TW: This news story is a couple of weeks old but the point remains. We have made these points frequently, we all to a certain extent are bouncing around our own echo chambers to the point significant news events can pass almost unnoticed within a particular chamber. Part of the reason the echo chambers become so distant is the political implication of nearly any news.
Successes be they economic, military or even fighting terrorists help the incumbent and vice versa. It is no wonder adherents of either side can become increasingly stratified to the point where compromise becomes nearly impossible.
That said it is the obligation of all to burn through the partisan noise. Merely assuming both sides are equivalently biased, ignorant or ill-informed is laziness and leads to the most ignorant, biased and poorly informed gaining disproportionate political power.
From Economist:
"OFTEN when news breaks, I look around a few blogs I know well to take the temperature of how it's playing. The National Review has long been my temperature gauge for mainstream conservativism—it's about as orthodox as Republican outlets get. The writers at the Corner blog seem to get up early: there are already 16 posts up today. As of this typing (10:02 am), there is a post laughing at the Obama administration's efforts to "ban" the phrase "war on terrorism" (of course nothing is being banned: the administration has just decided, sensibly, to stop using the phrase.)...
Curiously unmentioned on the blog is that the CIA has killed the leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The actual war on terrorism (if you must) is, apparently, of no interest to modern conservatives. Playing lame word-games to show that the administration is not serious about terror is more important than noting, in any form whatsoever, the killing of the man believed to be behind Benazir Bhutto's assassination and countless terror attacks. It's the biggest one-man death since Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed. And at National Review, crickets, tumbleweed and, for Pete's sake, two posts already today on Trotsky.
Maybe that is indicative. During the struggle against communism, William F. Buckley's magazine cared deeply about the outcome. It was a necessary publication in a scary world...
Update: The story was posted to the Corner, without comment, at 11:11, the 24th post of the day.
Update II: One commenter says that killing one leader of the bad guys is not significant. This is partly true, partly not. New leaders step forth, but they are inexperienced, and less trusted by the rank-and-file. Anyway, the point here is about American partisanship. How significant did the Corner find Zarqawi's death? 45 posts that day. Admittedly, Zarqawi was far more famous than Mehsud. 45 times as famous or important? Was Zarqawi killed 45 times deader?
That said, I've looked around more blogs and found far less commentary than I'd have expected. The Daily Kos homepage also features nothing about this killing. (At least they're consistent; they pooh-poohed the killing of Zarqawi. For what it's worth, The Economist thought that deserved a cover, though it happened on a Thursday, the day we go to press.) So let me update my rant: Americans are so uninterested in foreign policy that the left cannot shunt healthcare aside for one moment to talk about this, and the right only cares if it's good for Republicans. Sigh."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/08/nothing_to_say_and_so_many_wor.cfm
13 comments:
Hmm.
I wonder what search function this blogger used to study the record at National Review Online.
I just did my own search. 45 posts on that very day about Z's death? Nope. Not there.
Several posts about Z that week? Yes. But in what context? This guy makes his point only if the references to Z are a sort of "Ooh Rah!" sense--something along the lines of "This is as victory for the US and we'll mention it often because it makes a Republican President look better." (Which is at least partly your point in your second paragraph.)
But as I read those posts, I don't find this context. Instead, Z is mentioned often because
a) there was a questions as to whether he was actually killed, several posts pipe on that unfolding story;
and
b) there was an intense national debate at the time--maybe you recall it?--about Iraq policy and Z was a key figure in identifying Al Queda's thinking, so Z's letters and statement were referenced, many time as proof-texts for what US policy should be--you might disagree with their arguments about all this, but my point is to identify WHY Z was mentioned so often.
Did the Econ. blogger bother to read any of these?
Now, let's consider the lack of mention of Mehsud. This blogger takes them to task for posting the report at 11:11. So late in the day! (Is this guy kidding?)
Why not comment on Mehsud as often as they did on Z? Hmm. Well. There seems to be a very different debate going on nationally that might be distracting them. Our president is busy with a domestic agenda. These NRO commentators are engaging in that debate mostly.
From this, the Econ. blogger concludes that they don't want to celebrate the victory because it would make Obama look good?
