Hack Gap

Mark Kleiman points to a real problem, noting the contrast between the attention paid to "Markos Moulitsas's unpremeditated, quickly-retracted dismissal of the deaths of four contract fighters in Iraq" and Stu Bykofsky's publication of a column calling for the deaths of thousands of Americans in a massive terrorist attack in a "large-circulation big-city newspaper and then featured on Drudge and Fox News." Just like Mark, "I don't really wish that we behaved like our wingnut opponents, but their capacity to work up and sustain outrage has to be counted among their structural advantages."

This is what I've referred to as the "hack gap" and it seems to me that it's very important. The nature of two-party democracy is that elections are decided by the small minority of the public too confused or too ill-informed to realize that there are persistent, substantial differences between the two federal political parties. As a result, the issues (or, more likely, pseudo-issues) that are most important in deciding elections tend to be the issues that are least important in substantive terms.

As a writer, though, I'd rather spend my time writing about things that I think are important or at least interesting. Harping away on haircuts, Bykofsky's appalling column, the way George W. Bush lied to the American public about what kind of cheese he likes on his cheesesteak (really!), etc. doesn't seem like an appealing way to spend my time. But the fact that the right has an army of people willing to pretend that this sort of thing is the most important thing in the world is a massive, massive impediment to having sensible policies about national security, taxes, health care, global warming, etc.

Comments

I still get outraged over Christian Bush mocking the woman he was going to execute. Sorry. Some non-policy issues are more substantial than others.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 14, 2007 12:53 PM

"but their capacity to work up and sustain outrage has to be counted among their structural advantages."

Agree. What is even more important is that eventually the "outrage" trickles down to the MSM.

They have a template in place. The Right Wing Noise Machine picks an outrage story, either real or made up, covers it 24/7 and forces the MSM to cover it as well. Before you know it NBC news and the NYT are covering a faux outrage involving Al Gore lying about a lullaby he heard as a child and MSM reporters are pushing narratives about Gore's "character issue".

The only way liberals can counter it is by building their own Noise Machine.

Posted by DonB | August 14, 2007 12:54 PM

This is one of the best of your ambiguous headlines. It could mean anything from a call to (keyboard) arms against the clothing retailer to a particularly crude porno. The possibilities are endless! The post itself? Meh, it had to be typed. Closing the hack gap is not something we want to do; look at Michael Moore, but mollycoddling is no good either-- look at the DLC/Blue Dogs/ Clinton dems. The best medicine is being distinctly apart, offering a clear alternative, acting dignified and sticking true to one's own principles, but still cutting loose from time to time with justified rage (think Bullock in Deadwood).

What am I saying? Keep harping on the issues that matter: cutting the crap is coming into fashion again.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 12:54 PM

The liberals' style is good for the long run, whereas the conservatives' approach leads to short term victories whose runs last till their lies and prevarications and hypocrisy come to the fore.

Unfortunately we all die in the long run.

Posted by gregor | August 14, 2007 12:58 PM

After reading my post, I have changed my opinion. It's much more badass to be Swearengen. Unprincipled, devious, ruthless, and cunning, with his own best interests at heart, and a throbbing baritone that could slice shine off a diamond. Ultimately, whose Machiavellian maneuvering saves the camp?

Not Bullock's.

Sic 'em!

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 12:58 PM

Point of comparison: Rudy Giuliani flat out LIED and said he was heavily involved with the investigation of the Leon Klinghoffer murder on the Achille Lauro at a campaign appearance in Maryland. The Village Voice later interviewed all the major players in that case who confirmed that Rudy's office was never involved with the investigation. Has anybody outside of the blogosphere or the Voice heard about it? No.

Now imagine if Obama does the same thing.

Posted by Doug-E-Fresh | August 14, 2007 1:04 PM

I worry that DonB is right when he says that "The only way liberals can counter it is by building their own Noise Machine."

The end goal, I think, is a fair, rigorous press always in search of facts and context.

In the alternative, we'll have competing Noise Machines demonizing each other and continuing to regard policy as irrelevant. That's not so great.

The problem is, today's liberals just don't have the love of character assassination that today's conservatives do. Compare what Media Matters does to what Newsbusters does. Compare Franken's footnoted books to the Limbaugh and Coulter screeds from the other side. We just don't have the crazy on our side, and the media is easily attracted to noise.

