Let's talk for a minute about the motives of the news commentators who are leading the barrage against Palin. I haven't watched TV news for a while, but I flipped on CNN on Friday morning when the commentators were waiting for Palin and McCain to appear. Every time they said something positive about Palin, they countered it by saying, "But the Democrats will be sure to point out that [insert any number of the attacks that have risen against her]." At first, I thought this was just their attempt at being balanced and presenting both arguments.
Then one of the junior commentators said—in what I can't imagine was anything other than a revealing slip—"I have people from the Democratic campaign lighting up my blackberry with emails saying, 'Ask this! Ask this!'"
I know that campaigns try to play the media any way they can, but this is an alarming new byproduct of improved mobile technology. Reporters now have real-time scripts written for them by the campaign—right on their blackberrys! So let's not have any illusions. It's not "GOP spin" vs. "fair-and-balanced media" in this fight. Far from it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Ha, wow that is pretty crazy. I don't think it is ever fair-and-balanced media. It seems political "reporting" is simply a game of competing spin. Objectivity in journalism used to be simply reporting the facts. Now it seems that you have to report each side's spin. As you point out, thogh, the Democrats seem to be defining Palin right now, thus winning the spin war.
Look at the big picture too, the entire race for presidency. Do you see voting as your democratic duty to put the best qualified candidate into office, or do you see it as a larger puppeteer organization merely holding a public opinion poll? Either way, the people set to profit off government will profit, GOP or Dems alike.
I don't know Ruxton, I don't buy into the idea that it makes no difference whether a democrat or republican wins.
Agreed, the rich and powerful will do well no matter who is elected. I am not so naive as to think somehow all income inequality will disappear under an Obama administration. Nor do I think that the lobbyists/corporations/military-industrial complex won't still have enormous influence.
The thing to remember is that for people like you and I, small policy differences can have a huge impact on our lives.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
This article I found recently reinforces something that I think a lot of us have known: the economy as a whole, and especially for the middle-class, has done better under democratic administrations then republican administrations.
Some quotes:
"Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats."
"The table also shows that families at the 95th percentile fared almost as well under Republican presidents as under Democrats (1.90 percent growth per year, versus 2.12 percent), giving them little stake, economically, in election outcomes. But the stakes were enormous for the less well-to-do. Families at the 20th percentile fared much worse under Republicans than under Democrats (0.43 percent versus 2.64 percent). Eight years of growth at an annual rate of 0.43 percent increases a family’s income by just 3.5 percent, while eight years of growth at 2.64 percent raises it by 23.2 percent."
I covered some of this material in my previous post about Obama's "bittergate" scandal. Almost 30 years of essentially Reagan-esque economics has taken its toll on the middle-class. Another four to eight might just break them.
Thanks for that article Chris. First of all, it only emphasizes my first point—no guessing is needed to figure out which candidate the reporter, Alan Blinder is supporting.
But I'm more than a little skeptical about his statistics. The author uses a classic statistical argument. He throws them out in a way that makes you feel that you can't POSSIBLY argue with it or see it any other way. Statistics are FACT, don't you know. You can't disagree with that, can you?
What he hopes that his readers forget is that he didn't define his terms. When does the economy transition from being "under a Republican president" to under a Democratic one? Surely he doesn't believe that the economy's momentum automatically turns on a dime once inauguration day rolls around. Does the economy switch party affiliation a month into the new administration? A year? Two years? The beginning of a second term? What about long term economic programs created by one administration that have effects far into the next's tenure? How did the statistical study deal with these questions?
Democratic presidents may benefit or suffer from Republican policies, and vice versa. The data is perhaps not so simple as Blinder's statistical blinders would have his readers believe.
Maybe this is all more clearly defined in the book he refers to, but far more people will read his article than that book, and the damage is done. Blinder's negligence is what irks me in this case, and that his conclusion far outstrips the data.
Good point, Mark, and one that occurred to me when I read the article as well. As you point out, the conclusion that may be drawn is that in fact the opposite is true: the good economy under Clinton was a result of Reagan/Bush policies finally reaching the entire economy, etc. Correlation is not causation. Also possible is that the president in power may have little to do with the economy at the time, or at least less control over it then outside geopolitical/global economic factors.
Some weight could be given to the fact that rather than a term to term switch between parties, we have streaks of republicans and streaks of democrats. George W. Bush has had two terms, Clinton two terms, Reagan/Bush three terms, Nixon/Ford, Kennedy/Johnson, etc. (Carter obviously breaks the mold).
Then again, maybe he has accounted for this and any other criticisms we might bring, and still comes up with the conclusions that he does. As you point out, we would have to read the book to be sure. However, I'm not going to assume that he got it wrong just because the problem is complex or that the article is vague.
Perhaps you and I should order the book and post a review?
Chris—all good points. But I don't think reading Bartels's book would necessarily give any more credibility to Blinder's argument. He's not giving a summary of Bartels's argument, just citing it to bolster his own ideas. This is an excerpt from the article:
"Data for the whole period from 1948 to 2007, during which Republicans occupied the White House for 34 years and Democrats for 26, show average annual growth of real gross national product of 1.64 percent per capita under Republican presidents versus 2.78 percent under Democrats.
"That 1.14-point difference, if maintained for eight years, would yield 9.33 percent more income per person, which is a lot more than almost anyone can expect from a tax cut."
His argument is based on doing the simple math (8 x 1.14). The simple math is based on simplifying the statistics (8 yr. term = 8 yrs. of Dem./Rep. economics). This faulty reasoning is what I am taking issue with. I'm sure Bartels's methodology was rigorous—it's Blinder's poaching of that that has me furrowing my brows.
As for your suggestion of reading and reviewing the book, I would love to. I read some of the excerpts provided on google books. But I fear that's all I'll have time to do for now. Too many other books stacked on my desk waiting to be read!
Mark,
Good point, I misunderstood your comment. Yes, Blinder's argument about growth that you cited is a pile of horseshit. It is like saying that the an Olympic running record went from 6 minutes to 5 minutes over 20 years, so in 60 more years humans will be running that distance in 2 minutes. Completely ignores reality.
To be clear, I am intrigued by Bartels's work and the statistics that Blinder cited from his book which seem concrete. I am equally skeptical about Blinder's (what an apt name) conclusions. In other words, we agree.
Hi Chris, thanks for the good comment conversation. I hope it doesn't seem like I'm attacking you, which is not my intention. Apparently the media is a touchy issue for me right now. It got me a bit fired up!
You are right in saying that we agree. Looking into Bartels's work could be very beneficial.
Post a Comment