That argument doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. It was the CIA that killed the guy, a CIA that Obama hasn't really changed since taking office. The opportunity here was for the NRO folks to pound away with, "See what an effective CIA policy the previous admin. had going?"
Obviously, NRO is biased. But I'd argue that they are biased in the same healthy way, say, The New Republic is. That is, they don't claim to be MSM. They claim to be conservatives (with a pocket of libertarians hanging around) and they work for conservativism.
I don't take either one of these journals to be "partisan noise." It's only "noise" if they have a knee-jerk response to all things: If, for NRO, Republican = Good and Democrat = Bad.
In fact, as I read it, there is plenty of criticism for Republicans where it's deserved (and they found Bush to be very deserving); and they even pay Obama his due when they think it's coming. (This isn't often, but then again, there's not much about Obama's work that recommends itself to conservativism.)
"Partisan noise," I think, is what comes from Rush, for instance.
And it's a mistake to conflate the Rushes with the NR's.
Here's my question for Mr. White: Do you read NRO for yourself, or do you read it through the filter of the writers you like who quote The Corner and other places on NRO?
It's an honest question. My money is on the latter because some of your prior comments about NRO suggest you aren't aware of many of the positions of many of their writers.
One small example: In an editorial last week, they took Palin to task for her "death panel" rhetoric. Right now, a Krauthemar (sp) piece is prominently posted in which he asks Palin to *leave the room!*
And yet you bemoaned the "fact" that Republicans in high places were not speaking up to shut her down.
Your Econ. blogger here, though, describes NRO as "about as orthodox as Republican outlets get."
Which is it?
And a BIG part of what I enjoy about The Corner is that it's not all politics all the time. Lots of intelligent discussion of pop culture, and lots of terrific writing applied to fun topics.
You're going to like this one:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDAxZjU0YmU2N2VkNWUwODIxZWRmNzdhZGYzNGNiNmE=
Mehsud's death was (and still is to a certain degree) debated but that first morning that was not the focus. His death was announced, it was generally accepted, then the debate started later. And hours are a long time in blogger time. I would bet NRO read the Economist post within minutes of it publishing as well.
I disagree that the Economist point only works in the context of "cheering", NRO at least covered Zaraqawi. To quote
Economist
"Zarqawi was far more famous than Mehsud. 45 times as famous or important? Was Zarqawi killed 45 times deader?"
Many events now take place in a vacuum. There are political realities at work which work both ways. The Dems swept the 2006 elections PARTLY because of Iraq, the worse Iraq got that year the better for the Dems. As I have said that on the blog previously. The worse the economy gets over the next year, the better the Republicans will do in 2010. Such is life. The bigger point, also mentioned previously on blog, is that as partisan media becomes more and more prominent and disaggregates MSM at least partially, the debate becomes even more skewed as bias plays into not only how events are covered but which events.
NRO is too busy to notice Mehsud, you say, because Obama is focused on domestic policy? But I thought terrorists were an existential threat to America? Hence worthy of much coverage regardless of Obama.
Progressives would not claim New Republic as their own btw, The Nation might be a more apt comp.
I do not read too much NRO or Nation (or New Republic for that matter). NRO definitely has many voices, I do peruse the Corner on occasion and I would say most of them are dastardly. The Corner is a primary purveyor of "partisan noise".
My post from the other day about Michelle Obama came from the Corner. I could post about Corner quotes every day but I choose not to do so.
Krauthammer does not like Palin, he was slightly late to that stance. In a recent piece, I think the same piece where he dissed Palin, he addresses end of life discussions:
"So why get Medicare to pay the doctor to do the counseling? Because we know that if this white-coated authority whose chosen vocation is curing and healing is the one opening your mind to hospice and palliative care, we've nudged you ever so slightly toward letting go.
It's not an outrage. It's surely not a death panel. But it is subtle pressure applied by society through your doctor. And when you include it in a health-care reform whose major objective is to bend the cost curve downward, you have to be a fool or a knave to deny that it's intended to gently point the patient in a certain direction, toward the corner of the sickroom where stands a ghostly figure, scythe in hand, offering release."
Kevin Drum at Mother Jones commenting on Kraut:
"Krauthammer is part of the swelling "Yes, but" crowd, and for my money these guys are infinitely worse than the flat-out nutters themselves...Sober. Serious. Looking at all sides of the issue. Stroking their chins. Coming to conclusions. And what are those conclusions? Well, golly, the nutters might be nuts, but they have a point!"
