Sheryl Stolberg Wades Into PR Flack Territory

July 22, 2009 — Jon

Today, Sheryl Gay Stolberg has one of the lazier articles I’ve seen in the New York Times in a while. Not labeled as “News Analysis,” the piece is one of those “expectation setters,” relying on frustratingly unsourced statements like, “Mr. Obama came into office promising a more bipartisan Washington tone, which he has so far been unable to achieve.” Stolberg doesn’t define what “bipartisan tone” means, fails to adduce any evidence of Obama’s failing, and provides no source — poll or individual — of the information. In other words, it’s unalloyed personal opinion.

Anyway, that sort of writing isn’t unfortunately all that uncommon, but the New York Times really shouldn’t be in the business of this type of “reporting”:

One question for Mr. Obama is whether to try to strong-arm [Blue Dog Democrats], and face a rebellion from some of the very same conservative Democrats who helped put him in office. If he forces them to vote for a bill their constituents do not like, on a timetable that feels too rushed for them, it could hurt them at home. That could mean a bigger political problem for the White House: a resulting loss of Democratic seats in the 2010 midterm elections.

I mean, is Stolberg actually on payroll as a Blue Dog flack? If not, this is really an achievement in press manipulation. Following the logic, if a Blue Dog is pushed to vote for a bill their constituents don’t like, on a schedule they don’t personally like, then the White House risks losing a few unreliable votes in 2010. By my count, there are several things that should be verified in making such a statement. First, what do the constituents actually like? Second, why should personal pique at the legislative pace anger constituents? Third, are any of these members at risk of losing their seats? Here are the members in question:

Barrow, John (GA-12)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Space, Zack (OH-18)

Now, it’s true that Obama only carried two of these districts (Barrow and Harman at 54 and 64 percent respectively), but it’s also true that not a single one of these Representatives won by less than 60 percent (66, 74, 68, 63, 100, 86, 60). In other words, it’s by no means clear that a vote on health care spells anathema for a group of highly popular legislators a year down the road. What’s more, polls show that over 70 percent of Americans support a public option, which is the one of the only specific problems that the Blue Dogs have ennumarated.  In any case, while there is some evidence that Obama isn’t particularly popular in these districts  (I wonder why?), there is plenty of evidence that Democrats are popular and that more broadly, health reform is popular. Letting the Blue Dogs off the hook is simply lazy reporting.

Posted in Media, Policy, Politics. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

More on The “Muslim World” Speech

June 2, 2009 — Jon

theworld

First of all — many thanks to Henry for stepping in. Second, I want to build on a point he makes about David Frum’s criticism of Obama’s upcoming address in Egypt.

David Frum is absolutely correct to reject the notion of addressing a unified “Muslim World,” especially by elevating Egypt’s political and cultural system as its representative. However, if the President can adeptly navigate the numerous and contradictory elements that have collectively—but not individually—defined the country’s past, he might be able to encourage a more productive dialogue concerning the diverse, and often paradoxical, elements that have similarly shaped the “Muslim World.”

Now, I think the specific argument Henry uses is a fairly convincing one, but I would also add that Frum’s argument is perfectly objectionable in its naive interpretation of the world as composed primarily of clashing ideologies. Certainly, there’s some small element of truth to this, but I think that Bush’s tragically failed efforts at democracy promotion by casting far the light of freedom has shown the limits of this thinking. That is, there’s simply no escaping the geopolitical reality that Egpyt is, as Frum correctly notes, “an important US ally.” It’s true, Egypt is hardly an examplar of social and civil liberty, but the point is that’s what we have to work with. Picking a country whose government and society more closely resemble a Western democracy might more accurately communicate our ideals, but it certainly won’t make Egypt any less strategically vital to US interests. This neoconservative instict to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and yell “la-la-la-la” does not actually remove thorny issues.

What’s more, delivering a speech in Indonesia won’t make Egypt more like Indonesia. Sure, it offers some marginal — and decidedly unconvincing — enticement for reform, but fails to account for the fact that Indonesia and Egypt have very different geopolitical considerations. Highlighting Indonesia’s more democratic society won’t change the fact that Egypt is in the Persian Gulf geopolitically resembles a Persian Gulf state and Indonesia is in the Pacific Ocean, that they have wildly different economies and interests, and that these facts have shaped their political systems.

