MIKE HATCHELLS CONCERN! Olbermanns guest voiced a common concernSocial Security may not be there by the time he retires: // link // print // previous // next //
MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2010
Tantaros keeps her big trap shut: Did Barack Obama walk back or back off from his Friday night statement concerning the Cordoba House project? By Saturday, it had become a test of faith in some parts of the web that he had done no such thing.
For our money, the adamant way this claim was advanced was, in some cases, pretty silly. Had Obama backed off in some way? By Sunday morning, the New York Times was parsing the rolling attempt to clarify his remarks in this comically awkward manner:
Conrad wrote of the fascination of the abomination. This phrase rhymed with that.
Did Obama back off from his Friday night statement? Not necessarily, but Fridays apparent point of emphasis was rather plainly changed. But some obedient liberal bloggers were unwilling to back off from the White House line, thus becoming more like the ditto-heads our side used to mock.
Never surrender! Its the greatest law of tribal debate! Some liberals werent giving an inch in their assessments of Obamas statements. But to see this tribal law in full flower, you had to see Andrea Tantaros disgraceful appearance on this weekends Fox News Watch.
A bit of background: For a remarkable number of years, this was the one truly fair-and-balanced program on the Fox News Channel. For ten years, the show was hosted by Eric Burns, who plainly wasnt a movement conservative; it featured at least two of the brightest, leftiest pundits ever seen on cable news channels. (First Jeff Cohen, then Neal Gabler.) But in 2008, this program was finally dragged, kicking and screaming, into the wider Fox orbit. Burns was replaced with the hapless Don Scott, who is completely out of his depth hosting a program of news criticism. Under Scott, the weekly program investigates familiar lists of utterly hackneyed conservative gripes and complaints.
On most occasions, it does include pundits with liberal perspectives, including Kirsten Powers and Ellis Hennican. Not so this past weekend.
This weekend, one of the programs topics was the press corps coverage of Michelle Obamas trip to Spainand Tantaros was one of the panelists. This gave Tantaros the perfect chance to correct her own misreporting of this story. On August 5, Tantaros made a ginormous factual error in her New York Daily News column, using it to fashion a strong denunciation of the first lady. Michelle Obama seems more like a modern-day Marie Antoinette than an average mother of two, Tantaros pronounced. (Headline: Material girl Michelle Obama is a modern-day Marie Antoinette on a glitzy Spanish vacation.) In part, this assessment was built on a giant error. Here is Tantaros, a nasty piece of work, doing what she does best:
In fact, Obama was traveling with two of her friends (and their children), not with forty. Given the actual size of the party, you can make what you like of that report about the way the group was expected to occupy 60 to 70 rooms.
Tantaros took a gigantic factual error and used it to fashion a nasty assessment. And omigod! Absolutely too perfect! On Sunday, she was asked to assess the way the press corps covered the first ladys trip! But no correction would come from Tantaros, or from any of the hacks assembled to clown their way through this discussion. Heres how the segment began:
Yes, that was Judith Miller, of Iraq-bungling fame, apparently representing the left on this program. The discussion began with praise for Tantaros wit and wisdomand as the discussion continued, neither Scott, nor Miller, nor anyone else ever mentioned Tantaros gigantic howlers.
This was the line-up on Sundays program. None of these utterly worthless hacks ever said a word about Tantaros cosmic bungling:
In fairness: Given this programs preparation standards, we know of no reason to assume that Scott, Miller, Williams or Pinkerton even knew about Tantaros blunders. Tantaros did know, of course. And she kept her big trap shut.
Scott is a million miles out of his depth on this program, even allowing for the way he pimps the acceptable topics and viewpoints. As for Tantaros, shes a nasty piece of work. Shell be around a long time.
Never surrender! And never admit! These are key laws of tribal debate. These laws will be with us a long time too, obeyed by two tribal units.
PART 1MIKE HATCHELLS CONCERN (permalink): A fascinating moment occurred on last Thursday nights Countdown. It was a marker of the political combat of past thirty years.
In his opening segment, Keith Olbermann spoke with Mike Hatchell, a 52-year-old Lumberton (N.C.) mechanic who was recently unemployed for more than a year. At one point, Olbermann asked about Hatchells retirement prospects. In his reply, Hatchell volunteered a thought about the status of Social Security:
Overall, this was an excellent segment, though Olbermann failed to ask Hatchell and his wife if either or both were xenophobes. (Statistically, both probably are, according to Digbys assessments.) That said, we were fascinated when Hatchell, who plainly seemed like a very bright person, volunteered the thought that Social Security may not be around by the time he retires. Hopefully, the government will [still] have the program at that point, he said. But according to Hatchell, we all know how vague such prospects are.