I think that the MSM popping up at YearlyKos indicates that they are at least dimly aware that there may be some sort of a problem or something. So hopefully we don't have to dredge up some liberal Limbaugh.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 14, 2007 1:04 PM

A great example of this has to be gun control, when asking many Republicans what they think will happen to gun control under a Democrat, the first words out of their mouths: "They'll take our guns away!" This kind of long, strange, and unsubstantiated outrage at an issue that Democrats (and most Americans) rarely talk about is certainly defining the two parties.

Another example - One can keep up with the news all day long and finally subject themselves to Lou Dobbs in a healthy bout of masochism, and find that there is a massive story about immigration out there that no one else is covering!

Posted by Byrd | August 14, 2007 1:06 PM

And another thing...

I think one big reason that the GOP has a hack advantage is because they've governed from, and elected from, their base. So super-interested people on the right identify very strongly with the GOP. The Party is much more important to their identities than it is for super-interested people on the left. Because Lord knows the Democrats haven't made base-pleasing job no. 1.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | August 14, 2007 1:08 PM

I used to believe that there truly were substantial differences between the parties. As time goes on, it seems more and more like Ralph Nader was right. The Democrats don't care any more about democracy or the average American that Republicans do. They aren't any less censorious. They aren't any more likely to make my life better. We have a choice between degrees, not a choice between types. The only really difference is on gays or on abortion. Those aren't issues I care about. While most Democrats have decided that those are the only issues that matter, I've decided that the Democrats can go fuck themselves.

After the FISA bill, I don't care if they nominate John Edwards and the reanimated corpse of FDR. I won't vote for them

Posted by soullite | August 14, 2007 1:14 PM

There would be no inherent advantage to having a bevy of hacks at one's disposal, but the problem is that the media works in such a way that they can't evaluate facts, they can only report of "controversies." As a consequence, the side with the most number of outrage-pimps directing their outrage-prostitutes is the side that gets to determine what the media covers.

Posted by Tyro | August 14, 2007 1:18 PM

I'm with Elvis on this. A competing "noise machine" is the worst possible strategy. I don't mean don't be loud. or that you shouldn't respond to inanity. Just let there be a lot of "signal" in your responses. There are various to "own" the narrative. Getting involved in a shouting match with experts in that particular tactic is not the best of them.

Posted by AemJeff | August 14, 2007 1:21 PM

Harping away on haircuts, Bykofsky's appalling column, the way George W. Bush lied to the American public about what kind of cheese he likes on his cheesesteak (really!), etc. doesn't seem like an appealing way to spend my time. But the fact that the right has an army of people willing to pretend that this sort of thing is the most important thing in the world is a massive, massive impediment to having sensible policies about national security, taxes, health care, global warming, etc.

It's pretty funny that Matthew apparently thinks this is true. As if the Left hasn't spent 80 jagillion hours analyzing to death what some dentist's records show about how often George Bush flew National Guard missions in 1971 and whether some obscure journalist asking Bush questions named Gannon was a gay prostitute and so on.

But it is even more humorous that he links to Mark Kleiman in the same post - the same Mark Kleiman who just a couple of days ago was fascinated by the thought that Rudy Giuliani might have sex in the emergency command center. Hack gap closed, Matthew!

Posted by Al | August 14, 2007 1:25 PM

I agree in spirit with Soullite, though I gave up on the Demos long before the 2000 debacle. That said, Tyro hits on the heart of the matter: the MSM's total corruption is the most immediate problem. The discourse is warped beyond recognition. As corrupt as the electoral process and parties are, there is no major watchdog to report it. The 5th estate is entirely compromised, as Ted Turner and Walt Disney and Rupert Murdoch fight over the reins of a runaway stallion bent on cliff-jumping.

With so much to fix, what to fix first? Nevermind that: begin the overhaul at the flaw nearest you. MY has picked up his shovel at the gate of the 5th estate, let's get crackin'!

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 1:26 PM

The fact that the commander in chief went AWOL and cashed in on his political privilege to avoid accountability is certainly of no import, especially during an illegal war when American troops are dying by the droves. How silly of us! For shame, the predatory left, picking on poor defenseless presidents who have had absolutely everything handed to them their entire lives. Oh the humanity! Oh and a gay prostitute-cum pet reporter lobbing softballs to said President? No story there. What hacks would even dare yell fire of such a flamer? Oh liberal media, is there anything you can't pervert?

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 1:31 PM

The Democrat's leaders are too educated. Schooling (especially in the social sciences) teaches you to bracket out your gut reactions to anything. But to communicate with voters, you have to reach the gut level.