Posted in Policy, Politics. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Steele: Obama Not “Vetted” Because He’s Black

May 22, 2009 — Jon

The irony of Michael Steele claiming that, “[Obama] was not vetted, because the press fell in love with the black man running for the office,” is of course, quite rich. But leaving that aside for a moment, I’m not even sure what exactly Steele hoped the press would uncover. If we are to interpret Steele’s meaning as that upon taking office, Americans have seen the “real” Obama and soured on him, leaving for the conservative promised land like the Jews out of Egypt, how can you explain you know, the fact that that hasn’t happened (without saying minorities don’t count)? On the other hand, we could interpret Steele’s meaning to be that Obama misrepresented himself during the campaign as unduly conservative? Many liberals have been frustrated with excessive moderation on Obama’s behalf. If Steele, or anyone else for that matter, wasn’t clear that Obama was a Democrat, suffice it to say they have bigger problems than media bias.

Posted in Politics. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Guantanamo, Forward Causality, and Other Things

May 22, 2009 — Jon

I’m not sure if David Brooks saw the same speech I did:

Obama has taken many of the same policies Bush ended up with, and he has made them credible to the country and the world. In his speech, Obama explained his decisions in a subtle and coherent way. He admitted that some problems are tough and allow no easy solution. He treated Americans as adults, and will have won their respect.

Do I wish he had been more gracious with and honest about the Bush administration officials whose policies he is benefiting from? Yes. But the bottom line is that Obama has taken a series of moderate and time-tested policy compromises. He has preserved and reformed them intelligently. He has fit them into a persuasive framework. By doing that, he has not made us less safe. He has made us more secure.

The remainder of Brooks’ column today can be best summarized as a bunch of hemming and hawing about how Obama’s policies are really quite similar to those in place when Bush left office coupled with justified praise for Obama’s rhetorical shift. Fair enough, but I’m pretty sure this passage from Obama’s speech addresses that head on.

The third decision that I made was to order a review of all pending cases at Guantanamo. I knew when I ordered Guantanamo closed that it would be difficult and complex. There are 240 people there who have now spent years in legal limbo. In dealing with this situation, we don’t have the luxury of starting from scratch. We’re cleaning up something that is, quite simply, a mess — a misguided experiment that has left in its wake a flood of legal challenges that my administration is forced to deal with on a constant, almost daily basis, and it consumes the time of government officials whose time should be spent on better protecting our country.

I know at some point people will tire of blaming Bush, but this is one of those instances where within the context of forward moving time, it’s really tough to build a compelling case against Obama. I mean, were it not for the Bush Administration’s system of willy-nilly extralegal detention, Obama could not possibly be confronting this problem.

On another related note, I know that as a progressive in good standing, I should be outraged that Obama isn’t working harder to break from Bush’s policies, but considering he has literally inherited a prison with a non-insignificant number of possible terrorists, I think the politics are stacked against him. That is, I’m not sure how Obama can simply let the subset of prisoners who are likely terrorists but also impossible to indict,  simply return to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Of course, I understand that the policy of lawlessness epitomized by the Bush Administration animates anti-American extremism, but the literal connection between the release of likely terrorists and the damage they may cause in their recidivism makes the political sell all but impossible. I think a little sympathy from progressives on this point is warranted.

Posted in Policy, Politics. Tags: , , , . 1 Comment »

Politico Again Ignores Fact, Common Sense to Sell Sensational “News”

May 20, 2009 — Jon

Ah, boy (god, man, shit), it’s been a while since I’ve ripped on Politico. This stems most directly from the fact that I simply don’t read it anymore, but I do read Spencer Ackerman who sagely points out the lunacy in a story purporting Dick Cheney and Barack Obama to be planning “dueling speeches” on national security policy. Of course, given that Politico’s rise to prominence grew with the 2008 campaign, it’s easy to see why they report on government like it’s a popularity contest, but seriously? Dick Cheney is a discredited hack and Barack Obama is the President of the United States. These speeches are not “dueling.” But even more egregious than the idiotic framing of the article is the substance, which recent public polling seems to completely and totally invalidate. Let’s go to the tape!

President Barack Obama will attempt to regain control of a boiling debate over anti-terrorism policy with a major speech on Thursday — an address that comes on the same day that former Vice President Dick Cheney will be weighing in with his own speech on the same theme.

Now while it’s certainly conventional wisdom that Republicans own “national security” — and indeed, they have for a while — it’s simply not true any more. But why take my word for it? Here’s some data (linked above), starting deep in the throes of the “Global War on Terror” in 2003:

As you can see, Democrats have steadily closed the gap while Republicans have slowly squandered their support. That’s the broader picture. But how about this “boiling debate” of which Barack Obama has lost control? That is, specifically on the question of whether Obama is doing a better job than Bush, or as Politico put it, “the only subject on which many Republicans believe they have been able to gain traction against a popular president and the Democratic majority.”

