ONE IS THE MIGHTIEST NUMBER! Rachel is good at winning debatesif only one person is there: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 2009
Meyersons unhelpful feast: Does Harold Meyerson understand the world in which he resides? We wondered when we read his column in this mornings Post.
The column starts out about health care, then wanders about from there.
As he starts, Meyerson is feeling blue about those blue-dog Democrats. He writes as if hes just returned to this region after a long stay on Mars:
For the record, a Democratic Congress enacted Medicare in 1965. In the forty-four years since that occasion, America has plainly become a cant-do country, for reasons which have been well described. Professor Krugmans recent book may not have reached Mars, but it explained this history well (click here). Much shorter Krugman:
Is Meyerson just learning that this long process has occurred?
As he continues, Meyerson is mystified by Democratic opposition to Obamas health care proposal. He finds this to be a mysterious matter. In fact, theres nothing mysterious about it at all. Some of these people are afraid of losing future elections, for example. Others may be a bit store-bought. And thats where the long-term hapless conduct of the Meyerson Cohort comes in.
The progressive world has been badly served by the long reign of people like Meyerson. This morning, his attention span jumps all about, although he returns to health care at the end of his column. This is what the gentleman types. We would say that what he types helps explain the current problem:
But will the (as yet unwritten) health-reform bill really slow the ruinous growth of health-care spending? More specifically, does anyone even know what Meyerson means by that lofty statement? Is Meyerson saying that this as-yet unwritten bill will slow the rise in insurance premiums? Does he mean that it will slow the rise of overall societal spending? Of federal health care spending? All three? And by the wy: If Meyerson is such a fiery progressive, why is he accepting the baseline? As he dreams of slowing the growth, he thereby accepts the ludicrous situation in which our society spends twice as much per person on health care as other developed nations. Meyersons work is very unclearand frankly, it doesnt seem all that progressive. But then, his class of liberal pseudo-intellectual has served you quite badly for decades.
Theyre too well-fed. Theyre too well-paid. Theyre too well-knownand theyre largely inept. For another example, consider what Josh Marshall wrote yesterday, over at TPM:
Josh is massively clueless too. In fact, the Democrats went into this round with a public which is massively clueless about health care reformand massively lacking in righteous anger, in angry desire for change. In part, the public is clueless and apathetic because liberals like Meyerson have become so denatured that they cant even rise in righteous protest against the massive corporate looting which defines that current baseline.
Josh doesnt seem to understand either.
Cluelessly, Josh hits the nail on the head. Democrats have banged away about health care at election time, he says, almost seeming to praise them for their intermittent efforts. But uh-oh! Our liberal intellectual leaders have banged away even less often. Today, Meyerson arrives in late July, boldly saying that some unwritten bill will slow the ruinous growth of spending. But to be honest, no one even knows what that claim meansand there arent a million reasons to believe it.
Sorry, numb-nuts! Real progressives would work for yearsfor decadesto develop public understanding and anger about such complex affairs. It takes a long, aggressive struggle to develop progressive political frameworks. As Krugman explained, the other side has pimped its poll-tested narratives down through all those years. But our own denatured liberal leaders are too fat and happy to fight against that. When have you ever seen them fight to develop a winning politics about anything known to this earth?
On Friday, we plan to muse about Hemingways Moveable Feast, inspired by this fascinating op-ed piece in Mondays New York Times. At the end, Hemingway rues the day when the rich came into their lives (the lives of himself and his first wife). Under the charms of these rich I was as trusting and as stupid as a bird dog who wants to go out with any man with a gun, Hemingway writes. Thats not unlike the way it is when liberals read Meyersons column.
ONE IS THE MIGHTIEST NUMBER: Last Thursday night, we watched Rachel Maddow debate Pat Buchanan about the Sotomayor nomination. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/21/09, Rachel pokes the ape.
We were struck, most of all, by how unbalanced Buchanan is on matters of race and ethnicitymore specifically, about affirmative action. Much of what he said made sensebut on other matters, he was semi-unhinged. More than anything else, he seemed convinced that Sotomayor didnt meet the lofty standards which obtain on the current Supreme Court. In this, his very first statement, he seemed to be locked in a dream. For the full transcript, click here:
Sotomayor has never written a major book on the law? On the current Court, how many have? Throughout the session, Buchanan complained that Sotomayor didnt measure up to a lofty standarda standard which seemed to exist mainly inside his own head. But Buchanan thundered and roared about the fact that Sotomayor may have benefitted from affirmative action in her admissions to Princeton and Yale. He quoted her saying that this was the caseand he just couldnt let it go. At some points, this led him to make statements about the nominee which were inaccurateor just foolish:
Except Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princetonwhile winning the universitys highest academic prize. Did Buchanan really match that at Georgetown? In these moments, Buchanan seemed truly unhingeda victim of pugnacious views about affirmative action which will never let him go. (In terms of grades, Sotomayor seems to have graduated first or second in her large high school classwhile being selected to give the valedictory speech.)