Dukakis's answer to "What if someone was raping your wife?" was a perfect example. The correct response would have been to get mad, even at the questioner. "What are you talking that shit, asshole!?" When Dukakis answered coolly and rationally, he lost points.

One website that does gut feeling is Bartcop.com, and people completely ignore him. Democrats need more of that.

Posted by John Emerson | August 14, 2007 1:37 PM

Shorter Matt - thank Gawd Daily Kos and the netroots do all the heavy lifting on the bullshit stuff that decides elections.

Not that there is anything wrong with Matt's attitude. I appreciate that he recognizes that that work is extremely important.

Posted by Armando | August 14, 2007 1:40 PM

Q: Senator Kerry, what would you do if someone were raping your wife?

JFK: Why, I would ask the fellow to please use a condom, as safe sex is vital in this day and age of Herpes and HIV.

THK: I would tear off his scrotum with one bite and then slap John for being a bitch.

JFK: That's right-- I agree with that.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 1:41 PM

"It's pretty funny that Matthew apparently thinks this is true. As if the Left hasn't spent 80 jagillion hours analyzing to death what some dentist's records show about how often George Bush flew National Guard missions in 1971 and whether some obscure journalist asking Bush questions named Gannon was a gay prostitute and so on."

Well, skipping out on Guard duty, especially when you support a war like Bush supported Vietnam, actually shows one to be a whimp, which he has proven as president. Also, Gannon was actually a gay prostitute and has admitted to it. The fact that his pseudo-newspaper got into the White House shows just how hackish even by DC standards the Bush administration is. Apples and oranges folks. Then again, you're a hack lacking in human self-awareness, so try not to be so hard on yourself.

Posted by Reality Man | August 14, 2007 1:41 PM

@Reality Man: Why would you post the same sentiments I did? Are you the f*@%ing sarcasm translator?? Let's fight to the death!!

*This* attitude is what's wrong with the left. We're a bunch of stubborn assholes who spend more time fighting each other, because we're all right in our own special little ways.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 1:48 PM

Unfortunately, we have evidence that it is not a two way street. The example - there has been a sustained multi-level series of expressions of blogger outrage over the fact that everyone on the right (and many on the "liberal hawk") side of the aisle got the war wrong and, therefore, should be discredited as spokespeople. Nonetheless, nowhere on CNN, NBC or elsewhere (with the exception of Countdown) has there appeared any discussion about the credibility of the Bill Kristol's of the world. In fact, their credibility continues to be touted from end to end.

Meanwhile, haricut outrage took one or two days of sustained right wing blogger attention to become a major national issue.

The difference, of course, from our perspective is that the outrage over the loss of credibility of those who advocated for the war due to WMD and all of the other bogus reasons is a little bit nuanced. Suggesting that John Edwards is a hypocritical girly-man is not at all nuanced and fits right in with the TV (and, sadly, print) approach to what is "news."

I doubt no amount of screaming about Rudy being in bed with Poderhertz, who wants to bomb Iran, will lead to any questioning of Rudy's sanity or foreign policy credentials. None at all. But if John Edwards ever speaks one word of even remote praise for Cindy Sheehan, he's toast.

I'm a fatalist, but it seems there is a structural issue that is not going to change so long as our current media heiarchy stands.

Posted by JP | August 14, 2007 1:51 PM

Where we do have an advantage is in popular comedy. Jon Stewart is a fantastic example, Bill Maher, Al Franken, also come to mind. Yet many comics try too hard to be apolitical-- as if afraid that alienating the 27% who suport Bush might jeopardize their careers.

Posted by Ulysses | August 14, 2007 2:04 PM

""They'll take our guns away!" This kind of long, strange, and unsubstantiated outrage at an issue that Democrats (and most Americans) rarely talk about is certainly defining the two parties."

I'd suspect you might have a point, if I hadn't not long ago witnessed the Democratic leaders of Congress denouncing an amendment to restore 2nd amendment rights to residents of D.C., (The jurisdiction with the harshest gun control laws in the country.) as a "poison pill". Nope, that fear is quite substantiated, though Democrats wish people didn't notice that it is.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 14, 2007 2:08 PM

I have a suggestion for what Mr. Bellmore can do when he finally get his gun...

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 2:13 PM

I can't believe Stu Bykofsky is actually national news. The guy used to write a celebrities about town trash column called "Tattle" for the Philadelphia Daily News, and now he writes some uniformly awful political commentary for the same paper.