NRO is orthodox Republican and a partisan noise factory.
Just because one person dissed Palin, one time (or more), does not excuse the Corner.
ps
As for the post count, I trust the Economist and will give him the benefit of the doubt that he/she knew what they were doing.
If NR is "partisan noise," can you recommend a different hub of the conservative conversation that is not?
That is, does conservative = partisan (and likewise, progressive = partisan)?
I mean this to be a real question as I'm trying to understand your understanding of the term "partisan."
And, for that matter, please define "noise" vs. "intelligent and valuable discussion" (or whatever you would take the opposite of "noise" to be).
PS: Did you read the link I posted? I'm telling you, as a fan-enough of baseball, you're going to like it.
PPS: re your "trust" of the Economist. What can I say? His claim of 45 posts on the day of Z's death is easy to verify or disconfirm. I did my own search and didn't find the evidence he is citing.
I lump the Corner at NRO/Limbaugh/Hannity/Most of Fox/Olbermann/Maddow/Drudge/Daily Kos/Steve Benen at Washington Monthly/Glenn Beck into the bucket of highly partisan, meaning they make little effort provide legitimate counterfactual evidence. They spend most of their time trolling for bad stories about other side or good stuff about theirs.
You do not see me with much Olbermann/Maddow/Benen/Kos stuff on our site. Although I would obviously sympathcize more with their stuff than their opponents.
The Limbaughs and many at the Corner peddle political porn- it titillates but rarely
educates.
Folks have to judge for themselves regarding the merits of particular sites and purveyors.
Two conservative sites that play a calmer role are:
http://www.newmajority.com/
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/
Politico.com is not conservative but makes an explicit effort to appeal to both sides
Folks can point to shrill, strident rhetoric from the left but I reject the equivalency argument.
Markos Moulitkos (sp.) of Daily Kos, Olbermann, Benen et al. do not and have not held positions of power within the Dems anywhere akin to their right wing counter-parts (i.e. the Limbaugh keynote in front of the Republicans post election last winter).
Top Republican politicians march to Fox like sheep, they do not do so for Maddow, Olbermann.
Folks like to equate far left conspiracies about 9/11 and Bush to the birther/Hitler talk now. But the Bush conspiracy stuff bounced around the far left echo chamber. I could have walked to Union Square in NYC and seen that stuff but not watched MSM playing it up unlike the Fox and the birthers.
Is there bi-partisan "noise"? Yes, but I believe it is louder on the right because the noisemakers on the right retain far more power within the Republican Party relatively speaking.
ps I did look up the post on baseball.
"I lump (insert list) into the bucket of highly partisan, meaning they make little effort provide legitimate counterfactual evidence. They spend most of their time trolling for bad stories about other side or good stuff about theirs."
A helpful definition. I don't agree that this characterizes NRO, and I'm just so puzzled that you think it does. There is some of this in The Corner and their other running blogs, but the majority of the content, I find, is well-reasoned arugmentation, which, of course, requires a representation of the other guy's case.
But, as you say, "Folks have to judge for themselves regarding the merits of particular sites and purveyors."
We don't have television, so my only exposure to FOXnews and Rush, beyond little anecdotes that make their way online, happens in the one week per year that we visit my in-laws. And it's easy to agree that it's all a lot of noise, both politically and physically.
But now and then, Rush writes into NRO, or gets quoted there, and it's with a valid point. "Valid" as in "logically sound."
To disregard a valid point simply because it comes from a loud-mouth is the very definition of an ad hominem fallacy.
Which brings me to the Drum quote: "Krauthammer is part of the swelling "Yes, but" crowd, and for my money these guys are infinitely worse than the flat-out nutters themselves...Sober. Serious. Looking at all sides of the issue. Stroking their chins. Coming to conclusions. And what are those conclusions? Well, golly, the nutters might be nuts, but they have a point!"
Yeah. 'Sober, serious, looking at all sides of the issue.' That is, making an argument, not relying on charged rhetoric to achieve the desired emotional response.
So why not engage with that argument?
Drum suggests: because the subject originated with a 'nutter.'
So even if you want to excise the rhetoric from the subject, your argument won't be engaged with because. . .because. . .because, why, again?