As you can see — even if Politico can’t — Obama’s policies poll better than Bush’s by roughly two to one. Naturally, the relevance of substance hasn’t much stopped Politico from writing inflammatory stories in the past, so there was no reason to expect it would stop them now, but alas, this publication is really a bad thing for American government.

Posted in Policy, Politics. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Israel: Blame Iran for Israel’s Settlements

May 4, 2009 — Jon

I’m not quite sure why this piece outlining Israeli foreign policy is labeled “News Analysis ” — there’s a lot of original reporting in the piece — but I can tell you the policy viewpoints elucidated therein are mind-bogglingly wrongheaded, and I dare say, border on stupid.

“People try to simplify the situation with these formulas: land for peace, two-state solution,” Mr. Lieberman told the newspaper. “It’s a lot more complicated.” He added that the real reason for the deadlock “is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers.” Nor, he said, is it the Palestinians. The biggest obstacle, he said, is “the Iranians.”

He, like the entire Israeli leadership, argues that since Iran sponsors Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, both of which reject Israel’s existence and seek its destruction, the key to the Palestinian solution is to defang Iran and stop it from acquiring the means to build a nuclear weapon.

There’s really a lot to grapple with here, but it’s utterly remarkable that “the entire Israeli leadership” would not stop to ask themselves why it is that Iran is capable of sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas. The answer, of course, would be anger caused by Israeli occupation, settlements, the settlers. It’s not as though Iran is just disseminating munitions willy-nilly for various groups to use out of bordem. Hezbollah and Hamas use the weapons and money because they have political grievances. If you eliminate the political grievances — and the two state solution is widely considered the best way of muting said discontent — you eliminate the need for these groups to rely on Iran in the first place. It’s a win-win: create better relations with your neighbors and isolate Iran in the process.

What’s more, even if you decide to pursue this strategy of blaming the Iranians for Israel’s illegal settlement activity, it’s not at all clear how you might actually “defang Iran and stop it from acquiring the means to build a nuclear weapon.” In the first place — how do you accomplish this defanging? Take Iran to the vet? Are they proposing invading and forcibly disarming Iran? As for a the nuclear threat, Iran already doesn’t have a nuclear weapon and still manages to create a fair number of headaches for Israel. This again demonstrates the importance of addressing the political grievances of the Palestinians. Without fixing these situations, Iran will always have proxies to torment Israel, whether they have a nuclear arsenal or not. And that’s even before we consider the utter implausibility of Iran using a nuclear weapon offensively, which is itself absurd. Finally, loudly blustering about the need to “defang” Iran will only encourage Iran to continue arming itself and expediting its nuclear program so as to best defend itself against those who wish to defang them.

I’m really at a loss for how incomprehensibly nonsensical this policy is. I really hope Obama can talk some sense into Netanyahu.

Posted in Policy, Politics. Tags: , , , , . 1 Comment »

Byron York Not Racist; Just Never Heard of How Polling Works

April 30, 2009 — Jon

Yesterday, Byron York wrote an opinion piece making the argument (?) that if you eliminate blacks from poll results, Obama’s poll numbers are lower. I put a “?” next to the word “argument,” because York is really making more of an observation with a hanging and deniable implication based on the banal point that Democrats have historically received lots of support from blacks. Anyway, York saw fit to defend the column against charges of racism.

I wrote my post because of the striking numbers in the New York Times poll.  Those numbers raise a question: What if a president were wildly popular with one group, and only middlingly popular with another group and yet was often portrayed as being hugely popular with the whole group?[...]

[...]Perhaps some people find those numbers entirely uninteresting, but I think it is entirely reasonable to point them out. It is also entirely reasonable to point out that a poll result can be shaped by an extremely high number in one component of the poll result.  It’s the old joke:  Six people are in a bar.  They’re all middle class; their average net worth is about $100,000.  Bill Gates walks in.  Seven people are in a bar; their average net worth is in the billions.  A wealthy group, right?  Internal numbers are revealing.

This argument would be really clever if it weren’t so staggeringly stupid. The obvious difference between the two scenarios — one where Obama is more popular among a certain segment of the population than another, and the other where certain segments have a grossly distorting weight — is that the opinion of one person still only counts as the opinion of one person (though York may prefer it somewhere closer to 3/5ths). For York’s analogy to work properly, Obama’s poll numbers would have had to rely disproportionately on the opinion of a particular group, which indeed, would have skewed his overall popularity numbers. But of course if pollsters did that, their product would be totally worthless. Instead, they use a fancy method called “representative sampling,” so that when they release a poll, it accurately reflects the overall population, thus making it basically impossible to “portray” results as “being hugely popular with the whole group,” without the results actually demonstrating huge popularity with the whole group. The one exception — and the point York seems to be making — is that if you don’t consider blacks to be part of the whole group, then it’s true that elections polls that include blacks overstate Obama’s popularity.

