BUTTRESSING BOEHLERT! When Eric Boehlert quotes us, we listen. And then, we add a key point: // link // print // previous // next //
THURSDAY, MAY 8, 2008
ONE MORE DAY OF DELAY: Yes, we will return to our narrative about the flag-burning bill and amendment; we think it provides a wonderful look at the shape of our recent mainstream discourse. However, someone sent us a piece of data which we havent been able to verify yet. It sharpens the story, and we dont want to proceed without it.
We hope to do Part 3 tomorrow. No, this story isnt importantunless you want to understand the way the group formerly known as the mainstream press corps shapes the publics story-lines and bungles the publics affairs.
THE COMMISSAR SPEAKS: Race has played a fascinating, sometimes unfortunate role in the current Democratic campaign. This morning, the commissar helps us know how we may discuss this subject. As is often the case with such leaders, the commissar doesnt quite tell us who or what he is talking about. Typically, commissars dont like to limit the reach of their helpful pronouncements:
Does anyone have any idea who or what the commissar means? To which conversations he refers? We would guess that he may be referring to the recent conversation between Paul Begala and Donna Brazile. If so, then its presumably Begala who has carried the little disguised assumption that African-American votes are somehow second-rate. We dont think theres any getting around thatif thats who the commissar meant.
Of course, we dont know if thats who he means. Wisely, he has chosen not to tell us which conversations have broken the rules.
Of course, commissarsof various kindsare pretty much constantly with us. Once, they took the form of the classic pot-bellied southern sheriff, saying We know what to do with your kind around heah. They took the form of the wire-rimmed friend of Mao, helping us think through our re-educations. (The Beatles discussed this variant.) This new commissar seems to understand the rules: He would only reduce the scope of his power if he specified who he was talking about. When he keeps it vague, were all put on notice! Please check with me for permission before you try to talk about race.
(And with my Paypal participants.)
Who is the commissar talking about? People! He talks about you.
NO ONE DID IT BETTER: Please get permission before you speak! No one expressed the notion better than commissar-friendly journo John Judis, in the wake of Bill Clintons Jesse Jackson reference. For us, this is one of the silliestand most instructivesound-bites of this whole campaign:
See? It would have been fine if Judis group had said it. When Bill Clinton said it, not so much!
(Shorter Judis: People like me are allowed to discuss this. Were sorry, but other people are not. If they do, well mind-read their calibrations. Its sad, but its really their fault.)
Of course, Judis high-minded ship of ghouls also mind-read Sergio Bendixen. You see, Bendixen did a very bad thinghe answered a question from Ryan Lizzaand the ghouls could discern his calibrations too, just as theyd done with Bill Clinton! He was sending a dog-whistle, they all somehow knew. Later, many members of their own tribe made the same point Bendixen had made. That was quite different, of course.
For us, our education on race in the Dem campaign was driven by this January 16 Tapped post. Barack Obama was a fog of a man, Richard Cohen had said in the Post. We thought Cohens claim was weakno surprise there. But to learn what Cohen clearly had meant, go aheadjust read that remarkable post. When youre done, steel your couragesift through the comments too. Some of the comments struck us as sharp. Some of them seemed quite amazing. (Playing the commissar, we wont say which of the comments are which.)
Certainty is one of this groups strongest assets! This morning, the commissar doesnt think theres any getting around the presence of that disguised assumption. Back then, a writer could tell what Cohen had clearly meant.
Theres nothing wrong with these discussions, the commissar says. But you might want to check with him first.
MATH IS HARD: For the record, we agree with the thrust of Harold Meyersons column; in fact, weve agreed with his point for a long time. Barring a complete disaster for Obama, we dont see how Clinton could get the nomination. Weve thought that for quite a long while. (Although we began to wonder a tad in the past few weeks.)
That said, we had to chuckle at Meyersons use of those data. Yesterday, we saw the New York Times draw some shaky conclusions from deeply underwhelming numbers. (The Times-Picayune was much more careful.) But honest to God: On the meta level, you just have to shake your head when you see people reason like this:
Well root for Obama every step of the way. But really, that strikes us as daft.
First of all, Meyerson is using exit poll dataand exit poll data are inexact. Did Obama really win 40 percent of the white vote in Indiana and 37 percent in Pennsylvania? Those numbers are approximations. Yes, theyre the best data we have. But data like these arent written in stoneand the changes in vote count which Meyerson cites are really quite small to begin with. Did Obama do better among white voters? Theres no reason why he had to. But it isnt real clear that he did.
Meanwhile, note a second point: Meyerson is aware that all groups of white voters arent equal. In particular, the white voter population in one of these states may differ from that in anotherby education level, for example. Absent a very careful analysis, you may be comparing apples to kumquats when you compare these different groups. This is especially striking when you try to draw favored conclusions from very small changes in data.
Did Obama do better among white voters? We dont know, and we dont think it matters. Our point is a bit more simple: As always, its striking to see people reason this way at the top of our national discourse. Of course, on the very same op-ed page, George Will is still thundering, loud and proud, that Clinton told a big fat lie about the Cubs and the Yankees. It has been clear forever that this just aint true. But so what? Incredibly, this is the way our nation argues at the top of our discourse. And yesnine years after this BS began, the Yankees are right in Wills headline.
(On the same page, Dean Broder is outraged that Clinton drank beerand it seems that the Dean didnt catch Obama. This is the top of our discourse.)
Final point: We assume that Meyerson got permission for this discussion about racial voting. Since Meyerson is reaching a preferred conclusion, we assume the commissar wont discern disguised assumptions. Not even creeping in the shadows, where commissars do love to work.
BUTTRESSING BOEHLERT: We knowyoure not supposed to quote someone whos quoting you. But we think its worth adding one point to what Eric Boehlert says in his current post over at Media Matters. Boehlert discusses NBCs refusal to let Arianna go on the air with her current booka book which criticizes NBC News. What Boehlert says about this is primaland wed like to add one point:
Trust me, they dont, Boehlert says. (Mainstream liberal columnists and pundits almost never tell you the truth about the media.) And then, a crucial companion point: Conservative pundits never would have stood by silently if their nominee were torn apart by the media.
Thats a guessbut we think Boehlerts almost surely right. Which raises a question: Why would conservative pundits have screamed if their candidate had been getting savaged? Our guess: Because conservative pundits can make a good living within the realm of the conservative press corps! They get hired, for good pay, by conservative entities. And they get paid to voice conservative views within the mainstream press.
Conservative voices can earn a living within the conservative press corps. But liberal voices earn their Jaguars within the mainstream press. Thus, liberals defer to the mainstream pressand conservatives are much more free to attack it. Over the past sixteen years, this has drastically tipped the scales against progressive and Dem Party interests.
Based on those assumptions, heres the basic shape of your ongoing discourse:
Over the course of the past sixteen years, the mainstream press corps has increasingly become more Republican, more conservative, more wealthy, more corporate. On the presidential level, they have made secular saints out of several Republicansand they have savaged Big Dems. How much of that reflects a structural change? How much of that has simply reflected a personal, crackpot war against Clinton/Gore? Well get a chance to ponder that question if Obama gets to the White House. But as these processes have played out, your liberal leaders have relentlessly kept their traps shut. The U. S. Army is in Iraq today because they deferred to the mainstream consensusin 1999. When Ceci Connolly and the Post were blatantly savaging Gore.
Did young liberal superstars keep their traps shut, hoping for mainstream wealth and glory? We dont have the slightest idea. By the way: Did you hear that progressive feminist Rachel Maddow thinks Chris Matthews is just super-brilliant?