got stuck in a rut again.

This happens when hubris sets into a candidacy. When Hillary started, many thought she deserved the nomination. That it was a shoe-in. This conventional wisdom is hard to disregard and it can rot a campaign.

Hillary set onto the campaign trail, perhaps, without any in-depth polling regarding here personality profile as regards Joe and Jane AverageAmerican.

That's important, especially if a candidate has spent too much time in the sepsis of DC politics. That town is unreal. In many ways it is worse than tinsel-town Hollywood. In the the latter, they realize that its all fiction.

It is therefore entirely credible, BO's dislike of the town and his willingness to "change things" there. But, aside from a major lobotomy, what can he do? Not much, I am sad to write.

The rot began to set in a long, long time ago -- when Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial-Complex (M-I-C). And we did not take note!

The M-I-C wasn't the first to set it hands upon Washington to employ power-politics to the ends of profit making. Finance learned the same bad habits in the Clinton Administration. And BigOil did exactly the same with lead-head's administration.

Aren't we finally sick of it? Apparently not. McBush will be more of the same, and the M-I-C will have a field day.

[Lafayette]

The rot (part 2)

These past eight years has seen an awesome conjuncture of circumstances:
1) Lead-head wins the presidency by a partisan Supreme Court vote and a minority of the popular vote.
2) 9/11 changes the dolt of a presidency into a National Emergency that scares the hell out of middle-class America.
3) The war costs middle-America dearly in the loss and maiming of young kids, but is immensely profitable to the Military-Industrial-Complex.
4) Bad fiscal management bleeds the Treasury dry, to the point where the dollar is severely depreciated. (Which helps exports, but undermines the world's belief in the dollar's sustainability in terms of intrinsic value.)
5) A wholly unconventional and immoral relationship between the families-in-power in Washington and Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) – by means of the Carlysle Corporation. Oil interests and country politics should never have mixed. Having prevented the father from finishing off Hussein, the Saudi Royal Family finally approved that lead-head son should do the job.
6) And the knife turned in the wound has been the excessive greed demonstrated by both commercial lending agents and Investment Bankers leading to the Toxic Waste. Which lead to Utter Disbelief as the world's Credit Mechanism ground to a halt.

That’s a lot for just one presidency. Especially one led by such ingrained ineptness and cronyism.

Still, the old adage applies. A democratic people generally have the Congress and Administration that they voted into office. Through political naiveness we willed the ineptness we got. So, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." (Pogo by Walt Kelly)

[Lafayette]

Just do it

anne: That Clinton has come to so far with such support is all the more impressive, but that the discriminatory treatment of Clinton is overlooked is astonishing and chastening.

Many think that Hillary would make the better candidate. I do as well.

But, that "many" is apparently not sufficient. I am not worried about her loss ... she and Bill have many skeletons in their closet. (Not as many as lead-head, but political morality is relative.) I suspect they went one step too far.

Still, it would be a great waste of talent should Hillary be simply told to return to the Senate and "be a good girl". That talent should be put to use somewhere and not necessarily as VP -- which is just a PotUS-in-waiting.

I'd give her a Cabinet Level position by melding both Education and Health, creating a super-Department, with a sizeable budget to make both "universal" for all Americans. Meaning FREE Education and FREE Health Care. Then task her to "just do it".

Too much to ask for? America needs, rather, another aircraft carrier? Another Naval Fleet? How about a war with Iran? Think of the cost-savings with all the personnel and equipment already in place!

C'mon, let's get serious. Is that possible of America? I ask.

[BJ Feng]

Go back and look at what was said in past Presidential contests, Jefferson vs. Madison for example. Or Jackson's run. What's done today is very mild by comparison. Thanks to the ease,speed, and quantity of information available, lies and deceit are less likely than ever to pass for truth. However it is perfectly valid to bring up a candidate's negatives. Of course this will infuriate the candidate's supporters, especially if its the mass media. How dare Hillary attack the "Redeemer" Barack Obama? Fortunately, Americans have so many outlets for information that they can easily figure out for themselves what is important, what is factual, and what is a lie or untruth.

