JONATHAN CHAIT AUGUST 16, 2011
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
[Guest post by Matthew Zeitlin]
Last week, Think Progress caught Mitt Romney saying “corporations are people, my friend.” Jon Chait pointed out that Romney was clearly referring to the incidence of corporate taxes—which are ultimately borne by people—not the more-than-century old legal doctrine by which corporations have the some of the rights and protections as individuals. Romney committed a classic “Kinsley gaffe,” whereby a politician catches flack for saying something true. But that has not stopped Think Progress, which has started to flood the zone with “corporations are people” coverage. They posted a video yesterday entitled “Ron Paul Breaks With Mitt Romney.” They excerpt this exchange:
KEYES: What did you make of Mitt Romney’s statement that “corporations are people” yesterday?
PAUL: Obviously they’re not. People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.
Clearly, Paul is dealing with the legal question, which has next to nothing to do with the question of who ends up bearing the burden of corporate taxes. Think Progress also has another video called “Do Iowans Agree With Mitt Romney That Corporations Are People?” where Iowa state fair attendees clearly interpret the question in the legal and ontological sense and deliver some old-fashioned, Midwestern common sense that, of course, corporations aren’t people. Think Progress is simply taking comments made by the GOP frontrunner out of context in order to bolster the preexisting narrative that Mitt Romney is a tool of corporate interests; and just not a tool of corporate interests, but someone who has drunk so much of the corporate Kool-Aid that he takes the on-its-face absurd view that corporations are people!
A good way to understand what’s going on is to understand the longstanding liberal complaint that conservatives have a media and intellectual infrastructure entirely devoted to the cause of advancing conservative ideas and attacking those politicians and public figures who oppose conservative ideology. Liberals, on the other hand, have the mainstream media, which is largely composed of liberal-leaning individuals, but which is not entirely and solely dedicated to promoting the liberal political cause in the same way the interlocking web of conservative think tanks, advocacy groups, publications, radio shows, and televisions stations are.
Think Progress’s continued flogging of one video clip of Mitt Romney saying “corporations are people, my friend” is exactly the type of thing liberals complain about when conservatives do it to liberals. The clip was plucked from CSPAN, aggressively promoted by Think Progress, reported on by mainstream outlets, turned into an ad for the DNC, and then, on Monday, promoted by Think Progress again in an effort to keep the controversy alive and, through repetition, make Mitt Romney seem like the “corporations are people, my friends” guy.
This type of thing, despite its slippery relation to the reality of what happened, is the nascent progressive media infrastructure in action. Whether or not it’s successful depends on whether more mainstream, less partisan voices take this stuff seriously, or at least accept the progressive framing that Mitt Romney said something controversial. But the real question is whether the liberal thinkers lamenting the so-called “hack gap” between conservatives and liberals are comfortable with what the progressive counterpart to the conservative media infrastructure looks like.
18 comments
Yes and no. Obviously it's a hack to take anyone's comments out of context and use them to hang the speaker. But context is not a simple thing. In this case, I would argue two things that make hanging "corporations are people, my friend" around Romney's neck more legitimate than Chait's original article argues. First corporate profits don't flow directly and unambiguously to people who subsequently pay taxes on them. The corporate rate is 35% higher than any marginal tax rate for individuals. Plus, those profits can be spent in any number of ways that don't go to people (they can go to other corporations, in the US and abroad, e.g., for expansion). Second, Romney does believe that corporations are people in the legal sense, and anyone who imagines that his tax argument is not in some way wrapped around a need, conscious or otherwise, to justify that position, is being highly unrealistic.
- IowaBeauty
August 16, 2011 at 9:16am
Is "the question" whether "liberal thinkers" "lamenting" the "hack gap" are "comfortable with" Think Progress? Hmm, I never thought about Romney's gaffe as an opportunity to navel gaze and hand wring like that before - thanks, Matt! These are truly weighty issues that liberal thinkers must consider, as we continue to pursue the ideals laid out in Federalist No. 37, and worry about what will happen when our parents are no longer standing at the ready, poised with a handkerchief to catch our wayward flatulence.
