Oh, The Irony

The current Jon Chait TNR column:

The official lobby of the partisanship scolds is a group called "Unity '08"--a collection of graying eminences from both parties who are calling for a bipartisan presidential ticket, perhaps led by Bloomberg. Their rhetoric appears to be targeted at people who enjoy kittens, rainbows, and David Broder columns. Specifically, Unity '08 says its ticket will run on "ideas and traditions which unite and empower us as individuals and as a people."

Today's David Broder column:

More than that, there is a palpable hunger among the public for someone who will attack the problems facing the country -- the war in Iraq, immigration, energy, health care -- and not worry about the politics.

Uh huh. It makes you think. If only, instead of the party that's been governing the country for the past six years, there was some kind of second major party whose elected officials supported substantial policy shifts on Iraq, immigration, energy, and health care. Wouldn't that be great? It could almost make this Bloomberg business irrelevant.

Comments

Uh, Matt, President Bush is far closer to the Democrats on immigration than he is to the average Republican.

Posted by Steve Sailer | June 24, 2007 11:30 PM

Democrats have been literally written out of the script as far as the beltway crowd is concerned - they're not even on the radar screen of options. That fact is possibly the biggest reason why their recent cave-in on Iraq appropriations was so hurtful to our cause: right when people were *considering* putting them on the radar as a group to pay attention to, the Democratic leadership reinforced the beltway conviction that there's no point in listening to Democrats.

They have to crash the party; no-one's going to invite them.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | June 24, 2007 11:39 PM

Another party? Yes, that would be good. But that's just crazy talk.

Posted by Joseph | June 25, 2007 12:12 AM

Ah, look, Steve Sailer has found another nail.

Posted by Hammer | June 25, 2007 12:35 AM

"Uh, Matt, President Bush is far closer to the Democrats on immigration than he is to the average Republican."

President Bush is no longer the Republican Party, and thank goodness.

Posted by Korha | June 25, 2007 12:44 AM

More than that, there is a palpable hunger among the public for someone who will attack the problems facing the country -- the war in Iraq, immigration, energy, health care -- and not worry about the politics.

Gee, little Brody is very insightful sometimes. You betcha the hunger is indeed very palpable. Right on the money, the Dean. Right smack.

There's just one problem for the Dean of All Useless DC Insiders.

The hunger is also for torching Washington DC to the ground as a first step.

How crisp does the Dean want to be served ?

Posted by Fifi | June 25, 2007 1:24 AM

"President Bush is no longer the Republican Party, and thank goodness."

Have you watched the presidential debates?

Posted by Reality Man | June 25, 2007 1:54 AM

"... [T]here is a palpable hunger among the public for someone who will attack the problems facing the country -- the war in Iraq, immigration, energy, health care -- and not worry about the politics."

Right. As we all know, centrist political parties never worry about politics.

Parenthetically, am I the only one to notice that Broder not only writes as though he's gone senile, but -- in his Post photo -- he looks as though he has?

Posted by Brue Moomaw | June 25, 2007 2:37 AM

Other than your sarcasm where is the irony? Just sounds like run-of-the-mill idiocy to me.

Posted by Jack | June 25, 2007 2:46 AM

A second major party? Surely you jest.

Posted by Sasha | June 25, 2007 5:30 AM

So, let me see. Republicans held the reins of power in one of the most politically extreme ways for years, changing laws and appointing judges of their ilk along the way.

The Dems finally get back into power with slim majorities and within less than 5 months we hear it's suddenly "non-partisan" time.

This is a recipe not for meaningful change in government but simply a way to give the Republicans a breather while they regain their forces and plan for further lurches to the right.

Posted by leo | June 25, 2007 6:18 AM

"... [T]here is a palpable hunger among the public for someone who will attack the problems facing the country -- the war in Iraq, immigration, energy, health care -- and not worry about the politics."

This is so brain-dead. It's really nihilism.

It's precisely the great issues of the day that involve politics. That's because they have major trade-offs which by definition are political and depend on alternative views of government, industry, etc.

To declare otherwise is not simply stupid but really bad advice since by denying what's really involved, it guarantees that none of the issues will ever be resolved (which may be the intention).

