IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT! We seem to be mired in a culture of greed. But is there anything wrong with it? // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 22, 2011
Our second non-annual fund-raising drive continues: Below, our second non-annual fund-raising drive continues apace, with appropriate insults dished all around. We hope youll consider using PayPal or what the heck writing a check. To do so, just click here.
Why we continue to type (knowledge is consensual): A familiar old political card was played on Mondays OReilly Factor.
CBS News has just hired Norah ODonnell to serve as its White House correspondent. In response to this underwhelming news, Mr. O and his guest, Brit Hume, played the most reliable card in the entire deck. Obviously, Hume declared, the mainstream press corps will favor the Democratic candidate:
Twelve years after the war against Gore, it remains the safest card in the deck. Obviously, Obama will get friendlier treatment than the GOP nominee, Hume declared. That's been true for a long time.
Obama may get friendlier treatment next year, though such things are usually hard to measure. But its amazing that this card remains so useful twelve years after the trashing of Gore. This remains a highly reliable card due to the consensual silence of the career liberal leaders who have agreed that they mustnt discuss the journalistic history of the Clinton-Gore years, including the press corps astonishing treatment of Candidate Gore.
These children have betrayed your interestsand theyll continue to do so. (Its not that they dont know the truth. They do know, as well show you tomorrow.) Here at THE HOWLER, we discussed the war against Gore in real timeand over at our companion site, were recording the full history of that remarkable two-year episode. We strongly recommend the newly-completed chapter 5 of our on-line book, How He Got There. This is a long but brisk account of the press corps reaction to the news that Naomi Wolf was advising Candidate Gore. (To read chapter 5, just click here.)
For an excerpt from that astonishing chapter, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/17/11. But we strongly recommend that you complete a long hard slog through the whole gruesome chapter. People are dead all over the world because of the conduct described in that chapter. And the kids have agreed to keep still.
We knowwe liberals love our tribal leaders! We like to pretend that theyre on our side, that were part of a wonderfully pure moral team. But why are Mr. O and Brit still able to play that card with such fervor? Due to the continuing silence of the career liberal world! That said, we hope youll consider contributing to this site to help us document the history of that remarkable campaign for the White House. Someday, the liberal world may not lie in the hands of todays career players. How He Got There will give those future citizens one key to the shape of their world.
Knowledge is consensual! You cant force people to acknowledge or discuss even the most obvious truths; your liberal leaders will never tell the truth about this recent history. Nor will they discuss the history contained in the Lyons and Lyons/Conason booksbooks which record the journalistic history of the earlier Clinton years. Such leaders! As they maintain their silence, they keep themselves viable within the system. Mr. O is thereby empowered to keep playing that famous old card.
Truly, the use of that card never ends! Heres Mr. O a bit later on Monday, speaking with Bernie Goldberg about ODonnells hiring. Eventually, Bernie made a flamboyant statement. Can you spot the high irony here?
Is Norah ODonnell way far to the left? To judge from her work, not that muchalthough she has indeed played a few silly games as she got herself in line with MSNBCs pseudo-liberal templates. But did you note the irony here? According to Bernie, no network would hire a person this far to the right to serve as its chief White House correspondent. In fact, one major network already did: ABC News, when it hired Brit Hume back in the 1980s!
The press corps always favors the Democrat! Its amazing to see that this card still plays twelve years after the war against Gore. (Lets not even talk about Candidate Kerry.) Your career liberal leaders, through their rapt silence, have kept this potent point alive.
Over at our companion site, were recording the actual history. We hope youll consider a contribution to this ongoing project. In chapter 6, the die will be cast. Looking ahead to a more truthful day, the full story should be recorded.
PART 2IS THERE ANYTHING WRONG WITH IT (permalink): By now, its a fairly well-known fact. Over the past forty years, inequality of income has soared in the United States.
On the front page of Sundays Washington Post, Peter Whoriskey examined various aspects of this dramatic societal change. At one point, he offered a rather striking fact:
Not that theres anything wrong with it! According to that so-called Gini coefficient, the U.S. now ranks behind Cameroon and the Ivory Coast! And no, we arent talking World Cup soccer!
From 1975 to 2008, the top 0.1 percent of American earners quadrupled their share of the nations income. In his detailed, instructive piece, Whoriskey examines the possible reasons for that change in our national culture. According to Whoriskey, research has established that the bulk of folk in that top one-tenth of one percent are corporate executives or financial managers. In the case of those corporate execs, their compensation has massively risen even as compensation for their companies workers has stagnated or even slipped.
What explains this change in our national culture? At one point, Whoriskey hits upon an unflattering term as some analysts explain this cultural change. Uh-oh! Could this change in income distribution reflect a triumph of greed? In this passage, Whoriskey introduces that impolite term into his discussion:
Executive pay remained flat in the 1950s and 1960s, even as firms were growing. Whoriskey offers anecdotal evidence about the reasons for the more modest pay structure of this long-gone era. In this passage, he quote a high-flying CEO of that earlier eraand he cites Kenneth Douglas, CEO of the little-known Dean Foods (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 6/21/11):
This is anecdotal evidence, but it suggests that a different culture may have obtained in American firms surrounding issues of pay at this time. In the following passage, Whoriskey uses that unpleasant term once again, suggesting that were now dealing with a changed culturewith a new culture of greed:
Are we closing in on Uganda because of a culture of greed?
Most liberals will disapprove of this rise in income inequality. Liberals and progressives will be inclined to see this growing inequality as a major political problema problem which should be addressed by political action. But how will voters respond to these issues? More specifically, what is the politics of this new culture of greed?
Gordon Gekko got a rise from the crowd when he announced that greed was good. Greed sounds like a very bad thing. That was the point of his statement.
But as a simple political matter, is there anything wrong with this greed? How do these issues of compensation play within our American politics? Beyond that, how do these basic issues play within the American press?
Are voters disturbed by a culture of greed? In our view, you can feel fairly sure that your journalists arent.
Tomorrow: Will voters listen? What will they hear?
Friday: Greed and the press