THIS IS YOUR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT ON DRUGS! No, it isnt Obamas fault. But good lord! What a strange goal! // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, JULY 24, 2009
Lord ODonnell assesses his lessers: Murky incidents make for bad discussionsespecially when our pundit class starts working its will on the stew.
In part, we refer to the bumbling discussion about Professor Gates in the first ten minutes of todays Morning Joe. Good God, these people are awful! The panel still believed that the incident started when Gates neighbor failed to recognize Gates; this puzzling fact seemed to add to the sense that some racial component had driven the unfortunate incident. (The person who reported the incident lives in Malden, Mass., several towns away. She works at Harvard Magazine, whose offices are near Gates house.) More comically, Professor Gates age is now creeping up, as our hapless pundit class seeks to give the incident additional bathos. This morning, Harold Ford and Carlos Watson both described Gates as sixty-something years old; the professor is actually 58. But our pundits will always change the facts to suit the interests of narrative.
Shades of the famous 21-year-old-intern, who was neither 21, nor an intern, during her affair with Bill Clinton. (The years they carved off Monicas age are now being reapplied!) Meanwhile, the cosmically hapless Michael Kinsley refers to the neighbor in todays column. And why not! This person has even become a neighbor in the Posts front-page news report! More foolishly, Krissah Thompson reports something Professor Gates allegedly said, according to a police report quoted in the Boston Globe. Good God. The police report has been on-line since Day One (just click here). As of this mornings first edition, the Post still hadnt heard!
(This pitiful groaner has been removed from the Posts on-line report.)
Jesus, these people are awful! Its never good for the societyfor public understandingwhen they start discussing some incident. It isnt just that the pundits werent present to see what occurred between Crowley and Gatestwo men with excellent reputations. In accord with their High Pundit Values, they refuse to get even the simplest facts straight. Its just not allowed in their culture.
In their culture, knowing a fact is considered a sign of great weakness.
This brings us to last nights Maddow Show, when Rachel invited Melissa Harris-Lacewell to explain what this incident means. Rachel began by complaining that the incident is being used to distract attention from the health care debate; it never occurred to her or her guest that this may be happening, in any small part, because of any possible unwise behavior by President Obama, by Professor Gates, or by any other known liberal. Republicans cling to strategy of racism, says the synopsis at the Maddow Show web site. On-air, the segment ran beneath this rubric: RACE CARD TRICK. But was it possible that anyone on the liberal side had perhaps, through some small human flaw, applied an unfair or unwise racial lens? Such ludicrous thoughts are never allowed in such hackish precincts.
Unfortunately, the situation may be worse than the well-scripted pundit pair said. Many voters are now being told, on talk radio, that Barack Obama thinks cops are stupidthat he went after the cop on Wednesday night, just as his side went after the firefighter (Frank Ricci) a week before. As voters are told these things, some will trust Obama lessand some support will erode for his health care proposal. This is very bad for progressive interests. But in hackish preserves like the Maddow Show, no one will dream that Gates, or Obama, or any known liberal could be less than completely correct.
Was Obama perhaps unfair to Crowley in his remarks Wednesday night? Wed have to say its a possibility; if other liberals could imagine such things, progressive interests might sometimes be served. But lordly liberals rose up this week, telling us that Professor Gates is wealthy, affluent, famous, influentialand that working-class Crowley just isnt (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/23/09). But then, such acts of class condescension have a long history in pseudo-lib circles. We pseudo-liberals have hurt our interests in such ways for years.
As we told you yesterday: Upper-class people often have a hard time respecting working-class people. When upper-class liberals behave this way, it can cost Democrats votes. And this sort of thing is common among usthough many liberals simply cant see it, even when its right under our noses. For a somewhat comical minor example, consider Lord ODonnells outing on Countdown last Thursday night.
ODonnell is modern High Liberal Royaltyand we have the defeats to prove it. In October 2000, he was still aggressively trashing Gore on The McLaughlin Group, dreaming up lies Gore plainly hadnt told. (He did this from the liberal chair.) Four years later, he melted down on MSNBC as he tried to debate John ONeill, head of the Swift Boat Vets. It was clear that ODonnell wasnt prepared to argue the facts of the case with ONeill; members of his lordly class simply dont prepare. As his high class typically does, he tried to compensate by shouting insults. ONeill looked sane by comparisonand MSNBC pretty much booted ODonnell off the air.