Posted by leo | June 25, 2007 6:35 AM

leo nails it. The idea that something could be done about important and contentious issues without involving political considerations is asinine. Broder is either entirely ignorant of how politics works (unlikely) or he just chooses to ignore this so as to avoid descending into the fray and sullying his impeccable bipartisan credentials. He'd rather float about above it all, waving his magical wand of comity at important issues and blaming others when it fails to produce results. It's not his fault, you see, it's ours for failing to believe in the magic of bipartisanship.

Posted by Larv | June 25, 2007 7:17 AM

There has been an overt attempt to deligitimize Bush since the 2000 election. It abated for the smallest time after 9-11.

You could say that it is the largest propaganda campaign ever waged. Greater than even the campaigns carried out against our enemies in war.

The campaign has suceeded and the Bush policies local and international are seen as failures by Americans and foreigners.

I say propaganda because that is what it is. Mirriam Webster's second defintion states:

spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.

Of course number three also looks good:

ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also: a public action having such an effect

I say Propaganda because most of what is spread is misleading at best and falsehoods and lies at worst. An example is the economy. The facts are that the economy is well and growing. Employment is reasonable and excellent compared to just about any other country in the Western world.

Polling shows that a large proportion of Americans think the economy is not very good and the prospects of employment poor. The reason for the difference between fact and opinion can be placed at the feet of the propagandists.

It is unfortunate that the very people and organizations who work so hard to bring down Bush either do not understand the ramifications of their constant propaganda or worse maybe they do not care.

The effect of the propagandists efforts on America's relations around the world have been profound and will last well after Bush leaves office.

Posted by Davod | June 25, 2007 8:49 AM

I suppose, Davod, that your argument is that if everyone would have just kept their mouths shut and refrained from pointing out that the Bush presidency has been a disaster, Bush would have read that PDB in August 2001, 9/11 would have been averted, ditto the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, we wouldn't have gone from a budgetary position of surplus to doubling the debt, our international reputation would not be in the crapper, our Justice Department wouldn't have been turned into a political pawn and the people of New Orleans wouldn't have been left to fend for themselves for almost a full week following the greatest natural disaster in our history.

That sounds like what you are saying - that all of the above are just figments of some "liberal" media out to bring the president low. I wish there was a symbol for the "cuckoo, cuckoo!" sign, because brother, that's just delusional. The only real "danger" in pointing out the inescapable is that everyone will wake up and notice that this is the worst administration ever - everyone, perhaps, except for you.

As for the economy, perhaps the reason people are pessimistic is that many, perhaps most, of them are now earning less, in either real dollars or buying power, than they were 10 years ago. Wall Street doesn't take much notice of the man who can no longer afford to pay his winter heating bill or gas up his truck, but to the guy who can't afford heat or gas, it means the economy sucks. Or are higher gas and energy prices "propaganda" as well? Why not be a good soldier and go door-to-door in those poor and lower middle class neighborhoods, explaining to the people how they've been "hoodwinked" by "propagandists" into believing that things aren't better than they've ever been, rather than blathering about it on a comments board to people who know better?

Posted by Jennifer | June 25, 2007 9:09 AM

I mostly agree with Davod. This horrible propaganda campaign to injure and embarrass the Bush Administration has been relentlessly waged - by the Bush Administration!

Oh, Davod, most people don't think the economy is very good because they know the economy is not good for them. Why should I give a damn if the top 1% is making out like proverbial bandits if my situation is deteriorating or stagnant?

Posted by Jeff S. | June 25, 2007 9:11 AM

Well, Davod would know propaganda ....

Posted by Geeno | June 25, 2007 9:15 AM

I especially like the notion that Bloomberg is the one to "attack problems" (great choice of words there) like Iraq, energy, immigration and health care since in his current and only elected position he has had absolutely zero responsibility for any of them.

The rationale for Bloomberg seems to consist entirely of two items: (1) he is mayor of a big city and (2) he has not been involved in any substantive national policy disputes, since that is what his non-partisanship boils down to. If that's the standard, then maybe we could bring back David Dinkins too.