Was Kraut sober and serious or not?
I'm taking this observation of the Kraut example and adding it to the web sites you recommend as "calmer" discussions.
Quality sites, no doubt.
By "calmer," do you mean, 'closer to the center'? (I guessed, by the way, that you'd recommend Frum.)
And am I gleaning correctly that your position is, roughly, the following: Mr. White is located at point X on the political spectrum. All parties located at a distance great than + or - 5 points from X are "nutters," and/or are not "calm" enough and their arguments are not helpful to the public discussion, nor are they to be seriously engaged with.
I might have mis-characterized your position, so again, this is an honest question. It seems like the answer to it would shed a LOT of light on your blogging choices.
Re NRO and the Corner, my exposure to National Review is primarily the Corner, which perhaps reconciles at least partially our perspectives.
Re Rush and other blabbers, do they have relevant points on occassion, yes. If not they would likely be less influential. Does that make their commentary valid as a whole of course not. Their primary interest remains entertainment and titillation. If a person is "wrong/blasphemous etc." 90% of the time I am not going to respect her for being right 10%.
Merely because there may be some logic to his argument in terms of say X times Y= W but he uses invalid variables does not make him a valuable contributor to discourse.
Accusing me of ad hominem with Rush is a bit rich.
Drum's point is that Krauth uses the ploy of seriousness to make unserious arguments. Which is the insidious angle to the Krauth of the world. Do you buy Krauth's argument? Do you believe I and other Dems want to kill Grandma or even deprive her of legitimate care?
You are spending this entire dialogue on process but where do u stand on substance?
I like all humans anchor relative to my own consciousness.
But the spectrum used to be Nelson Rockefeller, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, JFK etc.
The John Birch Society had a place in the Republican Party but not one of actual elected power.
The modern day equivalent of the Birchers now occupies the center of the Republican Party. My anchor has not moved the Republicans have. As I have said on previous posts, I consider myself an old Rockefeller Republican which places me roughly at the center of the Dem Party maybe slightly to the right.
One last point about the "process" portion, before I make an attempt at declaring substance.
You ask: "Do you buy Krauth's argument? Do you believe I and other Dems want to kill Grandma or even deprive her of legitimate care?"
His objection to the term "death panels," --and my objection to it--is that its content DOES accuse Dems of wanting to "kill granny." K, a few times, is explicit: this provision was not going to establish "death panels."
But what would it have done? This is what he plays out. And if Dems can't see the second and third order effects of a provision like this, then they are being short-sighted. Not maliciously so. But short-sighted none-the-less.
I'm sure you've heard of the VA "death book" that has since been pulled off the website and is no longer being distributed. It was an end-of-life counciling book from our government to the elderly seeking their care through the VA.
This booklet included a series of questions that steered the patient away from seeking agressive treatment and towards the possibility that death earlier rather than later is not such a bad idea.
(And if this is a mis-characterization of these questions, then why was it pulled within 48 hours of its report to the public?)
Now, was there any malice behind the writing of it? Of course not. Is it true that death earlier rather than later can be the better option for some patients? Yes.
But the problem is that I don't want the government to have its fingers on the levers that steer this discussion with patients. I don't trust the government to do that job well. (To do nearly ANY job well!)
Which brings me to substance.
See next post.
Substance:
It would be fun if I were fired up about the same topics you are. The things I could discuss with some depth and passion are kind of esoteric, not very partisan, and definitely not even in the Top 10 of national concerns right now.
Those being
Education
Farm policy
Food chain issues, which includes the National Animal Idenitification System and the odious USDA
Greco Roman historiography
New Testament historiography
Historical Ressurection studies
and, finally,
Why it is impossible to have a fruitful debate with muslim scholars.
With a lot less depth, I'd characterize myself as a fiscal conservative, --this is because it seems like government does nearly nothing well and tax money (or theoretical money, as the case is now) spent by government is nearly always wasted money. I'd much rather see money stay in private hands because, though they have their faults, the free markets are most efficient.
--with a strong libertarian streak when it comes to social issues, the exception being Right to Life matters, on which I'm staunchly pro-life.
