THE PLANK NOVEMBER 6, 2009
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Matthew Continetti's editorial in last week's issue of the Weekly Standard--"The Inevitability Myth: Health care reform is not a fait accompli"--makes the case that, despite all evidence, health care reform may not be enacted after all. (Continetti does concede that "the chances of some sort of health bill passing, at some point, are by no means negligible." So he's telling us there's a chance.)
This sort of argument is actually the signature style of the Standard. A magazine like National Review specializes in making the case for conservative ideas. The Standard's contribution is to assert over and over that Republicans are succeeding, or at least doing better than you think they are. The idea is to buck up your side and encourage them to keep fighting, in order to ward off the self-defeating psychology of losing.
It's unclear to me why the subscribers of that magazine pay money to be the subjects of a disinformation campaign. To be sure, like any stopped clock, sometimes the Standard gets it right. But there's a distinctly Pravda-esque feel to the political coverage that makes back reading an enjoyable experience. With help from Noah Kristula-Green, I pulled together some examples:
Date: 09/29/2008
Headline: The GOP Brand: It's hot again.
The Good News: "While McCain may win the presidency, Republicans aren't likely to recapture either the Senate or the House. Their aim is to cut their losses--to fewer than 10 in the House and 3 or 4 in the Senate--and hope for better times in 2010. With their new and improved brand, they have at least a shot at this.
"It may seem far-fetched, but President Bush has helped. As Democrats have tried to tie McCain to him, Bush has mostly stayed out of the limelight."
Date: 04/28/2009 (This wasn't published in TWS, but it was written by its editor, Bill Kristol.)
Headline: Good News for Republicans!
The Good News: "I wonder if today’s Arlen Specter party switch, this time to the president’s party, won’t end up being bad for President Obama and the Democrats."
Date: 10/20/2008
Headline: A Done Deal? Pundits prematurely declare victory for Obama.
The Good News: "This is a close race and McCain is a wily underdog. More important, perhaps, he's an underdog who is often helped by outside events. The success of the surge strategy in Iraq helped McCain win the GOP nod. Over the last month, the financial crisis and McCain's haphazard response to it all but torpedoed his chances to win the presidency. But now, thanks to a global effort, the immediate crisis seems to have passed, and the worst seems to have been avoided. Yes, we are probably in a recession, and there are tough economic times ahead. But the sense of impending economic collapse has faded. And that helps McCain."
Date: 10/13/2008
Headline: Palin Comes Out Swinging: And keeps hope alive for McCain.
The Good News: "Sarah Palin's scintillating success in last week's vice presidential debate with Joe Biden has made her an enormous asset (again) to John McCain's bid for the presidency. ...
"McCain should feel vindicated. His choice of Palin as his running mate has turned out extraordinarily well. There's never been a national candidate like her, a mother of five from the boondocks who grins as she skewers her opponents. More important, she's given a significant gift to McCain. She's improved his chances of winning."
Date: 11/19/2007
Headline: Off-Year Blues... But next year, Republicans might be singing a happier tune.
The Good News: "Republicans lost the governorship of Kentucky and the state senate in Virginia last week. But the elections were not as bad as they looked for Republicans. Knocked down and trampled on by Democrats in 2006, Republicans are at least back on their feet in 2007. ...
"The Republican brand. It is [sic] a far from what it once was, particularly in Virginia, but it appears to be gradually regaining respectability.
"Taxes. The tax issue--no, the anti-tax issue--wasn't a factor in the 2006 election, but it's coming back."
Date: 10/22/2007
Headline: Cheer Up! Republicans are too gloomy.
The Good News: "In that real world, conservative policies are working fine, and liberals are providing little in the way of alternatives. The Bush tax cuts have been thoroughly vindicated: National wealth is up, unemployment is down, and the federal deficit is lower than the day the 2003 tax cuts were passed (though the Bush administration seems incapable of explaining any of this). ...