I had this email exchange with Stu about a month ago; it started with a letter to the editor I wrote in response to one of his columns (I cc'd Stu and he replied):

Mike:

I'd be very interested to know where Stu Bykofsky got the idea that the only ones calling for the President's impeachment are "the fringers crazed with Bush Derangement Syndrome?" Recent polls show that as many as 45% of Americans - in some cases a majority of respondents - favor the impeachment of George W. Bush. Those numbers are even higher when applied to the Vice President. Either Stu is presenting his own views as "public opinion," or there are a lot more "fringers" out there than I thought.

Stu:

Kindly produce the poll. I'd be interested in who took it, who sponsored and a list of the questions. Any serious pollster makes that available.
A term like "as many as 45% of Americans..." is suspicious. It demands me to ask how the questions were phrased.
Example: "Would you prefer George W. Bush be assassinated or impeached?" That could yield 90 percent wanting impeachment.
Show me the poll, Mike.
Stu.

Mike:

Hi Stu,

Thanks for writing back. There are several polls available that show support for impeachment at anywhere from 25-45%. Here are a few of the more reliable sources:

“Thirty-nine percent (39%) of Americans now believe that President Bush should be impeached and removed from office. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 49% disagree while 12% are not sure.

Those figures reflect a slight increase in support for impeachment over the past year-and-a-half. In December 2005, 32% believed that President George W. Bush should be impeached and removed from office. Fifty-eight percent (58%) took the opposite view at that time.”

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/39_favor_impeaching_bush

"As you may know, impeachment is the first step in the constitutional process for removing a president from office, in which possible crimes are investigated and charges are made. Do you think there is or is not justification for Congress to begin impeachment proceedings against President Bush at this time?"

There is justification: 36%
There is not justification: 62%

http://www.pollingreport.com/bush.htm

“Do you favor or oppose the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush?”

Among all adults, 45% favor and 46% oppose impeachment proceedings, Based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews among a random sample of adults nationwide July 3-5, 2007.

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/

We could quibble about the phrasing of one question or another, but I don’t see how you can call nearly a third of the country “fringers.” Would you kindly produce some support for that claim?

Thanks again for your reply.

- Mike

Stu:

Dear Mike:
Before I give what you will probably regard as a cop-out, let me say the numbers, even if massaged, are higher than I would have thought. The "fringe" is largish. But not deepish. (Columnists can manufacture words.)
Now . . . In the Rasmussen poll, the question asks, "Do you think there is or not justification" for impeachment.
First, the respondent (if not a lawyer) isn't qualified to answer the question, other than by gut. With that said, the question does not ask "Do you favor impeachment?"
In other words, I may feel that while there is a basis for moving ahead to impeachment, I may not feel it is worth the "costs" -- think Bill Clinton. Was that impeachment worth the "cost" in terms of time and money and national distraction? I'm guessing you think not.
Same thing for the Gallup poll.
Instead of asking "Do you think there is justification," I would have preferred, "Do you want George W. Bush impeached and removed?"
The CNN Poll gets closer to that, but with the qualifier "based on what you have read or heard,' and the number drops to 30 percent.
The 45 percent from the American Research Group I can't qualify, as I am not familiar with their work and their numbers are at odds with everyone else, and therefore suspect. ("Suspect" doesn't mean "wrong.")
The fact that Cheney is at 54 percent makes me think people are responding on how much they like or dislike the person. Cheney is less liked than even Bush.
Putting aside the numbers, here's where I get "fringe" from. Outside of some mental musings by Rep. Conyers, and a plan to offer only censure of Bush by Sen. Feingold, and an idea from Kucinich to impeach just Cheney, the impeachment idea has no traction that I can see. Where are the mass marches? Where are the Dem leaders of the House and Senate? They are not there and the only people really pushing impeachment (at any cost) are the fringe. Among my circle of friends, who run from semi-far left to semi-far right, the only one talking impeachment is a conservative, who was against Iraq from the jump because, basically, he is an isolationist.
Stu

Mike:

Stu,

Thanks for your reply; I appreciate it.

I disagree with your interpretation of the polls. The question in the Rasmussen poll was, “Should President Bush be impeached and removed from office?” Thirty-nine percent of respondents said yes (http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/39_favor_impeaching_bush). I understand the distinction you’re trying to make between whether Bush committed impeachable offenses or should actually be impeached, but the polls are all consistently between 25-33%, regardless of how the question is phrased. There’s no reason to think these people would stop supporting impeachment if Congress started proceedings.