- misterpibb
August 16, 2011 at 9:23am
"Exactly the thing liberals complain about..." Exactly. It's about bloody time the "liberals" grabbed a few sound-bites, especially when they ARE characteristic of what the candidate believes, even if not this particular instance -- and ran with it. If you can't get the right thing to happen in the right way, then get the right thing to happen in slightly not the right way. What, you always want liberals to bring a knife to a gunfight? Frankly, there's been way too much shrinking back by progressives from advocating strong positions, in a strong way, simply because conservatives mis-use that approach.
- AllanL5
August 16, 2011 at 9:29am
I think your comment could be better aimed at Perry's attack on Bernanke, or the Tea-Party attack on the ACA, or Bachmann's attack on Obama. What, it's okay when Republicans do it, because that's what Republicans do, but Democrats should "tread a higher ground"? Yeah, that's how Democrats lost the House in 2010, that's how Democrats extended the Bush tax-cuts, that's how "spending for Recovery" got a bad name. One thing you missed -- the truth. When Republicans do it, they're mis-characterizing what Democrats really believe. In this instance, Think Progress is characterizing what Mitt DOES believe. To me, that makes a huge difference.
- AllanL5
August 16, 2011 at 9:33am
Good Lord. Most Americans don't agree with what he said, even in context. I don't see the context helping much. In any case, it's consonant with his view of the world, and illustrates how his worldview diverges from that of most people. As hackery goes, this is much more like pointing out that Perry joked about secession than anything approaching swifboating.
- miceelf
August 16, 2011 at 9:49am
- I have no problem if individuals or groups who are not speaking behalf of the DNC or Obama pile on the various candidates in the GOP primary. Yes, Define Them Early & Define Them Often is necessary, each campaign on the right will be doing it and getting in the weeds to defend the legal rights of corporations isn't a way to win fans. Zeitlin is probably over thinking Think Progress and the paragraph that begins "A good way to understand..." was a failed attempt to explain. As long as we don't attempt to pick a winner they're all an enemy of our enemy and the lack of a Democratic primary affords us the luxury of gumming up their works. Join them in the bruising of each other and "the reality of what happened" won't be addressed until books are written after the general election.
- michaelg
August 16, 2011 at 9:53am
Romney has a big megaphone. If he wants to explain that, no, he doesn't believe in the legal doctrine of corporate personhood -- and therefore he thinks "Citizens United" and the like were mistakes -- nothing's stopping him. If he does and ThinkProgress fails to note it, then maybe you'll have a point. Meanwhile, it's not really the job of his political opponents to help him express what he really meant.
- Jeff_Smith
August 16, 2011 at 10:06am
I have to admit, Romney doesn't get a pass on this. It's a lost argument. And oddly, I think Ron Paul explains it very well. And we all know corporations love to pass the costs on to the consumer, but that doesn't mean raising corporate tax rates is taxing people either. All it means is people will have to reassess their priorities to determine if they wish to continue purchasing a corporation's product or services; and with peoples' dollars getting stretched harder and harder, it really just means corporations losing customers when the price of their product or service becomes unaffordable.
- GSpinks
August 16, 2011 at 10:10am
that Romney was clearly referring to the incidence of corporate taxes—which are ultimately borne by people oh eat me. The question is what people? Citgo is owned by Venezuela with the revenue flowing into Chavez's pockets, is Romney all so fired up and concerned that Chavez will get less profits? I say hang Romney by the balls for this statement in every manner possible, run an add showing Chavez face and state that Romney doesn't want him to pay any taxes on profits made in the US. Lets bury the bastard now.
- blackton
August 16, 2011 at 10:49am
I am disappointed to learn that Perry was only joking about Texas secession. He raised my hopes, and now they have been dashed. Blackton is quite right, as is Allan. It's been more like bringing a peashooter to a knife fight. Time for Democrats to grow up and learn that modern politics is (still) a dirty business. If Democrats insist on being pure, political pacifists, the only outcome is that we lose and the world is very much the worse for it in ways that should concern us a lot more than whether someone is being mean to Mitt Romney.
