October 30, 2004
A Word To The Wise
My previous post on the latest tally of newspaper presidential endorsements was assured to spark those fun partisan debates with Bush apologists again, already at a disadvantage on the subject matter from the word go. As they insisted previously when musicians the likes of Springsteen, R.E.M. and The Dixie Chicks hit the road in support of John Kerry, editorial endorsements too, meant absolutely nothing to the average voter. Yet, I finally realized why such opinions had a tremendous significance to me.
It’s like the conversation I’ve been practicing, given the opportunity to rebut some Conservative blowhard (picture Neal Boortz), going on and on about the supposed ‘Liberal Media Elite bias’. Given the option to shut his mike off, I would start by asking ‘Are these not smart people, college educated, most with higher degrees?’ Yes. ‘Are they not talented, gifted individuals, given that they’ve excelled to the top of their chosen profession?’ Yes. ‘And, given their access into the corridors of power in this country, privy to information and certain political truths therein we as mere citizens will never become aware of – and they choose to be Liberals?’
Editorial boards can be just as partisan as a campaign surrogate booked to deliver a crisp, effective version of that day’s ‘message’ on Fox News. However, it has always been my impression that major editorial page endorsements are held to a higher standard, always having the responsibility to make a persuasive and substantive case based on fact. However, as we’ve seen from the Presidential endorsements published so far, a Publisher’s ideology will trump the pragmatic consensus of it’s editorial board (most Bush over Kerry), robbing their readers of a decision based on careful deliberation.
Not surprisingly, neither was the case when it came to the opinion of my hometown paper, The Chicago Tribune. Although, their editorial page of late has reflected a moderation of views (especially on social issues), even a scandalized Jack Ryan could count on their endorsement as long as he’s listed as a Republican, on voter’s ballots. (Although, I will publicly admit to being wrong and absolutely shocked, seeing that the Trib endorsed Barack Obama!) However, in an endorsement that truly reflects Illinois’ dark, rich shade of Electoral College Map Blue, The Chicago Sun-Times – facing the Conservative publisher/Kerry leaning editorial board dichotomy - got it right.
And, contrary to my many detractors of the previous post, Editor & Publisher insists there was detectable movement towards the challenger in polling after major newspapers in Oregon and Washington state, endorsed John Kerry. Therefore, it is reasonable to place even greater significance, on news that every major Florida daily backed Kerry with two abandoning Bush, after supporting him in 2000. All total, 34 publications switched horses to Kerry in this year’s election.
Curiously, there were 5 newspapers that actually switched over to Bush, after backing Al Gore in 2000. The most significant of the ‘farcical five’ is the Denver Post, where the above described scenario of Publisher vs. Editorial Board was played out, sparking unexpected outrage from Post readers.
My point here is that I am a discerning person, especially when it comes to politics. I am probably not going to find any agreement with a Bush endorsement, but I want to read the best case made for doing so. I am not going to find much disagreement with a Kerry endorsement, but it will help clarify those issues where we differ.
However, a wise electorate that goes through a similarly weighted process before casting their ballot tends not to be an Undecided or Bush voter.
Why are the elites in journalism and academia liberal? I think it represents the consistent triumph of hope over experience. Liberals advocate laudable goals, such as feeding the hungry, educating the ignorant, comforting the poor, healing the sick or (the big one) ensuring world peace. Who isn’t moved? The problem is the proposed mechanism to accomplish these ends is usually government. Government can do a lot. A strong government is essential to a strong free market, but it can’t do a lot of the things we ask it to do, or it can’t do them well. But it is hard to explain why to someone who doesn’t have practical experience with some of the problems.
Think back on your college days. Who goes into journalism? Students often consider journalism as an alternative to another professional degree such as an MBA. Self-selection eliminates many of the free market advocates. Who goes on to graduate school? Smart kids, yes, but also those that enjoy and thrive in an academic environment where theory trumps practice. Beyond that, many attend graduate school to avoid a weak job market in their field. Again, we have a self-selection process that draws business friendly kids away from academia.