You asked why Congress isn’t moving forward with impeachment proceedings. My answer would be that about a third of the public isn’t popular support, and Democrats in Congress who might otherwise support impeachment are afraid of being seen as partisan or obstructionist in a time of war. Congress hasn’t managed to force troop withdrawal from Iraq, either. That doesn’t mean the public wouldn’t support it; polls show that a majority of Americans favor withdrawal within a year (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html). It means Congress is a poor representative of its constituents (which might explain their sub-Bush approval ratings).

You said: “Putting aside the numbers, here's where I get "fringe" from. Outside of some mental musings by Rep. Conyers, and a plan to offer only censure of Bush by Sen. Feingold, and an idea from Kucinich to impeach just Cheney, the impeachment idea has no traction that I can see.”
That’s true, but that’s not what you said in your column. You said “America's sick of Bush, but the only ones screaming for impeachment are the fringers crazed with [Bush Derangement Syndrome].” That is a far cry from saying there’s no traction for impeachment in Congress, or a sizeable percentage of people would support impeachment if it were a practical consideration, etc.

I’m not trying to argue that Congress should begin impeachment proceedings. My point is that you presented impeachment as an idea only supported by extremists, when in fact there’s a surprising amount of popular support for it. I think you’re mistaking your opinions and the opinions of your friends for public opinion, which is better measured by polls.

- Mike

*****************

As you can see, we're not talking about a particularly sharp political mind here. I'm pretty sure Stu "stumbled" upon some national exposure very much on purpose, because the guy is devoid of deep or original thought and he's not a particularly good writer, either.

Posted by Mike LeP | August 14, 2007 2:22 PM

Actually, I don't live in DC, that would be Matt; I live in Michigan, which is rather middle of the road on gun laws. So suggest away, I've already had 'em for years.

Near as I can tell, Byrd has two points: One, he doesn't think other people (Should?) care about issues he doesn't care about. And, two, he either doesn't think people should notice the evidence that said outrage IS substantiated, or not caring about the issue himself, hasn't himself noticed it.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 14, 2007 2:26 PM

A great example of this has to be gun control, when asking many Republicans what they think will happen to gun control under a Democrat, the first words out of their mouths: "They'll take our guns away!" This kind of long, strange, and unsubstantiated outrage at an issue that Democrats (and most Americans) rarely talk about is certainly defining the two parties.

Byrd,

I have to disagree when it comes to this particular issue.

Yes, when it comes to most things, the anti-leftist fear-mongering that comes from the right only is applicable to a minority of far-leftists so tiny that I never actually encounter such a person in real life. For example, they like to portray every anti-war person as a member of International A.N.S.W.E.R, but while I've personally known many anti-war people I've never met anyone even close to the fanatics at ANSWER.

Gun control is the ONLY major issue where I have personally met numerous people who DO hold the "far-left" views hyped by the right wing. I HAVE been personally "berated" by people who were offended by the fact that I own a gun (which was locked in a safe far from them at the time) and who DID say things like "No one should be allowed to own a gun except for police and the military".

Posted by r4d20 | August 14, 2007 2:27 PM

Yep, Bellmore is right. It's not a straw man to say that liberals want to take your guns away. Many of them do. Eugene Volokh has compiled a lot of information on this: http://www.gunscholar.org/data.htm#BANS

Posted by too many steves | August 14, 2007 2:38 PM

disagree with all of those who say there shouldn't be a competing Dem / liberal noise machine. of course there is, and should be! you are commenting on a blog, no? the idea that a competing noise machine on our side would automatically be a mirror image of the right wing dominated media is false, and a dangerous assumption to pay that much attention to. funny, none of the blogs I read spend time creating manufactured stories that never happened and which distort the truth beyond recognition. and too few of them still bother to just flat-out attack. too many on the left are just straight up scared of confrontation of ideas. its not a fight we can or should run from though, its one we HAVE NO CHOICE but to win. win, or be destroyed. that is the game the Republicans have been and are playing. we're still singing kumbaya and holding hands and hoping everything turns out ok. which it will not.

Posted by onceler | August 14, 2007 2:45 PM

we HAVE NO CHOICE but to win. win, or be destroyed. that is the game the Republicans have been and are playing.

The Republicans justify their tactics in the same words and, furthermore, many of their most despicable tactics have been COPIED from the playbook of 60's Socialist Radicals.

Most neocons are former leftwing activists who changed teams but not tactics.