Thats the thing which struck us most as we watched last Thursdays discussion. But right behind Buchanans myopia, we were struck by Maddows hapless efforts to debate this issue. Buchanans misstatements about Sotomayor flew by unchallengedas sometimes happens when people debate. Much more significantly, Maddow insisted on dropping a childish framework around the discussiona framework in which she kept attributing views and outlooks to Buchanan which he simply hadnt expressed. For example, heres the way she reacted to Buchanans silly, inaccurate claims about Sotomayors undergraduate record:
Truly, that was patheticevery bit as foolish as what Buchanan had just said. We should only choose from among white people? Buchanan had said nothing like that at any point in the evenings discussion. Heres a fuller transcript of that exchange, including Buchanans interjections and his first reply:
Duh. But then, in all honesty, Buchanan hadnt expressed anything like the view which Maddow described. He had said this at one point: My argument would be, get the finest minds you can get. Get real scholars. Hed also said that he didnt think this particular nominee measured up. But to Maddow, this judgment somehow seemed to mean that Buchanan believed that no Hispanics should be allowed to apply. She kept applying such silly frameworks at each stage of the debate.
Some people cant hear what the other tribe says. Maddow may be such a person.
On Monday night, she found a much better way to proceed, now that Buchanan was no longer present. In one case, she played tape of what Buchanan had saidwhile deftly editing out his statement that blacks had long been discriminated against. (She did this three times.) And she sadly claimed that hed said silly things about the U.S. Olympic teamsthings hed neither said nor implied. (Theatrically, she made a big show of quoting Buchananeven though she wasnt quoting him. This was very dishonest.) Most significantly, she did this while Buchanan wasnt present to define or defend his own viewpoint. Finally! What every hack wants! The chance to write the statements for both persons in a debate!
The chance to define what you yourself thinkand to say what The Other thinks too!
For the record, Maddow knows how shaky it is to conduct oneself in this manner. At the start of Mondays segment, she offered these high-minded thoughts about the corrections she felt she had to offer. For the full transcript, click here:
Butter wouldnt melt in her mouth. She felt a lofty obligation to correct the factual record. And she was soon correcting silly statements by Buchanansilly statements he hadnt made. In the absence of one of the parties, such bullshit is easily done.
This is the way weak analysts arguethe kind of people who cant win a debate if two people are present. But then, Maddow is a remarkably weak political analystand she sometimes seems to be weirdly dishonest. The progressive world will never flourish with people like this at the top of the heapdefining what we know, setting the progressive agenda. (Recently, the progressive agenda seems to be sexsexsexsexsex.)
In our view, affirmative action is worth defending (although it may not be worth debating). So is Sotomayors history, although theres no obvious reason why Buchanan has to find her qualified for the Court. We thought Maddow was strikingly inept on both counts Thursday night. But then, Maddows bossthe brains of the outfitcame from the world of sports and humor. She herself is woefully inexperienced in politics and news.
Night after night, it shows.
By the way, your DAILY HOWLER keeps getting results! Last night, Maddow returned to a recent newspaper report about Congressman Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). Last night, though, she did something different. She actually quoted him accurately, as if to show that she knows how to do it! Last week, after Wamps office complained about her reporting, Maddow kept insisting that she had simply quoted the congressmanwhen, in fact, she had embellished a paraphrase from that newspaper report.
Sorry. That isnt quoting. You can say that youre just quoting someone. You can say it again and again, as Maddow insistently did. That doesnt turn an embellished paraphrase into an actual quote.
At such moments, Maddow tends to swear shes willing to correct any real mistakesas she seems to lie in your face about what shes actually doing. Even Hannity is more artful about his on-air misstatements.
Rhodes Scholars tend to know how to quote peoplebut some may not be obsessively honest. Maddow tends to do this sort of thing a lot. It may be a function of youth and inexperience. But we think its a killer for progressive interests when such people worm into power.
Maddow is good at winning debatesas long as only one person is present. Does the answer to this unfortunate conduct lie in the world of Bill Wolff?