- roidubouloi
August 16, 2011 at 11:03am
Yes, I'm comfortable with it. But that's because this isn't hackery. You've made the same mistake Chait made. The essence of Romney's response was that corporations (and the wealthy people that actually get most of the profits) shouldn't have to contribute to balancing our budget. The fact that the statement is actually reflective of another of his beliefs--legal corporate personhood--is another legitimate reason for hammering him. Romney deserves the approbation.
- polcereal
August 16, 2011 at 11:50am
Exhibit A in why Democrats have a messaging problem - their own "base" rips into them over the smallest things. If Zeitlin believes that Romney doesn't think that corporations don't deserve the protections afforded to individuals as a legal question he'd do better by stating that. Instead he perversely attempts to make the case that Romney is being quoted "out of context". If neither Romney or Zeitlin understand that the "legal" question is exactly what most people think of in the wake of Citizen's United, then they should get out more. Splitting hairs over tax burden is absurd. As for "Liberals, on the other hand, have the mainstream media, which is largely composed of liberal-leaning individuals" - what? These liberal-leaning individuals sure seem to be able to control their liberal leaning in their output, rendering the observation useless. The idea that the MSM (as a group) has a "liberal agenda" is one of the most ridiculous right wing complaints out there. And unless I'm mistaken, all of these liberal-leaning individuals work for editors, who, surveys show time and time again, cannot be described as liberal leaning shall we say.
- Nari224
August 16, 2011 at 11:53am
It is about as surprising that liberal hacks out here support liberal hackery as it is that Rick Perry is acting like a crazed theocrat (his lynching remark show he is not ready for prime time). So, Allan, your cynical position is that truth is not an effective weapon, that the left has to resort to lex talionis? And the cynical roid lines up behind you, like iron filings on a magnet. Y'all who have blabbered endlessly about the Republicans living in a fantasy land, trashing science, elevating lying to a new art form and who also talk like Allan does here, are colossal BSer's. But what else is new?
- liberalref
August 16, 2011 at 1:01pm
Your comment is preposterous, Nari. The New Republic is not of the Democratic base, it is a highbrow journal, and a rare political organ that attempts to be fair. Truth and fairness don't ever have much of a constituency, haven't you noticed?
- liberalref
August 16, 2011 at 1:05pm
You're ignoring the fact, libref, that (as has been pointed out by others) the undeniable truth is that Romney does in fact believe that corporations should be treated as legal persons. Thus the issue of misrepresentation is a complete red herring here.
- ironyroad
August 16, 2011 at 1:20pm
libref is also ignoring the fact that political messaging is not a "highbrow" discussion. Most voters don't read a journal like TNR at any time in their lives. They hear soundbite-based arguments and see internet or newspaper headlines, period. Think Progress, et al are not lying or making up facts. They are just hoisting the cynical bastard on his own petard. Count me as an "iron filing" who thinks it's a darn good idea.
- appleton
August 16, 2011 at 1:36pm
Firm gives $1 million to pro-Romney group, then dissolves http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44011308/ns/politics-decision_2012/t/firm-gives-million-pro-romney-group-then-dissolves/#.Tkk-kILaiSo "A mystery company that pumped $1 million into a political committee backing Mitt Romney has been dissolved just months after it was formed, leaving few clues as to who was behind one of the biggest contributions yet of the 2012 presidential campaign."
- wkwami
August 16, 2011 at 4:41pm
libref - I might indeed be using "Democrat" and "Liberal" a little too interchangeably there, but I'll leave it to Foer to describe why I feel TNR is part of the Liberal/Democat base: (from the wiki page) Recently departed editor Franklin Foer describes the magazine overall as such, stating that TNR "invented the modern usage of the term liberal, and it’s one of our historical legacies and obligations to be involved in the ongoing debate over what exactly liberalism means and stands for." As for your comment about truth and fairness, it appears that you didn't read much of my post beyond the first line. Zeitlin, Chait and yourself all clearly feel that it is very obvious what Romney was talking about. Frankly I don't agree that it's that clear; Romney could have replied in many other ways that would have actually made more sense, but he chose to say "Corporations are people". Zeitlin even concedes that it's a Kinsley gaffe, the definition of which is that you are publicly saying something you privately believe but wouldn't normally say in public! Are you saying you know what Romney thinks and what he doesn't?
- Nari224
August 16, 2011 at 8:59pm