You can rationalize it all you want, but the truth is that if you copy their tactics you only make the problem worse for everyone.

Posted by r4d20 | August 14, 2007 2:55 PM

The original Al would never have written in such coherent paragraphs. You, sir, are not up to the standards of the players who made this role a classic. You have down the absence of fact or logic, and the apples-to-oranges comparison, and the jocular assumption of completely empty premises, but you must remember to render it in incoherent syntax and fused sentences with no paragraph breaks. That's the old-school style of Al performance.

Posted by rm | August 14, 2007 3:16 PM

It's not that American liberals need to build a special-purpose noise machine (there is a general-purpose one - the main stream media), but American liberals need the capability to be nasty from time to time.

It's eerie how American liberals seem totally incapable of (politically effective) nastiness. Howard Dean seems to be a very rare exception.

For example, I saw noone mentioning Stu Bykofsky as a would-be murderer.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 14, 2007 3:42 PM

asking Bush questions named Gannon

such coherent paragraphs

Eheu.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 14, 2007 3:49 PM

HYPERLINK HACKERY.

Ever try to read a rightwing website? They never cite anything, and when they do 80% of the material has no logical connection to their argument whatsoever.

Push a standard to hyperlink any possible point of factual debate in liberal media criticism or internet journalism. To a large degree this already exists but the idea that the left wing can back it up with links and the right wing wishes for a pony is our meme, its the "reality has a liberal bias" meme.

We don't want competing scream machines. What we need is a return to an objective agreement (the media) upon basic reality or our country will be torn apart.

Remember Elian Gonzalez, back in the 90's? Miami English newspapers said one thing, Miami spanish newspapers said the opposite. That is where we are nationally between the right wing and the rest of us, we have to find a common language if we ever hope to convince the otherside (aka democracy).

peace.

Posted by feckless | August 14, 2007 3:50 PM

I think Guns suck, and melting 'em all down is right up there as issue #728 on my list right behind bringing back Deadwood for another full season on HBO and right ahead of painting ducklings neon green for visibility. The gun issue is a non-issue, like abortion and gay marriage, that gets people fired up but has very little impact on the overall picture. Republicans feast on these wedge issues. There is nothing wrong with sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting them down like so: WAR WAR ECONOMY HEALTH CARE WAR WAR EDUCATION ECONOMY WAR WAR EDUCATION HEALTH CARE CLIMATE CHANGE WAR WAR EDUCATION HEALTH CARE CLIMATE CHANGE ECONOMY WAR. Rinse, repeat.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 3:52 PM

feckless, you can't make everybody link all the time. That's totally impossible.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | August 14, 2007 3:57 PM

an amendment to restore 2nd amendment rights to residents of D.C.

What, was Congress planning to establish a well-regulated militia in the District?

Posted by rea | August 14, 2007 4:29 PM

You forgot something:
"But the fact that the right has an army of people willing to pretend that this sort of thing is the most important thing in the world"

and are regularly given a platform to do so on national television

"is a massive, massive impediment to having sensible policies about national security, taxes, health care, global warming, etc."

Posted by david | August 14, 2007 4:37 PM

I think they'd rather have affordable housing, better schools, and preventative health care, but maybe that's just me.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 4:38 PM

"The gun issue is a non-issue, like abortion and gay marriage, that gets people fired up but has very little impact on the overall picture. Republicans feast on these wedge issues. There is nothing wrong with sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting them down like so:"

Except for the "losing elections" part, but I urge you to rise above that trivial consideration. Why, after all, should anybody running for public office pay any attention to the stubborn tendency of voters to care about what THEY care about, instead of what somebody else thinks they SHOULD care about?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 14, 2007 4:48 PM

Brett- precisely because these wedge issues blind them to the real issues like their sons dying for naught, their health going to pot as the HMOs and drug companies gorge themselves, the US reputation devolving into bullying buffoon territory, the polar ice caps melting and polar bears donning speedos and learning to water ski, and the top one half of one percent starting to purchase slaves again, just for the heck of it.