"The Democratic nominee looks likely to be either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Hillary is furiously triangulating (it's a family tradition), criticizing Obama for saying he'd meet with the Iranian mullahs and then saying she would, voting for a hawkish resolution on Iran then cosponsoring a dovish one. But even Bill's triangulation got him only 43 percent of the vote in 1992 and 49 percent in 1996--and in terms of political skills, Hillary's no Bill. Obama, for his part, seems no more experienced in dealing with serious affairs of state than Jimmy Carter did in 1975. Obama could conceivably follow in Carter's footsteps and get the nomination--but America learns from her mistakes.
"That's partly because the GOP nominee will be stronger than Gerald Ford (with all due respect to the memory of that decent man, who would have been a better president than Carter). While a half-term senator and a one-term senator fight it out for the Democratic nomination, the GOP candidates include an experienced senator who's a war hero, the most successful political chief executive in recent times, an impressive businessman/governor, and a canny lawyer/senator/actor with Washington experience and a nice, middle-American background and manner.
"Here's what's likely to happen: When the nominees are selected next year, the Republican will be behind--just as the GOP nominee trailed, at various times, in the 1980, 1988, 2000, and 2004 campaigns. Then the Republican will rally and probably win."
Date: 07/30/2007
Headline: An Unusually Effective Minority: Bush and the congressional GOP embarrass the Democrats.
The Good News: "The biggest surprise in Washington in 2007 is who's turned out to be the strongest force in town. It's not Democrats, though they control the House and the Senate. It's not a bipartisan alliance of moderates, who often imagine themselves as pivotal but never are. And it's certainly not a conservative coalition, if only because there aren't enough conservative Democrats in Congress to fill a closet at the Heritage Foundation. The most powerful group is President Bush and congressional Republicans.
"But of course, you say. A Republican president and Republican legislators are a natural coalition. Except not in this case. After the calamitous 2006 election, there was no love lost between the White House and Republicans on Capitol Hill. Republicans blamed Bush for losing Congress, while he and his aides felt congressional Republicans had largely brought disaster on themselves. Full-scale cooperation seemed unlikely. But it's happened. True, Bush and the Republicans aren't dominant. They're a minority, but an unusually effective one. One measure of this: At the end of 2007, there will be more American troops in Iraq than when Democrats took over Congress in January. Another: Democrats have momentum on no domestic issue, not even health care. A third: Senate Republicans last week defeated an amendment urging Bush not to pardon former White House aide Scooter Libby and won overwhelming passage of another that says terrorists jailed at Guantánamo shouldn't be transferred to U.S. soil."
Date: 08/26/2006
Headline: Snatching Victory: Republicans can still salvage the midterm elections.
The Good News: "You could almost hear cheers of joy coming from the White House. President Bush, it seems, is back, no longer hopelessly unpopular and embattled. You could see a renewed vigor in Bush's bracing defense last week of his Iraq policy and his warning of the geopolitical disaster that would follow a pullout (or "redeployment" as Democrats call it). And you could even see it in polls. In a polling slump since Hurricane Katrina struck a year ago, Bush's job approval was back in the 40s again--42 percent in the Gallup, Hotline, Rasmussen, and CNN surveys--and rising.
"That wasn't all. The closely watched "generic ballot" suggested congressional Republicans may yet avert disaster on November 7. This measures whether voters want a Democrat or a Republican to represent them in Congress. It is a flawed yardstick and has never been reliably predictive."
Date: 07/17/2006
Headline: The Bush Bounce: He's only part way back.
The Good News: "There's joy at the White House again and less anxiety among Republicans in Congress. The excesses of the press and Supreme Court are bringing Bush and rebellious conservatives closer together. Iraq is better off. The American economy is humming. The White House has made no harmful missteps. And the president's job approval rating is rising. ...
"At worst, Bush has bottomed out. At best, he's on his way to renewed popularity."
Date: 06/14/2006
Headline: Don't Call It a Comeback . . . But the president is making gains toward a political recovery.