An example of the libertarianism streak is my very own answer to the gay marriage question--at least, I haven't seen anyone else pose this: The government should recognize civil unions among both same-sex and heterosexual couples, or, for that matter, 2 spinster sisters who want the same benefits.
Those of us already with marriage licenses get grandfathered in, though that wouldn't mean much legally because government policy would be written only for civil unions.
From here on out, any couple who wants a civil union signs the paper at the courthouse. And if they want a "marriage," they go before whatever social and/or religious community they want and make it so.
The rights of religious organizations to refuse room rental or occupation rights on religious grounds (regardless of who gets excluded) would be protected.
And the subject of who is married to whom wouldn't be "taught" one way or another in school because our schools would stop teaching all the stuff that families should be teaching their young and go back to caring about literacy and math skills.
Howz THAT for a great plan will never, ever be implemented????
Finally, I support gay adoption, though organizations like Catholic Charities and any other religious organizations should be allowed to place children for adoption in accordance with their relgious beliefs.
So I guess that makes me pretty solidly red with one blue dot.
I will stipulate right before being sucked even further into the maw of death panels and books that my fundamental problem with the whole discussion is that these are very granular items which have been blown into macro topics which dilute any truly meaningful discussion of issues like:
1) should universal care be a goal?
2) how should health care costs be addressed? etc.
On the "death" books which if one uses that term one inherently bows to the right wing propagandists but anyway:
you said:
"This booklet included a series of questions that steered the patient away from seeking agressive treatment and towards the possibility that death earlier rather than later is not such a bad idea.
(And if this is a mis-characterization of these questions, then why was it pulled within 48 hours of its report to the public?)...
But the problem is that I don't want the government to have its fingers on the levers that steer this discussion with patients. I don't trust the government to do that job well. (To do nearly ANY job well!)
TW: you leap to there must be a problem if it was withdrawn, I can think of a hundred reasons mostly wimpy political ones as to why it would be withdrawn. But the key point is your last.
"Government" involvment is many times merely funding. It is not a state appointed purveyor, decider or anything else it is funding. Funding which permits less wealthy seniors counseling on end of life decisions, funding that permits poor women access to abortion or reproductive services more wealthy women would have regardless. Funding that would provide care to cancer patients who otherwise might be faced with few or less expensive options.
Funding is not "the government to have its fingers on the levers that steer this discussion with patients. I don't trust the government to do that job well"
You would deny certain seniors the option to seek that care, you would deny women reproductive choice based YOUR moral beliefs.
Obviously the flipside is you provide funding just like me, I understand the abortion dilemma and the last thing this string needs is another tangent so one can leave that dangle.
Re end of life matters, the Republicans and Krauth etc. could have said this is poorly written legislation(not that it was btw) but they chose to demagogue it instead which at the end of the day is my point. Krauth's column was an effort to extend the demagougery not improve legislative language.
The Dem goal with end of life to provide folks with better options, the Republicans would given their demagougery prefer no options. They also know damn well that end of life medical spending is some of the least effective and most abused medical spending and legitimate efforts should be made to manage them. They know funding is finite, dollars needlessly spent at end of life come out of the treatment of beginning and middle of life. This hypocrisy greatly angers me.
Re your substance, the gay marriage idea per your suggestion as you said would entail putting the paste back into a very old tube. Therefore, it is not really a viable discussion.
I have huge problems with Islam but then I do with all religions (but Islam has even more issues than most, separation of church and state, women etc.) but that is a topic I only approach elliptically on the blog and will not get into further on the blog or in comments.
I am always willing to discuss education and farm policy. I dont know anything about food chains.
Fiscal conservative, heh? So what do you want to cut? "reducing waste" is not an option.
You write: "You would deny certain seniors the option to seek that care, you would deny women reproductive choice based YOUR moral beliefs."
2 problems here: 1) Your assumption--and the one that is often part of the parcel of Dem thinking--is that if the government doesn't fund it, it won't get funded. Period.
The "fiscal conservative" part of my thinking is that we should rely on government as little as possible to do the funding. (And yes, at this point, talking this way is always toothpaste out of the tube--I really don't think we can shrink the Fed out of our society to any notable degree. This doesn't change my vision of the ideal. I'm not too pragmatic about politics, as you saw in my gay marriage solution.)
The second problem: I have no idea what you're talking about regarding my moral beliefs and how I would like to use them to choose for others.