Guns, Gay, and Gametes are fucking DISTRACTIONS! The problems are systemic, and the core lies in the media-electoral corruption conundrum. The system is sick, and the prognosis isn't good. Pink tuxedos, purple fetuses, and black gun-barrels are just symptoms of the sickness. The electorate is UNINFORMED, and hence their PRIORITIES are INVALID. That is all, moron.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 4:56 PM

Gregorio, you are simply not entitled to dictate to other people what they will care about, and you'd best get over the notion that you are. Or you could always become influential in the Democratic party, I'd be cool with that, the Republicans need all the help they can get.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 14, 2007 5:04 PM

People don't know because people are confused and misinformed-- intentionally so by the Bush Admin and its flacks. I am not telling people what they should care about, I am pointing out how popular opinion is shaped by fearmongering and gross manipulation of the media by corporate dollars and granted "access" that just so happens to follow the party line. The morons who beat gays guns and god vote against their own economic interests because they ARE BEING LIED TO. Once again, Brett, I'd ask you to shut the fuck up or better yet go suck some corporate dick or even better yet the barrel of the gun you love so much.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 5:12 PM

Um, Gregorio, gay rights are a pretty important issue if you happen to be gay. Same goes for guns, if you're a gun owner.

Posted by too many steves | August 14, 2007 5:12 PM

Gay Rights and Gun Laws and Abortion rights are all valid issues, but are being used cynically by right wingers to damn "Liberals" when the real, much more pressing issues like the WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR WAR, Climate Change, and Health Care (None of which can the Repubs win on) are shunted off to the side. They are simply not as salacious or satisfying for the self-righteous shmmucks who dominate the airwaves.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 5:18 PM

"The nature of two-party democracy is that elections are decided by the small minority of the public too confused or too ill-informed to realize that there are persistent, substantial differences between the two federal political parties."

You are joking, aren't you?

Posted by kafka | August 14, 2007 6:18 PM

I won't go so far as to say the political parties are a two-faced Janus, but the difference between a Hillary and a Giuliani is mainly found in which lobbyists carry whom in which pocket.

Posted by Gregorio | August 14, 2007 6:24 PM

Actually, Kafka, he's not joking; Elections tend to be decided by the swing voters, and any hard eyed examination of swing voters finds them to be swing voters exactly because they're too confused or ignorant to have made up their mind which party to settle on.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | August 14, 2007 6:33 PM

"The nature of two-party democracy is that elections are decided by the small minority of the public too confused or too ill-informed to realize that there are persistent, substantial differences between the two federal political parties."

And those differences are?

And those differences are about "having sensible policies about national security, taxes, health care, global warming, etc."

What's wrong with this picture?

See, this is what I call a "partisan hack" statement. "Democrats are better than Republicans. Always." And that's exactly what Matt implies in his first statement I quote.

And that's simply wrong. Which is proven by the second statement. The Democrats have never done anything that made the people of this country better off. Neither have the Republicans.

Both parties - and most of the smaller parties are little better - have advocated policies that have stripped away civil rights (not that I believe in "rights", but using the conventional terms), embroiled the US in unnecessary wars and war crimes, ruined the US economy and thus placed unnecessary economic burdens on its citizens, and in general have acted like scumbags while enriching themselves at everybody's expense in the entire world.

Where do we see in this the notion that one party is better than the other? Since when is one Mafia capo better than the next - where it counts?

Oh, sure, Clinton was better than, say, Caligula (as far as I know.) Anybody was better than Bush - well, maybe not Idi Amin.

That's not my point. My point is "a pox on both their houses."

Where people are "confused" is not that there are differences between the parties, but that there are EXACT SAME POLICIES between the parties.

Nowhere is that demonstrated better than when it comes to war, as the Democrats proved yet again in 2003 and as they continue to prove today, DESPITE having been given a "mandate of change" in the 2006 elections.

So, sorry, I'm not buying the fact the people argue over Edwards' haircut as the major impediment to solving this country's problems.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 14, 2007 11:33 PM

Who is Stu Bykofsky? I never heard of him until you started talking about him in the last week.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 15, 2007 12:12 AM

You are too humble by far, yglesias. You are doing sterling work in closing that hack gap.

Take your recent efforts regarding the tnr 'shock troops' article for instance. Not only did you lie about the criticisms of the piece in the first place, but once it became increasingly obvious that private beauchamp was a fantasist you stopped talking about it altogether. An outstanding display of unscrupulous hackery from start to finish. Well done.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | August 15, 2007 3:41 AM

Hey, they've got Rush and Drudge to catapult the stupidity...

Posted by owlbear1 | August 15, 2007 4:17 AM

I still think the best example for this is Ward Churchill vs. Ted Haggart. Churchill is some nut professor with zero influence on the left, yet his comments become the topic of countless blog posts and Fox News segments. And then you have Haggart (et al) who have the ear of the White House...