Posted in Media, Politics. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Obama Shoots For Changing Failed Cuba Policy

April 27, 2009 — Jon

So perhaps handshake-gate has passed over, as this piece in the New York Times on the Obama Administration’s plans to engage Cuba in informal talks and also begin what they hope to be an “open relationship” seems to have mostly blown over. A few points.

Mr. Obama has faced mounting pressure from Latin America and from his supporters in this country to do more to reverse the United States’ 47-year-old trade embargo against the Castro dictatorship. Cuba has become the litmus test by which many Latin American nations measure the United States’ commitment to improving relations with the region.

Indeed. The embargo against Cuba has done little but immeserate Cuban citizens over 4 decades, and yet, a Castro is still in power and the country is still communist. And just because a lot of people still have a tendency to revile at the even the passing mention of communism, it’s worth pointing out the Cold War has been over for roughly 20 years. Why some politicians envision this embargo as anything other than a misguided, if not vindictive, policy is beyond me. I’m not even sure who the constituency for this sort of demagoguery is. Which brings me to my next point.

The official said any overtures toward Cuba would be made cautiously, allowing Mr. Obama to walk a fine line between those who want to end the embargo and those who see any engagement with Cuba as making concessions to a dictatorship. The official said that the administration also wanted to be careful to make it clear that its openness to engagement with Cuba did not mean the United States would turn a blind eye to the Cuban government’s poor record on human rights.

I agree that Obama shouldn’t let walking back a moronic Cuba policy jeopardize his domestic agenda, but let’s be clear about this: the political danger stems not from Republicans, who seem to have adopted a policy of almost complete and total obstructionism. Pursuing a sensible Cuba policy will do more to provoke the ire of New Jersey Senator and Democrat Bob Menendez, who despite being otherwise reasonable, thinks the responsible course vis-a-vis Cuba entails ensuring the continued poverty of Cubans and allowing Raul Castro to correctly point out that the United States contributes directly to the indigence of Cuba’s population.

Posted in Policy, Politics. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »

Changing The Substance Changes The Tone

April 15, 2009 — Jon

You may have seen in the New York Times yesterday that the Obama Administration is openly considering dropping the precondition that Iran suspend nuclear enrichment in order to facilitate talks aimed at coaxing Iran to suspend nuclear enrichment. You might also recall that this was a relatively high-profile national security issue during the campaign, with John McCain supporting the precondition (or more — the bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) approach that had failed the Bush Administration, and Obama espousing the open, direct negotiations tact. Well, in what will hopefully stymie right wing hysteria, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad responded favorably:

TEHRAN — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said Wednesday that he was preparing a new proposal to resolve disputes with the West over Iran’s nuclear program, opening the door to talks with the United States, the official I.R.N.A. news agency reported.

Mr. Ahmadinejad said during a speech in the southeastern city of Kerman that Iran was still in the process of preparing the new package and it would be presented when it was ready, I.R.N.A. reported. He also said that Iran was willing to hold talks with the United States as long they were based on respect. “They have said they want to resolve issues through diplomatic channels and we say that this is excellent,” he was quoted as saying. “Our people favor logic, dialogue and constructive cooperation based on respect, justice and rights of nations.”

I’ll probably have more comment later, but this is definitely a positive development.

Posted in Policy, Politics. Tags: , , , . 2 Comments »

Speculation on Crazy Strategy

April 14, 2009 — Jon

I want to first state that this is entirely speculative but I was struck by something in this distressing article in the New York Times about growing collaboration between Pashtun and Taliban militants in Pakistan:

As American drone attacks disrupt strongholds of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas, the insurgents are striking deeper into Pakistan — both in retaliation and in search of new havens.

At first, I was sort of baffled by the sentence construction. That is, it seems more accurate to paint the relationship between the growing insurgency in Pakistan’s inner territories and drone attacks on the frontier regions as more directly causal, which would point to an unintended consequence of the Obama Administration’s escalation of drone attacks in Pakistan. But – and here’s where it’s entirely speculative part — what if this part of the long term strategy? What if the strategy is forcing the Pakistani government — traditionally a cagey and intractible ally in this regard — to deal with the insurgent threat by helping deliver it on the government’s doorstep? It would seem to be a pretty risky gambit, and probably too clever, but it would help create a political situation more congenial with the U.S. ultimate aim in the region.

Anyway, I sort of doubt this is the strategy, and is basically a long way of saying it seems like we ought to reconsider the efficacy of these drone attacks.

Posted in Policy. Tags: , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.