FOUR YEARS LATER! Four years later, the New York Times offers a take on Soc Sec:
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 2, 2004
FOUR YEARS LATER: Omigod! Four-and-a-half years later!! In May 2000, Candidate Bush formally unveiled his widely-ballyhooed principles for reform of Social Security. Result? Yesterday, four-and-a-half years later, the New York Times offered a detailed, 1325-word review of a similar privatization plan—the retirement plan that Chile adopted with its 1980 Social Security Reform Act.
But theres a shortcoming to the Times presentation—it appears on the papers op-ed page, and its written by Jose Pinera, Chiless secretary of labor and social security from 1978 to 1980, an advocate of the Chilean system. Indeed, to read Pineras account, one would think the Chilean system has worked just like a charm. With President Bush now suggesting that hell push for real changes in Social Security, citizens deserve to read about the Chilean system (and other such matters) in the news pages of our big papers. The Times should be planning to flood the zone in its pursuit of this upcoming story.
Alas, nothing like that happened during Campaign 2000, when Bush got considerable mileage (and massive praise from the press) for presenting his vague, misleading principles. As noted, Bush offered his principles in May 2000, at a time when little was happening in the campaign. In a serious society, big newspapers would have reported on systems like Chiles; such reports could have given readers some idea of how privatization plans work. And they would have reported on the six full-blown privatization plans that had been formally presented in the Congress—in some cases by major players like Senators Kerrey and Moynihan and Representative Kasich.
Predictably, your press corps did nothing of the kind. As weve noted (links below), weve never been able to find any paper which reported on the foreign systems or on the detailed proposals which existed in Congress. Instead, the press corps did what it did with every topic in Campaign 2000—it turned Bushs vague proposal into a referendum on character, with Bush praised for his bold leadership in presenting his principles and Gore attacked for negativity in opposing privatization. Big newspapers skipped the merits and turned directly to propaganda and Established Press Scripts. Your press corps embarrassed itself a hundred times in its coverage of Campaign 2000. But its coverage of Bushs inspiring principles was one of the most striking cases.
This time around, Bush seems to mean it; we can assume that hell actually put forward some sort of plan, a plan on which Congress will actually vote. And this will give your somnolent press corps a chance to define its real character. Is your press corps just a collection of stooges, a body devoted to averting its gaze from proposals favored by the ownership class? Or is your press corps still an actual press corps? Weve heard sweet dreams from Mr. Pinera, writing on the opinion page. Question: Is the Times news staff prepared to perform, out on page one of the paper?
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: All the stoolpigeons knew what to say when Bush announced his vague, pleasing principles. Bush was showing bold leadership, they said, and Gore was being disturbingly negative. How goon-like was the corps script-reading? Here are excerpts from three cable discussions. The script about Gore? He was being too negative. It was all just attack, attack, attack:
Hardball, MSNBC, May 5, 2000:Almost knee-jerk, Russert said, describing his own reaction.
Rothenberg was right about one thing, of course; there had been a lot of criticism of Gores disturbing behavior. Indeed, The Storeboughts all knew they should criticize Gore for his troubling criticism of Bush. For a four-part critique of the clownish way your press corps covered Soc Sec during Campaign 2000, see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/15/02, along with the three HOWLERS which follow it.
LOOK WHOS ATTACK-ATTACK-ATTACKING: Mort and Fred were pimping the script even before Bush announced his high principles. Here they are on The Beltway Boys on April 30, 2000:
KONDRACKE (4/30/00): Look, the dynamic here is perfectly obvious. Gore is behind in all the polls, so he's doing what worked with Bill Bradley, attack attack attack, and, you know, and he's hoping that it'll work on George W. Bush. The difference is that George W. Bush is not going to take it forever. I mean, George W. knows how to counterpunch, and I predict soon that he'll start doing it.Amazing, isnt it, to see the way these goons all agree to recite the same points? As Mort said, the dynamic was perfectly obvious all through the spring of this year.
On this program, the boys were disturbed because Gore had attacked Bushs tax cut proposal. So they attack-attack-attacked him, and, within a matter of weeks, do did the stooges excerpted above. With the exception of two brief periods, this is the way your press corps behaved from March 1999 through November 2000. After that, they began to ponder: How had Gore lost the election?