I agree that the abortion issue is best left un-discussed, but suffice it to say that it's a complicated matter and is, because of those complications, a poor example by which to guage the role of moral choices in public policy.
Let me provide some different ones: I think it's immoral to smoke marijauna, yet I think marijuana should be legalized. I think sex before and outside of marriage is immoral, yet I don't think there should be any law on the books regulating adults' sex lives, and if the CDC wants to hand out free condoms, great.
All of which I offer just to clarify how I see my moral judgements' relevance to public policy.
But about health care. (I wrote this in the same post as above, but blogspot limits "comments" length.)
Maybe you've missed that you make a moral judgement of your own:
"They also know damn well that end of life medical spending is some of the least effective and most abused medical spending and legitimate efforts should be made to manage them. They know funding is finite, dollars needlessly spent at end of life come out of the treatment of beginning and middle of life."
By which you mean that dollars are better spent on "beginning and middle life" than on "end of life." This, of course, is a moral judgement.
You comment on what it is Republicans "know damn well," and you characterize them as soley playing a political game with this issue. I think it's a mischaracterization. There is a genuine concern that this kind of moral judgement--e.g. what life is worth preserving and for how much longer--will be steered by bureacrats. (And of course you know that funding = incentives towards certain policies and behaviors. And incentives = subtle steering. Hence my "fingers on the levers" metaphor.)
The whole end-of-life thing is now put to rest as it's been x-d out of "the bill"--but the core issue it represents is a microcosm of what we see as the core issue of universal health care. Namely, that decisions have to be made about where and how money gets spent with any kind of insurance. And R's don't want to see the government in charge of those decisions. We would rather see the choices be consumer driven.
And what I HAVEN'T seen--but I admit to being underinformed, so if you have a study or worthwhile article you can point to, I'd be glad to look--is much of an attempt by the Dems to look down the road a couple years, a couple decades, and address the second and third order effects of what they are proposing. It's these effects that we want to avoid.
Specifically:
1. What about the proposed plan will keep our health care from looking like Canada's or GB's or Australia's in 20 years?
(Embedded in this question, of course, is my thinking that we don't WANT to have a system that looks like theirs. I would rather we have millions un-insured, who still have access to excellent emergency care and excellent "charitable care,"--that is, no American is dying because he doesn't have insurance--than have everyone insured, but with access to mediocre care and long, long waits for surgeries and appointments. And, in the case of Australia, life-saving protein treatments for 30-year-old women with agressive breast cancer--see my post coming soon today on my blog about cancer treatment for American women vs. Australian women.)
Well. I have more questions to put on this list, but best to go one at a time.
in the interest of many things, will let "moral" and "abortion" dangle (this should in no way be construed as acceptance of the logic your post on the topics...)
re health care
1) Canada/UK and just about every other developed country achieve health care results equivalent or better than the U.S. at fractions of the costs. There are dozens of studies debating the issue. At some point one must take a stand. Mine is the health outcomes achieved elsewhere (understanding the systems vary considerably) are in sum better than the U.S, if one recognizes that funding is finite. The U.S. is providing unequal coverage with a cost structure that will grow too fast for the country to fund.
Can you point to point to examples where the U.S. is "better" sure. But in sum, I do not think so. Especially if one recognizes funding is finite. We spend 2X most others, $4,000 per capita per yr (am going from memory here) could achieve many positive things if spent differently.
2) I am addressing a pragmatic challenge. How is end of life spending balanced with beginning and middle? How to optimize end of life medical spending?
So you wish to deny those who cannot afford end of life counseling because why? The risk of the evil government outweighs any value such counseling provides?
I guess you do not think I want to kill my mother but will do so through ignorance of the evil nature of government and permit her to be nudged that way.
The natural outcome from your fear of "government" is that all government funding of health care should be abolished, yes? If not pls explain.
End of life funding decisions are made everyday. We will not spend $1 billion to save grandma for a week because we cannot. But as medical advances we will be able to spend more and more not only to save her but a preemie, a child, a middle aged man etc. Funding is finite how is it allocated?
Without mandates private insurers have incentives to rescind coverage, to limit treatments blah blah blah
Medical care is not bread.
How exactly is your beloved consumer driven approach going to work to address costs?
Post a Comment