Figures on who gave to whom in this election indicate that elite universities often are 90% of more in favor of Kerry. Even if everyone is trying to be tolerant, imagine being a Bush supporter. Conservatives had to create think tanks, such as Heritage, Cato or AEI because they couldn’t do the kinds of research they wanted at the mainstream universities.
That is why I don’t pay much attention to endorsements. It really is none of their business anyway.
Interesting thoughts , Jack.
Superficial, but interesting.
Students often consider journalism as an alternative to another professional degree such as an MBA
Huh? Where did you derive this little gem? Is this based on anything other than your personal fantasy?
Liberals advocate laudable goals, ….The problem is the proposed mechanism to accomplish these ends is usually government.
This is just the same old tired pablum that continues to be recycled by the right wing echo system. Wake up, the most expansive to date administration has been this one. No movement or party can claim to be anti-government. Neither party has diminished the growth of government.
I’ll agree that many small businessmen are pragmatists, but when you speak about large coporations, many of those guys ARE Harvad MBA’s. They were very successful in college academia.
But, please get this through your head, government is not a profit center. You cannot apply the same limited principles to a government. You can set goals and budgets, you can evaluate effectiveness, but you cannot run it like a business because it isn’t. Most businessmen don’t end up in government because they lack the political skills needed. In a monarchy many CEO’s might make a great king.
The reason I believe many journalist have “liberal leanings” is that they know their history. “Liberal” or progressive ideas usually turn out to be the right ideas over time. Once upon a time there were progressives who started a Nation based on progressive ideas. The Called it the USA. We are known as a liberal democracy for a reason.
Posted by: Greg at October 31, 2004 01:31 AMBegging your pardon, but we are NOT a “liberal democracy.” We are a Constitutional Republic.
This means that our society is governed by the law, not by the whims of a majority of people at any given time. In fact, in its extreme, a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule, with the wishes of the majority trampling the liberties of the minority. This is the reason we have laws, prescrobed mechanisms for creating and enforcing these laws, and a separation of powers — to ensure that any one branch of the government does not overstep its Constitutional authority.
Now, in this context, and finding that most liberals (insert “celebrities” or “entertainers” here if you wish — the analysis still applies) tout their belief in our “democracy”, is it not at least reasonable to suppose that perhaps some of their other understandings of our government may also be erroneous?
Posted by: Bob at October 31, 2004 01:58 AM“This means that our society is governed by the law, not by the whims of a majority of people at any given time. In fact, in its extreme, a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule, with the wishes of the majority trampling the liberties of the minority.”
Unless you are a gay minority.
Posted by: john at October 31, 2004 06:49 AMNeither party has diminished the growth of government.
Actually Greg, Clinton and Gore’s Reinventing Government initiative diminished the growth of government.
Between 1993 and 1999, the Administration reduced the size of the Federal civilian workforce by 17 percent, or 377,000 full-time equivalent employees. This has resulted in the smallest workforce in 39 years.
Kerry proposes to cut 100,000 federal contractors (pg. 73). To date, no Republican administration has reduced the size of the government.
To John,
Your comment: “Unless you are a gay minority,” is, at best, a complaint that is premature, and not attuned to the ways in which our society accepts a proposition as legitimate.
Remember these things: One: as the law is presently written (remember, we are talking about law here), there are no special exceptions that endow gays with rights or privileges simply due to their lifestyle. Two: any laws, regulations, etc. that may pertain to gays, either for or against, will have to undergo the scrutiny of determining their Constitutionality. In this way, gays too are afforded the protections inherent in the U.S. Constitution.
The real problem, as we discuss this, seems to be that those in the forefront of the effort to secure gay-specific rights/privileges have not demonstrated the patience to see the proposition through to its more “formal” conclusion. Their insistence of “I not only want society to accept me for what I am, but I want society to fully approve, and I WANT IT NOW!” serves only to alienate those of moderate temperament — people who otherwise might be willing to accept a gay-friendly outcome, as long as they saw it as legally and socially legitimate, having passed through the gauntlet of our Constitutional process, in much the same way the civil rights movement has evolved.