The Good News: "Presidents rarely recover from second term slumps, but President Bush may be on the verge of at least a modest upturn and perhaps a strong recovery. For sure, his plunge in job approval over the past year has been halted. He's bottomed out."
Date: 10/31/2005
Headline: The Left's Cruelest Month: October was supposed to be the month that marked the meltdown of the Bush administration.
The Good News: "October, 2005 will turn out to be the left's cruelest month since . . . well, in a long time. A couple of weeks in, it seemed so promising. October was going to be the month that would mark the meltdown of the loathed Bush presidency. Iraq was failing, gas prices were rising, a weak Supreme Court nominee was under assault, and the White House was under siege from a special prosecutor. What more could a Bush-hater want?
"But it was a false dawn for the left. On October 15, the Iraqi people voted for the second time this year, and progress--slow and difficult--gradually became visible on the ground. The economy, it turned out, was chugging along at a 3.8 percent growth rate. Harriet Miers withdrew--and President Bush followed that foul ball with a home run in the impressive person of Judge Samuel Alito. And the special prosecutor produced only one indictment, and one that will lead no further than a trial focused on what Scooter Libby said or didn't say to three journalists."
Date: 06/17/2005
Headline: Popularity Isn't Everything. From the June 16, 2005 Wall Street Journal: Perspective on the president's waning poll numbers.
The Good News: "Bush doesn't have the second-term blues, his administration hasn't lost its zeal, and he hasn't been troubled by scandal or the lack of a clear policy agenda. Nor is he suffering solely from his single-minded pursuit of Social Security reform. Like Schwarzenegger, the president has taken on a string of big issues--Iraq, a drastic foreign-policy overhaul, judges, plus Social Security--with predictable results. These are issues that generate political conflict. They upset settled practice, rile various institutions, stir strong opposition, and keep poll ratings low. For an activist president, lack of popularity is part of the package.
"Crossing the finish line of his presidency with record low popularity may turn out to be a sign of substantive achievement and lasting reform."
8 comments
"The Weekly Standard, Where It's Always Good News For Republicans" Or as they put it over at The Weekly Standard: "The New Republic, Where It's Always Good News For Democrats" Democrats. Republicans. Liberals. Conservatives. The pretense from both camps being that, re economic and foreign policy, they are vastly at odds. Well, sure, maybe at the extremes they are. The right wing nuts want nothing less than pure unadultrated libertarian capitalism [wih a dash of John Galt], while the left wing nuts want nothing less than the dismantling of Wall Street. And, admittedly, there are many more right wing nuts at TWS than there are left wing nuts at TNR. But overall both camps still reflect the view that state capitalism plays but a small part in the overall scheme of things that is America's political economy. And some may even believe this, uh, literally? george
- iambiguous
November 6, 2009 at 2:31am
Jon, Good observations. I believe that the WS is just like Fox, it's goal is to cheerlead for the GOP. I do agree that the NR is more about conservative ideas and from the few times that I have read that rag, the fealty to the GOP is not as pronounced. George, I completely disagree with you about tnr. tnr is about liberal ideas so more often than not, it's positions align with Democratic positions but to say that tnr is analogous to the WS in the sense that it never criticizes Democrats and only offers visions of Democratic Valhalla is simply inaccurate. Just go over to the Spine - which you do on a quotidian basis from what I read - and you can see that that entire section of the magazine is pretty much dedicated to an ideological opposition to nearly every Democratic foreign policy position. (I think they're all nutters but that is not the point). tnr is valuable, at least from my perspective, because it's fealty is to the ideas and not necessarily to the Democratic party and that is what makes it the best political magazine around and I have read them all.