Despite the possibility that he is a xenophobe, Hatchell seemed like a smart, decent person. Why did he say that?
The next morning, Paul Krugman made a prediction in this blog post. He said another fight was probably coming about the essence of Social Security. The same old disingenuous arguments will be making the rounds, he said:
Among those familiar disingenuous arguments, Krugman turned to an oldie but goodiethe claim that there is no such thing as the Social Security trust fund.
Will we be fighting this fight again? Were not sure, but Hatchells statement demonstrates something quite important. It shows the way liberals have had their keisters kicked on this topic over the past thirty years. It helps show the way the right has won a disinformation war about the status of Social Security. But then, many comments left beneath Krugmans post showed the same darn thing.
Hatchell isnt sure that Social Security will be there for him. And sure enough! The next day, inside the Krugman comments, a litany of familiar old claims appearedthe kinds of claims which have driven this discussion for at least the past three decades. These highly persuasive frameworks and claims were invented in pseudo-conservative think tanks, then churned by pseudo-conservative talkers, many of whom may even believe what theyre saying. These claims have been pushed for the past thirty yearsas the career liberal world sucked its thumb and napped, way off in the woods
What sorts of claims were marbled through the comments to Krugmans post? Familiar claims which have misled millions of peoplepeople like Mike Hatchell:
Commenter 4 quickly implied that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, and a fraud.
Commenter 5 used another familiar image. People say there is no trust fund, he said, because the government is taking money out of its right pocket, putting it in its left pocket, then spending that money.
Commenter 16 voiced a worn talking point: One of the big problems of Social Security is when it began the age for qualifying was set at 65 because the average life span for a male was 64. You were expected to work till you died.
Commenter 53 piggy-backed on Commenter 5, employing a major chunk of the snide to show what a fraud the system is:
Commenter 55 offered a somewhat similar homily. The idea that there is a Social Security trust fund is ludicrous, he said, before sketching his scenario. Commenter 60 went down this road too, saying that Social Security is actually an arcane bookkeeping scheme with imaginary current and future funds. (The taxes have already been squandered by the federal government, this commenter said.)
Before long, standard images of looting and stealing turned in expected guest appearances, driving an iconic claimSocial Securitys trust fund is just a pile of worthless IOUs:
You and I would go to jail if we did what Congress has done!
Just a guess: Down in Lumberton, N.C., Mike Hatchell has heard such statements for many years. He isnt quite as refined as Digby, and so he may listen to Sean or to Rushor to various Rush wannabes who recite these same familiar points. He has heard people say such things at work. He has heard people say these things when he plays softball, or when he goes bowling.
And one more guess: In the past thirty years, he has never heard the career liberal world tell him whats actually wrong with these statements. We prefer to wait until he takes the wrong stance on some issue, at which time we drop our R, X and N-bombs. Thats why Hatchell, a plainly intelligent person, seems to think that he may get hosed.
For thirty years, the imagery has flown all about, churned by spin-tanks of the right. Everyone hears these familiar claimsbut no one ever hears cogent rebuttal, which the loveable losers of the career liberal world have never quite managed to formulate.
This is what Hatchell has heard:
The Social Security trust fund is just a pile of worthless IOUs. The money isnt thereweve already spent it! The fund has been looted and pillaged by Congress. The left hand has borrowed from the right hand, producing a mere accounting fiction. The system will be bankrupt in the year 2037, or maybe in 2017.
Result? As far back as 1994, the Associated Press reported a now-iconic survey of voters aged 18 to 34. Young Americans find it easier to believe in UFOs than the likelihood Social Security will be around when they retire, the AP reported. Among respondents, 46 percent said they believed in UFOs. Only 34 percent said they believed that Social Security would still exist by the time they retire.
That survey appeared sixteen years ago; Hatchell was 36 at the time. The talking-points which produced that surveys results remain ubiquitous, as is clear in the comments to Krugmans post. And wouldnt you know it? The intellectual leaders of the liberal world still havent framed a winning response! Result? Hatchell, a plainly intelligent person, remains afraid that the venerable program wont be there when he retires.
If we fight this fight again, how should we liberals argue our case? Tomorrow, well offer an opening thought. On Wednesday, well look at the rest of Krugmans postand well check out todays column.