This is not meant to be argumentative, nor is it intended to display a bias either for or against gay causes. It is merely my observation of the present social landscape as it applies to gay causes and the effort to secure legal provisions relating to those causes.
—Bob
Posted by: Bob at October 31, 2004 02:27 PMI found it interesting that Charlie Daniels thought that the Hollywood elites should keep their opinions to themselves, because they were “just entertainers”.
How ironic is that?
Greg
There are a lot of things that government just can’t do and even more that it shouldn’t. Most real innovations are unforeseen by people at the time. Government is status quo. It really can’t stimulate innovation and change, but it can hinder it.
Columnists and commentators tend to be very well educated, but I have not found journalists in general to be very much aware of history. It was depressing to watch leading television journalists on Jeopardy. Even with the give away questions, they couldn’t score many points. I am not sure I trust their grasp of history in general or their paradigm.
History is always written with a paradigm in mind. Since the 1960s, we have tended to look at it through a progressive lens, but that is not the only paradigm and maybe not the best. An equally effective lens is to look at technological progress. Much of the extension of inclusiveness in society can be explained by technology that made it possible. What effect did scientific of technological innovation have? Would women’s liberation been possible without the invention of labor saving devices that took away the need for brute strength and/or the invention of birth control? How did better communications technologies spread decision making through society? Governments often enact laws well after the innovation has begun to spread and society has begun to change. I think a good analogy is a college diploma. By the time you get the diploma, you have presumably learned the coursework. Many times the law is just the diploma.
So innovation is actually what moves cultural change. To the extent that government hinders innovation, it is not on the right side of history and to the extent journalists (and many liberals) don’t understand this, neither are they.
And about that term liberal, as in liberal democracy. The original meaning of the term is related to liberty. In the 1930s, liberalism split. Part of it conserved the liberal economic tradition and came to be conservatives. In the 1960s it split again. Some people started to believe in group as opposed to individual rights. Martin Luther King’s plea to judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin wouldn’t pass affirmative action tests. An American liberal in 2004 tends to believe that government should promote justice for groups in society and limit economic freedom through regulations and redistributive taxes. This is not very liberal.
Jack,
Liberal democracy:
Government in the West after World War II evolved more successfully. The democratic system was everywhere in the ascendant and brought with it greater influence for the working classes, for women, for non-European races, and for small states. The turbulent processes of open debate and decision produced an economic order that proved vastly more productive than?…from Brittanica
I realize it is popular for some pundits to twist and bend language to fit their particular political bent, but I still try to use English as a communication tool rather than trick of discussion. Yes, we are constitutional republic also. By the way, mob rule is called anarchy.
Your rather narrow understanding of the word liberal reveals more about your provincialism than I think you mean.
You say that journalist don’t have much of an understanding of history. Is there a basis for this statement or just your general feeling of the “force”?
My point, Jack, is that you are spouting right wing propoganda that is both unenlightened and wrong. I realize if you listen to Rush you can get confused. He doesn’t sound like he’s lying, sounds like he knows his facts, and doesn’t appear to be a drug addict.
I agree that big government isn’t always better. So do many “liberals”. But dumb is just dumb. I wouldn’t go about chanting that education is a negative value. Someone may think you are Khmer Rouge or a Maoist.
Posted by: Greg at November 1, 2004 12:28 AMJack, I do not mean to reject your idea entirely, but your anti-liberal rant smacks of bigotry.
It is admirable that you want effective goevernment. We all do.
I strongly suggets thatyou:
A. Stop listening to Rush immediately:)
B Stop evaluating ideas as Liberal and
Conservative, that is really only useful for
propgandist.
C. Read lots of newspapers.
Government is status quo. It really can’t stimulate innovation and change
Jack, seems to me the government did a pretty good job with the Internet, the interstate highway system, a lot of the pharmaceutical research that the drug companies benefit from, the SBA and other business stimulants. I’m pretty sure that Burt Rutan drew on alot of NASA’s work, too.