Posted by Jeff | August 15, 2007 9:21 AM

Who is Stu Bykofsky?
**********

Stu Bykofsky is a writer for the Philadelphia Daily News. He used to write a local celebrity gossip column called Tattle. Now he writes incredibly weak political commentary for the paper. Aside from not having much to say, Stu isn't a particularly gifted writer, either. I'm not saying that based on his recent column (which I haven't read); I'm in Philly and read his paper every day.

Recently in a column Stu said those calling for impeachment are "fringers" suffering from Bush derangement syndrome. I sent a letter to the editor (cc'ing Stu) and said polls show that a quarter to a third of Americans support impeachment; roughly the same number who approve of Bush's job performance.

Stu wrote back demanding the polls, and when I linked him to several he started quibbling and playing semantic games. Then he told me that of his friends, only one seriously thinks Bush should be impeached. As if Stu Bykosfky's informal conversations with his friends are a better indication of public opinion than Gallup.

Anyway, my point is that Stu isn't a good writer or a very deep thinker, and I suspect his recent column was a weak attempt to drum up some interest in his otherwise trite and disinteresting column.

- Philly Mike

Posted by Mike LeP | August 15, 2007 11:17 AM

Not sure MY will read this, but the Daily Howler (rightly, I think) smacks him around a bit for this post. So MY identifies the central electoral truth of our generation (right-wing trivial bullshit memes win elections) and then decides it's beneath him to be interested in it any further? Or to point out how the MSM plays along with it? Exactly how ivory tower does he want to be? This stuff may be trivial and it may be BS, but as he recognizes it decides elections and it's resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths that didn't have to happen. Which seems pretty non-trivial to me and worthy of more attention.

Posted by scott | August 15, 2007 11:49 AM

As a writer, though, I'd rather spend my time writing about things that I think are important or at least interesting.

So you think that deciding elections on the basis of trivia is unimportant and uninteresting. Gotcha.

Posted by Horatio Parker | August 15, 2007 12:38 PM

I'd suspect you might have a point, if I hadn't not long ago witnessed the Democratic leaders of Congress denouncing an amendment to restore 2nd amendment rights to residents of D.C.

This would be an excellent reason to worry about the gun views of the people you elect to Congress, if you live in DC. Where, of course, you don't get to elect anyone in Congress.

As your own post indicates, gun laws are fairly well ensconced in state/local politics and law, not as much in federal law. To the extent that they aren't, removing them from you (Brett in MI) or me (Brad in VA) does not seem to be a particularly high priority amongst the Congressional Dems, many of whom would have a difficult sell with the position of their home state if they tried to really implement restrictions at a federal level.

In short, grandstanding about DC politics is about what you can, and should, expect from these folks. Honestly, if you really think there is a "grab your guns" movement in the offing, I think your concerns are misplaced, at least in the current environment. The war and the environment seem to be where there is greater collective will for change and the desire to fight. (If I am wrong, and there is or has recently been proposed legislation on the issue, let me know. I just haven't seen much about it in the news of late).

And, if this issue is really more important to you than other things going on in the world, I think you have terrible priorities. (Note, per your response to Gregorio: I am not telling, dictating, or assuming I have the right to decide your interests for you. I am merely judging you.)

Posted by Brad L | August 15, 2007 4:10 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe there isn't any outrage about what Stu Bykosfky says, because most people have no idea who he is.

Comeon people, how many of you knew who he was before 2 weeks ago? Seriously?

I've been following conservative politics pretty closely for just under 20 years ago and I had never heard of him until the Kleiman post.

I had heard of Markos before his nasty post (which contra Kleiman was never really retracted--more of an 'I am so sorry you were offended' type of thing).

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | August 15, 2007 4:29 PM

This would be an excellent reason to worry about the gun views of the people you elect to Congress, if you live in DC. Where, of course, you don't get to elect anyone in Congress.

Not only that, but the self-appointed guardians of gun rights are the same people who are utterly opposed to DC ever having any representation in Congress. That's how much they care.

Posted by TomB | August 16, 2007 4:43 AM

Imagine someone (a woman, I suppose) is viciously and repeatedly gang raped by two different assailants. The victim is asked to chose which specific rape was less unpleasant. The victim, unwilling or unable to make such a ghastly choice, responds that they were equally unpleasant. To which her interlocutor replies:

"Are you too confused or too ill-informed to realize that there are persistent, substantial differences between the two [rapists]?"

Posted by Hackademic | August 16, 2007 2:02 PM