It seems Reich wants a campaign where neither side (ok, really the right) is allowed to question the policies, judgment, and character of the other candidate. That will never happen. Because no one is perfect, there are bound to be negatives in character. And because not everyone is fiscally conservative, there are bound to be questionable policy proposals. By the way, in today's world, swiftboating works only if its a devastating truth that is revealed. The way Kerry's brothers-in-arms dared him to counter their detailed accounts, and Kerry's awkward silence was indeed devastating. But bring up forged documents to question Bush's service record and the plot fails. Bush was not swiftboated because the allegations were untrue. Reich clearly does not understand the term.

[BJ Feng]

Excuse the missing (')s, my keyboard needs to be cleaned.

[anne]

"Excuse the missing (')s, my keyboard needs to be cleaned."

Air only, I learned to my regret.

[Fear and Loathing in Chicago]

Does anyone else worry about Obama's meteoric rise to the top of the Presidential pile occurring in conjunction with the meteoric rise in commodity prices, the majority of which are traded through the CBOT, which happens to be one of the largest (if not the largest) trader in futures and derivative contracts?

Maybe I’ve got my tin-foil hat on… but it bothers me, as does Obama’s seemingly endless ability to raise “small individual” donations at the rate of over $1 million per day. How carefully are these “individual” donations audited?

I don’t trust Chicago money counting, I don’t trust Chicago politics, and I don’t trust Chicago politicians.

And anyone who thinks Clinton would have veered to the right is crazy. Obama is the conservative candidate this primary season.

[Lafayette]

F&L: Maybe I’ve got my tin-foil hat on…

Maybe you do. You are obviously to young to remember the same doubts cynically directed at a certain JFK. How could the US EVER tolerate a Catholic as PotUS since he was surely answerable to the Pope?

America got beyond that sort of nonsense. (Sort of.) Which is ALWAYS the challenge .... the race for the presidency attracts more wannabes than believable candidates. Thankfully, the primaries separate the wheat from the chaff.

Chicago politics since before Daly were bad. And, with this present presidency, we've been wandering 8 years in the desert. Our political class stinks to high heaven in many places -- not all, just many.

Will BO be worse than a Daly or a Lead-head? Somehow I doubt it. Either that, or he's a genuine fake.

Besides, don't you think your doubt is a bit late in the process? It's time to heal not divide the Dems.

[Fear and Loathing in Chicago says...]

I am too young to remember JFK, but the history I've read doesn't make him out to be too great of a President. He managed to avoid disaster in Cuba, but did get us stuck in Vietnam. He certainly doesn’t seem to have bucked the big-money interest that Eisenhower warned us about.

I guess it just comes down to me not trusting Obama yet. Something doesn't seem right. His rise was too fast, his money comes too easy. All he ever seems to say is “we’re gonna bring real change to Washington”. Just what is “real” about his change versus anyone else’s?

Obviously I preferred Clinton.

So you think there is nothing to his Chicago connection and big commodity money?

I’ll go buff up my tin-foil hat now... and hope he inspires me come November.

[BJ Feng]

"All he ever seems to say is “we’re gonna bring real change to Washington”. Just what is “real” about his change versus anyone else’s?"

Barack is the ultimate salesman. Take the massive farm bill which he supports. The farm bill would lock in today's high prices as a floor for farmers, placing the government at risk for huge payouts if commodity prices were ever to drop. Income limits are set at a ridiculously high $1.5 million, as if someone making $1.5 million needs a government subsidy. Yet Obama supports the bill, of course. Not too much mention of this in the main stream media, we mustn't divide the nation and point out his policies.

By the way, McCain is on record as against the farm bill. That takes real courage as enough Congressmen are scared to the point where they are willing to override a veto. Who is really the candidate willing to fight against the powerful special interests? The farm lobby, which is very broad, is so powerful that all attempts to end the porkfest have ended in, not only failure, but increases to the subsidies instead.

Obama talks a good game, but for some reason, the special interests aren't fainting during his speeches like regular citizens are. Maybe his magic doesn't work on them. All they do is stick their hand out--and Obama reaches into your pockets...

[Lafayette]

F&L: So you think there is nothing to his Chicago connection and big commodity money?

In terms of relevance, not any more than the BigMoney that is bound to come rolling McBush's way.

If you are looking for a Mother Teresa as PotUS, I'm afraid you are living in the wrong country.

Wanna be PotUS one day? Find the right "friends".