There’re plenty of examples of the government stimulating innovation.
As for commentators, there are some good and some bad. Wolf Blitzer is one of the worst. I remember watching him interview Daschle about the anthrax letter sent to his office. Blitzer asks, “Do you think you were the target?” HELLO! The letter had Daschle’s name and address on it! What a moron.
Greg, nice list. B is particularly good. :)
Greg
Greg
I don’t listen to Rush. I can read newspapers in five languages. I have traveled to every continent except Australia. I have worked with hundreds of journalists. Most of whom I like. I have taught gradate courses on the media. Which part of my post made you believe I was uneducated and provincial?
I assume many of my points are open to multiple interpretations. I am probably wrong about many things, but that is human nature. Some of my best friends are liberals, but I have noticed that they often assume those who disagree with them are not thoughtful. That shows little thought.
None of your list applies to me. I expect you should focus on points B & C yourself.
AP (and others)
You are right about Internet and some of the phrama, although for innovation stimulated there is also innovation stiffed, the path not taken.
I believe in strong and efficient government. Government should create the conditions for prosperity. The interstate system and Internet are good examples of necessary government infrastructure. The government builds the highways, but doesn’t tell people where they should drive.
It is just that government is dangerous. It can do good and it can do evil. Proponents of bigger government sometimes forget that. Consider a current hot issue: stem cell research. If that was totally in the hands of government, you might not get any. You might say, “well that is the narrow minded politicians” Narrow-minded politicians often are in charge. More likely you have bureaucrats trying to preserve their jobs and perks. How about another example: mapping the human genome. A well-funded government effort competed with a privately funded with a lot less money. The private group got there first. Let me be clear, I don’t think the government should not have put the money into this venture. The government funded research filled in many blanks. But what if government had a monopoly? You could well envision a government bureaucracy interfering with the private group, because after all they were working on it themselves.
I have seen government funding crowd out private innovation. My best claim to have helped progress is a negative one. I helped kill a government program in E. Europe that would have helped set up ISPs. This was in the middle 1990s. Low budget private operators were setting up. Government-funded competitors would have swamped them. The best thing to do was almost nothing and that worked.
Evidently not everyone understands that you can’t look at history or society without some structure or paradigm. There is no objective truth, although there are facts. The progressive “government” paradigm is only one way to see things. If you look only through that lens, some “truths” emerge. I am only asking that we occasionally look through other lenses.
Amercan should be Voting For the New President. Not The Electoral Collage!
In Afghanistan they have a true Democracy! In Afghanistan the people are given a true choise in voting for president. In in America! We have an out dated system called a Republic!
Why do We need the Electoral Collage?
History Shows Us!
Since the electoral collage was created (4) Presidents have been appointed by the collage not the votes of the American People!.
John Quincy Adams! (R)
Rutherford B Hayes (R)
Benjamnin Harding (R)
George W. (R)
Not a single Demercrat!
Who will they appoint next?
If history is correct it will not be John Kerry?
Check out these facts! They are correct!
Lets do away with the “Republican” Controled Electoral Collage!
A real Vote!
Tom.com
John Q Adams was not Republican. The Republican Party had not been founded in 1824.
I think you mean Benjamin Harrison.
In any case, the examples from more than 100 years ago mean little with today’s parties. The Electoral College also worked to elect Democrats who did not win a majority (only pluralities), such as Clinton, Truman and Wilson. How do the Republicans control the Electoral College?
I perceive you are angry. Being angry is easy. Being angry at the right person, at the right time and to the right extent, that is hard.
But what if government had a monopoly?
Now you’re stretching. :)
But that’s OK. I’ll rest easier knowing you’ll fight the good fight for a government that does nothing.
Seriously, Jack, I think we all realize there’s a balance that needs to be kept. We want all the good things that only the federal government can do, and we don’t want any of the bad stuff. If the government swings too far in a bad direction, the electorate can correct the problem - that’s why Americans are choosing Kerry as president.