George Bush won the election.
Last week, ODonnell appeared with guest host David Shuster, discussing the Sotomayor hearings. Frank Ricci had testified that day, and the conversation went there. Whatever you think of the Ricci decision, ODonnells presentation was wonderfully foolish. If you didnt care about political outcomes, this would just be good solid fun:
That would be high entertainmentif the condescension involved in such matters didnt leach out through the electorate, harming progressive interests.
Lets skip the silly condescension in that second paragraph, when Ricci is supposed to be grateful to Sotomayor for the chance to tell his story. (For the record: Sotomayor has been respectful of Ricci and his interests throughout, although she ruled against him. Last Thursday, Ricci returned the favor.) The higher clownishness comes at the end, when ODonnell rhapsodizes about the way the system worked very, very much in lucky-duck Riccis favor. The Republicans forget that these guys won the case in the end, his lordship stirringly declared. But uh-oh! Before he won his case in the end, Ricci lost five years of leadership experienceand presumably, five years of enhanced pay. But ODonnells a major Hollywood man. Such thoughts didnt seem to occur.
Trust us: Such thoughts occur to others. Sotomayor is a more thoughtful person than this; these thoughts most likely occurred to her when she and her fellow judges said they sympathized with Riccis situation, even as they ruled against him. And such thoughts occur to working stiffs who watch our high lords on TV. They understand the tone of our condescension and our reflexive putdowns. They willand dotake their business elsewhere. And yes, this costs health reform votes.
No, that wasnt Professor Gates neighbor. No, he isnt sixty-something. And yes, Professor Gates may imaginably have had a bad day, as almost everyone does at some point. Imaginably, he may have been rude and unfair to the cop who does in fact risk his life every time he walks up onto the front porch of somebodys home. (Imaginably, Crowley may have been rude to Gates.) Professor Gates isnt tall, the clowns have all said. Sometimes, short people have guns.
Crowley, and others like him, know that. They factor it into their wider assessments. People who are rich, influential and famousand their sycophants and friendssometimes imaginably dont.
Question: Did you think about five years of lost pay when you saw our lord make that assessment?
Lawrence ODonnells a High Modern Liberal. We have the defeats to prove it.
THIS IS YOUR PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT ON DRUGS: Were with Krugman all the way, even when hes possibly somewhat wrong. That said, we do think that hes somewhat wrong in his important column this morning.
Krugmans column is important because it explains the need to control health care costsand because it explains the ways a health reform bill might do that. It explains these things rather clearly.
But we think hes wrong when he says Obama was especially good on this topic in Wednesday nights press conference. On the front page of this same New York Times, Kevin Sack speaks with some average Americansand they express profound confusion about things Obama said.
Their confusion isnt necessarily Obamas faultand a news report like Sacks is inherently anecdotal. But well guess that many people who watched Obama are confused, like the people in Sacks report. Just a guess: Krugman may have thought Obama was clear because he already knew the material. Indeed, Krugman almost suggested as much in this real-time post.
Well guess that many people who watched Obama are confused, like Sacks examples. Why are average people confused? What are they confused about? Before we review one part of Obamas presentation, consider the reaction of Craig Brown, a 36-year-old father of four who lives in an Atlanta suburb. According to Sack, Brown reacted sardonically to one of Obamas central claims:
Brown is a Jamaican-immigrant citizen; he and his wife supported McCain. Some of us will stop listening there, showing devotion to eternal defeat. But Sack cites other peopleObama supporterswho say theyre confused and puzzled too. That isnt necessarily the presdients fault. But we dont think he explained things as well as Krugman does in his column.
Why is Brown so sardonic about the thought of getting something for nothing? Perhaps because no one has ever told him how much lootingor some such wordexists in the current system. After all, most of our fiery liberal leaders are too dainty for expositions like that. Many pray for jobs at the Washington Postthe kind of job that will make mommy proud. And a young lady or gentleman must remain decorouspolitically presentablefor such a great thing to occur.