Posted by Gene | June 25, 2007 9:17 AM

Davod, what world do you live in?
Imploding real estate market (my personal experience verifies), steep increase in mortgage foreclosures, record high gas prices, millions of workers w/out healthcare coverage, rising food prices (do you do any grocery shopping?), increased cost for insurance, etc, etc.
The economy is good for those who are well off - period.

Add to this two failed wars, corrupt justice dept, secretive executive, a bought and lazy congress, a truly uninformed public (thanks to cable news); and we have a recipe for the mess we find ourselves in now.

Posted by cds | June 25, 2007 9:18 AM

CDS: Did you miss anything?

Posted by Davod | June 25, 2007 9:30 AM

Davod:

You are too funny. You write about people's perception of the economy: "The reason for the difference between fact and opinion can be placed at the feet of the propagandists" implying that you have the facts about these peoples' lives whereas they only have opinions about them.

Who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

Posted by Gene | June 25, 2007 9:35 AM

The facts are that the economy is well and growing. - Davod

Yes indeed, as Geeno notes, Davod would know propaganda. Based on carefully selected metrics, those "facts" are indeed true. However, one has too be quite wealthy to have realized the slice of the economy Davod has chosen as his universal.

Real wages have been stagnant for several years. The employment statistics have been tweaked to exclude the 'unemployable', and the employment that is booming is largely at neutral pay levels (the average joe isn't making more money).

Times are indeed fat for already fat, but the rest of us skim by on the same diet, and our grandchildren are burdened with increasing national debt to fun the good times. Anybody can have a spluge on credit, Davod.

Posted by LittlePig | June 25, 2007 9:36 AM

CDS: Did you miss anything?

Actually, he missed quite a few. A deserved worldwide reputation for thumbing our nose at international law, sending detainees to other countries (i.e. Syria) to be tortured, conducting torture ourselves, asserting right of the president to anything he damn well pleases regardless of the law and the constitution, ignoring and downplaying the effects of global warming are just some of the ones that occur to me.

Posted by Jeff S. | June 25, 2007 9:47 AM

More than that, there is a palpable hunger among the public for someone who will attack the problems facing the country -- the war in Iraq, immigration, energy, health care -- and not worry about the politics.

*deep sigh* yeah, David Broder, in a dictatorship we wouldn't have to worry about the politics. Dear Leader would just issue a decree and that's that.

Politics is the process by which a democracy arrives at decisions regarding government laws and policies. Another word for it is, 'negotiation'.

I think what Broder is trying to say is that the public is deeply sick of the extreme partisanship. We have the GOP to thank for that, but of course Broder will never say that. It would be considered rude.

Posted by r€nato | June 25, 2007 10:40 AM

Am I the only person who can't access that Chait column?

Posted by Tyrone Slothrop | June 25, 2007 11:15 AM

call me crazy, but i think the economy does what it wants, it is global, and it doesnt really matter who the president is. its too big for even bush to fuck up.

Posted by ron | June 25, 2007 12:38 PM

Look's like the column is gone from the lower portion of TNR's columns (the part listed by date) and the link no longer works.

Posted by Reality Man | June 25, 2007 1:41 PM

"The reason for the difference between fact and opinion can be placed at the feet of the propagandists."

Or, perhaps, at the feet of those still unemployed.

The White House uses employment stats in a very tricky maner. For instance, almost every spring a whole slew of jobs are created. These jobs are not new - they are seasonal workers returning to their jobs after a winter layoff. Sometimes, the federal Government helps create jobs by expanding more - aren't the Republicans supposed to be for SMALL government?

Another tricky thing that's been done with unemployment stats has to do with the definition of "unemployed". If someone looks for a job unsuccessfully for a long time, then gets discouraged and stops looking, they are no longer considered unemployed. So not everyone who falls off the unemployment stats has found a job - some just got to fed up.

I'd say Bush has gotten a lot less "propaganda" against him than Clinton did. Eight years of investigation that didn't turn up a fraction of the corruption we know about in this administration. Bush has been treated with kid gloves by this so-called "liberal" media. If we were truly a nation concerned with integrity and capability, he'd have been gone years ago.

Posted by Joe the Troll | June 25, 2007 2:03 PM

It is a pity that my response to Jeffs got hung up in the being reviewed loop. To some it might look as if I had no response.

Posted by davod | June 26, 2007 4:42 AM