I won't lie to you, gentle reader(s); at one point in my life, I really enjoyed Keith Olbermann. Of course, it's been several years since I've owned a TV, so I didn't really watch full shows, and I'm not sure that what I loved was really an accurate representation of Olbermann, but what I knew I enjoyed and respected. Every month or so, I'd come across some Edward R. Murrow-esque special comment, replete with multisyllabic words and alliteration, and I'd go all googly-eyed.
I think I enjoyed these not only for their eloquence (and for the gooey feeling I get when I think of Edward R. Murrow), but because it seemed to be above the back-and-forth banality of the rest of broadcast punditry. He spoke about torture and executive abuses and divorced it from politics. Of course, then he started making special comments every other day about every issue under the sun, and started getting involved in the he-said, she-said debates of the primary, and he started to seem less like Edward R. Murrow and more like a cable bloviator--albeit one with whom I tended to agree. Of course, I can get punditry from people with whom I agree and not have to deal with the obnoxiousness of a cable bloviator if I just go online, so that's what I started to do.
And that's the story of why I didn't really give a shit that Jon Stewart started using Olbermann as a punching bag. It lacks the deliciousness of Stewart's attacks on conservatives (I only say that because I'm a liberal), but it was funny and well-deserved nonetheless, and though I had some reservations because, as bad as Olbermann is, he's not the liberal equivalent of Glenn Beck or Bill O'Riely (yes, all three are cable bloviators, but, no, Olbermann doesn't peddle in conspiracy theories and take part in eliminationist rhetoric).
So, when Olbermann actually apologized for his over-the-top comments on Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown, I was pleasantly surprised. Of course, even watching the clip, I couldn't help but notice that Olbermann's something of a self-absorbed bloviator, but at least he apologized, which is just another reason why Olbermann is a hell of a lot better than a "liberal Beck," and just another reason why MSNBC is a hell of a lot better than a "liberal Fox." See for yourself (via Michael Scherer at Swampland):
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
It should come as no surprise to you that David Brooks writes stupid columns (nor should it come as a surprise that I write a shitload about David Brooks writing stupid columns), but his latest is not only stupid but speciously so. Apperently. Ezra Klein, who's normally quite incisive missed the strawman arguments and fallacies of false equivalence in Brook's latest burning heap of stupidity. Klein writes:
I don't agree with everything in David Brooks's column on populism, but this is a smart distillation of what populist campaign rhetoric translates to in Washington:Populism is popular with the ruling class. Ever since I started covering politics, the Democratic ruling class has been driven by one fantasy: that voters will get so furious at people with M.B.A.’s that they will hand power to people with Ph.D.’s. The Republican ruling class has been driven by the fantasy that voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s. Members of the ruling class love populism because they think it will help their section of the elite gain power.
I'm probably too hard on Klein; it's true that many beltway Democrats are that condescending, but but they tend to side with Republicans that "voters will get so furious at people with Ph.D.’s that they will hand power to people with M.B.A.’s." I'm looking at you Evan Bayh.
Of course they will say that and shake their heads sadly, and then vote with Republicans because "that's what the country wants" (even thought it's not) and because "we might as well not even try" (because they're political cowards). But I digress.
What is it that's so stupid about Brooks's argument? Well, first there's the blatent assertion that the important thing about the populism debate is identity politics. I'll readily concede that both Republicans and Democrats play identity politics, but whereas the Republicans only have identity politics, Democrats tend to back there's up with actual substance.
Brooks writes dismissively:
Both attitudes will always be with us, but these days populism is in vogue. The Republicans have their populists. Sarah Palin has been known to divide the country between the real Americans and the cultural elites. And the Democrats have their populists. Since the defeat in Massachusetts, many Democrats have apparently decided that their party has to mimic the rhetoric of John Edwards’s presidential campaign. They’ve taken to dividing the country into two supposedly separate groups — real Americans who live on Main Street and the insidious interests of Wall Street.
It's true, of course, that both Palin and Edwards use identity politics. Edwards talks about his poverty-stricken upbringing, and Palin talks about being a Real American. The difference is that Palin's policies wouldn't help Americans, real or otherwise, and Edwards's would.
That's the key distinction in the populism wars, and the thing that Brooks doesn't seem to grasp: populist rhetoric is only bad when it's hypocritical. There's nothing wrong with saying you're going to fight for the little guy, as long as you're actually going to fight for the little guy--they could use it.
And for all Brooks's glibness over PhDs and MBAs, the truth is that educated people can fight for the little guy, and the PhDs good Democrats want to be setting policy would. Look no further than Krugman. That which Republicans use to discredit PhDs is purely ID politics: PhDs are not like you; they're pussies. That which Democrats use to discredit MBAs is by-and-large true: The MBAs on Wall Street want to screw you out of money.
So, Mr. Brooks, spare me the false equivalence. And spare me the strawman; you write:
That’s because voters aren’t as stupid as the populists imagine. Voters are capable of holding two ideas in their heads at one time: First, that the rich and the powerful do rig the game in their own favor; and second, that simply bashing the rich and the powerful will still not solve the country’s problems.
The populism espoused by Democrats isn't just "bashing"; it's policy that will genuinely help middle- and lower-class Americans.
the basic finding is not that there aren't plenty of people calling themselves "independents." It's that most of them are as predictably partisan as everyone else.
I buy it. Of course the question is, why is it that the media "coninual[ly] talk[s] about independents as if they're some giant, dominant, bloc," when, in truth most of the electorate is partisan to a pretty big degree?
If I might venture a response: the media likes the idea of independants because partisanship is icky--particularly when they're partisan Democrats. The only people worth anything are Real Americans, who are independent, hearty, salt-of-the-earth types. This means Republicans and independents who are actually Republicans. Occasionally it means culturally conservative Democrats (remember the Pennsylvania primary?). It doesn't mean urban blacks--rich or poor. It doesn't mean urban professionals. It doesn't mean urbanites of any sort. Of course, that's a key Democratic constituency. It means suburbanites--if they're white and "independent."
You see, partisanship is icky, and a purely beltway phenomenon (according to CW). In order to demonstrate that they're not beltway, media folks like to imagine themselves as divorced from partisanship, so they obsess over Real Americans, who are, of course, independents and culturally conservative.
I'll admit, I don't have a lot of evidence for this, but if you want a little, think about Chris Matthews bloviating about Obama's bowling score and orange juice choices, because that proved that he wasn't a Real American. Of course, neither of those things says anything about being a Real (or to use Matthews's word) Average American. It shows he doesn't bowl well and he likes OJ. But, since the truth is that most of the media and pundocracy is thoroughly beltway, they come up with meaningless signifiers of what they imagine Real America to be like, and then beat the shit out of those icky parisans who don't fit that bill.
Well this has turned into a semi-incoherent rant. I think that means it's time for me to call it a post and hit publish.
Sorry about that.