At any rate, consider part of Obamas presentation at Wednesday evenings conference. If Brown is sardonic about something for nothing, it may be because of Obamas weak presentation about the current looting of the system. (Sorry. About the current waste.) In response to the evenings first question, Obama in part said this:
Interesting! Obama said insurance premiums have rocketed upward. And then he went where rubber meets road. But Krugmans comments notwithstanding, he expressed himself unclearly, and fleetingly, as he did. And he would soon make matters worse.
We know that we're spending on averagewe here in the United States, are spending about $6000 more than other advanced countries where they're just as healthy, Obama said. Presumably, he meant $6000 per family per year; displaying an unfortunate lack of clarity, Obama didnt explain what he meant, and so we dont really know. (Trust us: Brown has no idea.) Much more significantly, he moved on quickly from that remarkable statistic, failing to help people like Brown understand what it means. Our president didnt invite the Browns to ponder the gigantic amount of waste involved in that unexplained statistic. Nor did he try to explain where all that wasted money was going.
Guess what, people? If Citizen Brown actually understood how much of his money is being wasted, perhaps he would be less sardonic when hes told that a good chunk of change can be saved in the manner Obama described. If he understood the gigantic total amount of waste, he might not roll his eyes so fast at thoughts of something for nothing. (Hell never learn about this from Rachel. She talks about sexsexsexraceracebaseball.) But very few people have ever told people like Brown how much of their money is being lootedand oh, how our intellectual leaders try to avoid such bad words! In the past fifteen years, our liberal leaders have made little attempt to explain this matter to people like Brown. Brown therefore reacts sardonically when he hears his presidents pitch.
People like Brown have never been told about that massive looting. Theyve never been told that they should be angry about the gigantic total amount of waste. Theyve never been told how much that $6000 (per family?) adds up to. On Wednesday night, they werent even told what that $6000 meant. And needless to say, theyve never been told where all that money is goinginto whose pockets that loot disappears. Once again, Obama failed to tell them these things in his presentation on Wednesday.
A bit later, Obama returned to that $6000. (Again, he failed to explain the statistic.) When he did, he gave you an unforgettable look at your progressive movement on drugs.
This is what the president said about that massive lootingabout the massive extra spending for which we get no return:
Truly, that was a stunning remark. Go aheadread it again! Thats the statement which might be described as your progressive movement on drugs.
Once again, Obama failed to explain what that $6000 is. (We assume its the annual difference in per-family health care spending.) But as Obama sketched a possible goal for the nation, you saw your movement on drugs.
Just note Obamas goalgood God! Just look where your nation is going!
At present, $6000 per family is being drained from the health care system. We are paying that much extra per family per year; as Obama noted, were getting nothing for it! And what does Obama think we can do? Good God! He says we maybe can work it down by two or three thousand dollars!
Obamas goal: Lets reach the point where were only spending four thousand more than everyone else! Lets reach the point where only four thousand dollars are being looted from Brown!
In that astounding remark, you see the fruit of twenty years of pseudo-liberal lethargy. No, it isnt Obamas fault that our liberal leaders are neitherthat theyve long been Potemkin players. It isnt Obamas fault that your liberal journals have fiddled and diddledthat no one has ever hammered the meaning of those remarkable data about American health care spending.
No, this isnt Obamas faulthe arrived on the scene quite late. But right there, in that astounding remark, you se the fruit of all that lethargy. You see the fruit of allowing a corporate toy like Kinsley to define our progressive horizons.
Please, oh please, Obama told Brown. Lets dream of the day when your beautiful family is wasting four thousand dollars per years! No, it isnt Obamas fault that our discourse is in such a clownish state. But in these moments, you see why Brown is sardonic about other things that get said.
And, despite Krugmans halcyon view, you see your movement on drugs.
Krugmans presentation is quite clear today. Obamas presentation seemed less crisp to us. Meanwhile, Browns family is being looted by six thousand bucks. Beseeching the gods, our president prays: Lets get it down to just four!
Lets dream of the day when each family spends $4000 more than is neededso we can protect the interests. When we dream a dream like that, were dreaming our great dream on drugs.