The Problematics of Punditry

Thomas Edsall's latest piece for TNR is, I think, a great example of why the sort of "interested in ideas" / "interested in consequences" dichotomy that Jon Chait in part relies on in his article on the netroots doesn't really hold up. What Edsall thinks, it seems to me, is that when Harry Reid made is "war is lost" comment he raised the stakes in an unnecessarily risky way under circumstances where it would have been better to say something like "Bush has lost the war." The claim that "Bush has lost the war" is a more politically effective message than "the war is lost" seems reasonable, and writing a column on that subject is a reasonable thing to do.

Still, that insight radically underdetermines what your column will say. Edsall's column could have noted what Reid said, noted that it provided the fodder for right-wing attacks, and then defended Reid by saying "but of course Reid was right -- the war is lost, the Bush administration lost the war, and the right is on the warpath because they know Reid is in the neighborhood of a message that will devastate the GOP in 2008: Bush lost the war, and John McCain (or Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson) and the entire Republican congress clapped from the sidelines while he did it." Alternatively, you could write the column Edsall actually did write, which is full of lamenting Reid's boneheaded political error, piling on with those calling Reid a blunderer, etc., etc., etc. The two columns are both based around the same thesis about the Iraq War and national security, but one is a pro-Reid "fighting Dems" kind of column and the other is an anti-Reid "concern troll" kind of column.

It would be silly to pretend that Edsall isn't aware of the different consequences that these different columns will have. These consequences, moreover, extend beyond the political sphere to things writers are more likely to care about like their actual careers. Thus, it's just Edsall's penchant for spinning substantively left-of-center views into attacks on Democratic elected officials that does things like earn him praise from Mickey Kaus as "one of the subtlest and best-informed political reporters around--and a Democrat allergic to bogus Dem optimism." The bulk of the incentive structure points, in my experience, to writing the column the way Edsall did, rather than in the pro-Reid manner. The point, however, is that what one believes to be accurate about Iraq and Iraq-related political messaging does surprisingly little to constrain the tone and basic orientation of one's columns on the subject. What's more, while "Dems who bash Dems" like to think of a bias in that direction as an act of bold truth telling, the fact is that the balance of power is on the other side; praising the courage of someone with the guts to knock Harry Reid in these circumstances is like hailing someone who fires on unarmed demonstrators for speaking truth to power.

Comments

Actually, Edsall's column will have no effect whatsoever on anyone.

It is the proverbial tree falling in the forest.

Broder's attsack, if done with even a hint of intelligence, couldhave hurt. But Broder blew his attempted broadside by bringing in Gonzales.

Tho Edsall in TNR is utterly without a prayer of having an impact.

Posted by Armando | May 2, 2007 9:01 AM

I found Chait's article fascinating. I think he nailed a lot of things, but I also think he made a number of mistakes. This is one of them.

Chait did not emphasize the degree to which the netroots are specifically anti-war/anti-occupation on Iraq. Not a single one of the major Leftist players has been pro-occupation for years. However, anyone following the netroots knows that Marshall, Yglesias, Drum, etc. all came to that position through thoughtful deliberation. Atrios and Kos opposed it based on reasoned thinking about the War.

When many of us rail against "interested in ideas", we're railing against an attitude that the Iraq War issue was an opportunity to talk about whether preventive war or military democratization is ever theoretically acceptable. TNR and other MSM organizations featured tons of "Liberals" talking about how this war could be good if done in X way. But X way obviously required a number of troops which were not available to us. And the netroots opposition was built on realities like that.

Does that make us less interested in ideas? Or does it make us more reality-based?

Posted by MDtoMN | May 2, 2007 9:22 AM

Is "problematics" a real word?

Posted by James Gary | May 2, 2007 9:41 AM

praising the courage of someone with the guts to knock Harry Reid in these circumstances is like hailing someone who fires on unarmed demonstrators for speaking truth to power.

Very nice. Maybe your best since the Green Lantern thing. Not as good, obviously--no costumes. But quite nice.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 2, 2007 10:09 AM

This part of Edsall's piece is no end of frustrating, because he leaves out a crucial counterargument.

Edsall: "Second, Reid's statement put some of his own troops--Democratic senators--at risk. Democratic Senators Mary Landrieu (from Louisiana), Tom Harkin (from Iowa), and Jay Rockefeller (from West Virginia), who are all up for re-election in 2008, each became the target of a National Republican Senatorial Committee television ad."

SUSA: Harkin Approval-Disapproval:
November 2006: 53-40
April 2007: 57-38

There is no SUSA data for Landrieu or Rockefeller. Seriously, though, Edsall must have known about this poll, and chose not to mention it, which is just poor journalism.

Posted by jfaberuiuc | May 2, 2007 10:18 AM

Edsall's preference - that Bush lost the war - nicely dovetails with the (former) owner of TNR's preference for a nice little war on Iran. One doesn't want to say anything mean about war - for instance, that this war would have been lost by any president stupid enough to invade Iraq in the first place, or that of the three countries that we know of who helped al qaeda, afghanistan, pakistan and saudi arabia, we invaded one, paid tribute to the other, and have been bending in every way possible to please the third, while we really unleashed our weapons on a bystander. Rather, we want to put the war to one side as just the nicest little vehicle you could have, all bright and shiny in the days that Peter Beinart was selling it, until that Texan got behind the wheel and stripped the gears.

So it is no wonder Edsall is a Kaus favorite. Horrendous reactionary policies, but with a contrarian twist. Reid's statement implies that wars have a downside - which will make the next one oh so much harder to sleaze by the American public.

Posted by roger | May 2, 2007 10:26 AM

I’m becoming minorly obsessed with how annoying it is to criticize the political skills of leaders because of one quote out of context. Leading politicians say thousands of things a week. Harry Reid’s full quote was: “As long as we follow the President’s path in Iraq, the war is lost.” Not a bad line by any means.

But hey, reporters pick up the controversial part of that sentence, right-wingers spin it, and liberal bloggers tut-tut their leaders for falling for this “trap”. It’s outright distortion! If anyone had every single thing they said twisted and blown-up, they’d look like a buffoon. And the effect is that the other 99% of what our leaders say has to be mealy-mouthed, unspinnable talking points so that they won’t be taken out of context again.

If you want to criticize Harry Reid, there are plenty of things to focus on, in his Senate strategy. Being a victim of the modern "love-canal" out of context media isn't one of them.

Posted by Tony V | May 2, 2007 11:23 AM

The talking to one's-self comment structure got fixed! Nice work.

Posted by washerdreyer | May 2, 2007 12:35 PM

This post brings to mind something that continually bugs me.

Bush did not lose this war by himself.
The entire sycophantic Republican machine lost this war.
If there had been anything remotely resembling oversight and accountable, many of the early mis-steps in this conflict might have been identified and corrected.
Although I am and always have been against this war, the result was not pre-ordained and other outcomes were entirely possible.

Equally important to me, is the following fact.
Bush is not running in the next election.
Wasting our rhetorical firepower pinning responsibility for this debacle on Bush is pointless.
It is the corrupt to the core Republican machine that must be crushed in the next election.
So no playing footsie with Mitch McConnell or John Boehner coming up with a compromise solution that makes Bush look bad. Republicans hatched, raised and fed this albatross. We need to keep it wrapped around their necks.

Posted by David Helms | May 2, 2007 9:27 PM