- MrCookie1
November 6, 2009 at 9:28am
I wouldn't quite put the halo around TNR as compared to TWS. I don't have the time or the inclination, but I suspect some energetic staffer at TWS could go back over the years and find numerous examples of TNR engaging in pure political spin that just happens to be favorable to the Democratic party. However, the effort would be lost on me as I wouldn't read it just like I didn't really read this article, just kinda glanced down the page. What keeps me coming back to TNR is, frankly, the comments from the regular gang of readers/posters, especially in the area of foreign policy. I find that the thoughtfulness of the comments and the insight provided is, most of the time, better than the article in TNR on which the comments are based. Throw on top of that the, sometimes, passionate exchanges and it makes for extremely interesting reading with my coffee in the morning. I don't always agree with you guys, but I almost always learn something.
- nacnud1
November 6, 2009 at 10:25am
ha, c'mon Cookie, you don't view the people at the Spine as all nutters with the exception of Marty, at lot of posters are bombastic and caustic, but I can't think of any who would be classified as nutters. I have seen you engaged in long and thoughtful discussions with practically everyone there. And you are right about TNR, Marty engages in piss fights with his staff on his own blog, so it shows the ideological diversity here.
- blackton
November 6, 2009 at 10:32am
As one who gets both TNR and the WS, I find that neither publication is as hard on their side as they might be. TNR used to be a lot harder on Dems than it is these days. I agree with nacnud - our discussions are better than the articles themselves a good bit of the time.
- butchie b
November 6, 2009 at 10:51am
Butchie, they're not as hard on Dems because Dems are doing mostly what TNR wants them to be doing (i.e., centrist health care reform, reasonable tax and business policies, education reform that doesn't hold teacher's unions sacrosanct, etc.). They used to be a lot harder on Dems in the pre-Clinton days, but that's because the party had not yet reformed out of its calcified post-Great Society positions. And TNR is hard on Dems where the party dithers, such as ethics reform or financial sector regulation. As I recall, TWS was not that hard on Republicans during the Bush years because they were doing exactly what TWS wanted them to do.
- wildboy
November 6, 2009 at 11:03am
The New Republic, Where It's Always Good News For Israel. Dissent from TNRs Pravda-like take on all matters Israeli is Jon Chait saying he likes Labour.
- ndmackenzie
November 6, 2009 at 2:41pm
cookie: George, I completely disagree with you about tnr. tnr is about liberal ideas so more often than not, it's positions align with Democratic positions but to say that tnr is analogous to the WS in the sense that it never criticizes Democrats and only offers visions of Democratic Valhalla is simply inaccurate. gw: My point [as always] is to suggest the mainstream media [and in this day and age TWS is actually considered to be a part of that!!] are so obsessed with dividing the world between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, they simply refuse to acknowledge the extent to which both camps are squarely embedded in the same narrative regarding basic economic and foreign policy agendas. They are both deeply intertwined...strategically...in pursuing what is in the best interest of Wall Street at home and abroad. Their differences are mostly tactical. Is either camp prepared to dismantle the revolving doors, strictly limit the role of lobbyists, enact far reaching, effective and enforcable campaign finance reform legislation? Nope. Not even close. A suggestion: Read a good book on political economy. Then connect the dots between that and the junctures of economic and political power that incestuously connect Washington and New York. Now, having done that, follow legislation like health care "reform", finance "reform", environmental and energy "reform" etc. from a whole other perspective. From the perspective of, say, reality? At the same time, here is another vantage point [from a recent Schieber post talkback] from which I see the mainstream media in America: ....what do all pundits in the mainstream media [liberal, moderate and conservative] share in common by and large: A world of words. They live and breath them don't they? First thing in the morning the Times, Post and the Journal are read. Then all the thousands of words on all The Blogs are digested. Isn't that the basic framework? They all read each others articles, op-eds and editorials. True or not? The words are connected to other words. They define and defend them. They use the definitions and the meanings to analyze everything. They analyze everything in order to tell us what things mean. And there are really only two narratives that count here: the liberal/democrat agenda and the conservative/republican agenda. So: You and I view these things in very different ways, don't we? Oh, and what political magazines have you read that go outside...far outside....the mainstream narratives above? Either left or right. Just curious. george
- iambiguous
November 6, 2009 at 7:52pm