In The Eye of the Beholder

Paul Krugman, blogging up a storm, complains:

In fact, it’s quite strange how the magnitude of the Democratic victory has been downplayed. After the 1994 election, the cover of Time showed a charging elephant, and the headline read “GOP stampede.” Indeed, the GOP had won an impressive victory: in House races, Republicans had a 7 percentage point lead in the two-party vote.

In 2006, Time’s cover was much more subdued; two overlapping circles, and the headline “The center is the new place to be.” You might assume that this was because the Democrats barely eked out a victory. In fact, Democrats had an 8.5 percentage point lead, substantially bigger than the GOP win in 1994. Also, the new Democratic majority in the House isn’t just larger than any the Republicans achieved over their 12-year reign; it’s much more solidly progressive than their pre-1994 majority.

Ezra Klein agrees. But here's the thing, I've heard conservatives complain about this too. When conservatives secure political power, it's all "holy shit: conservatives!" but when liberals secure political power, it's all "don't worry, they're centrists." There's truth to both perspectives here, but I think the right fundamentally has the better of this argument. It wouldn't have been helpful to liberals or to liberalism for Time to greet the 2006 elections with a photo of Nancy Pelosi flanked by Charlie Rangel, Henry Waxman, David Obey, and John Conyers under the headline "THE LIBERAL TAKEOVER."

It's true, however, that what Paul and Ezra are complaining about is very annoying to liberals, but that's not the same thing.

Comments

Matt makes an interesting point, but I think there's a long term perception issue that he misses. All the play that conservatism got in the 1994 takeover served to really mainstream conservatism as a cause and a lot of conservative ideas in particular. Newt was able to preach for small government and welfare rollbacks from his lofty media anointed perch. Liberalism could use a does of that.

Posted by Rob Mac | September 20, 2007 11:31 AM

""holy shit: conservatives!"

That would be the ultimate Newsweek collector's issue cover. I'd frame it.

I do think Matt is correct about the proximate cause of this particular Beltway insider behavior. However, the way this behavior contributes to the long-term denigration of "liberalism" in the public eye almost certainly benefits conservatives in the long run.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | September 20, 2007 11:35 AM

Keep in mind this was all part of the framing of the election, right from conservative talking points. Remember that Heath Schuler was made the poster boy even though he wasn't that conservative he sounded like one. Same thing with Jim Webb to an extent. And you had Republicans saying Democrats could only win by running near Republicans like Schuler.

So when Democrats won it was already framed as the Democrats moving to the right in order to win.

Posted by Rob | September 20, 2007 11:43 AM

The point is that downplaying the size of the Democratic victory means that the media hasn't yet assimilated the fact that the country has shifted massively to the left. They're still writing as though Americans are deeply conservative and the GOP is the natural party of real Americans. And that makes Democrats seem weak, and feel weak, and act weak. The perception works its way into things like the media consensus that Bush and Petraeus "won" last week's encounter -- when in fact the country is far to the left of Congress on the war, as every poll indicates, and just keeps trending further left.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 20, 2007 11:46 AM

it's all "holy shit: conservatives!"

Wait, what? It was mostly "The New Conservative Majority," and "How Democrats are out of touch with Real Americans and Generally Suck." This has been a much--maybe the most--discussed subject in the blogosphere. I'd be stunned if that discussion didn't include a few posts by you. On the other side.

Add to that the fact that the Dems had their hands on the tiller from the cradle to the grave for some people ('32 to, depending on the count, '00), and Dems as "centrists" and Reps as interlopers seems a defensible reaction, if not a good description.

I don't have any idea what you're talking about here.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 20, 2007 11:48 AM

This is obviously a matter of some guesswork here, but I have to say I think Matt Yglesias is completely wrong about the effect of such coverage. People like winners. If they hear "Conservatives win in a landslide", they think, at least on a subconscious level, "I wish I was / I'm glad I am a conservative." When they hear "The center is the new place to be", they think, at least on a subconscious level, "I wish I was / I'm glad I am a centrist." If they were ever to hear "Progressives win in a landslide", then they would think, "I wish I was / I'm glad I am a progressive." That's one of the primary functions of the liberal blogosphere, and conservative talk radio before it: to create an environment where those of a particular ideology can feel part of a broader movement, thus strengthening their ideological feelings.

And beside that, call me crazy, but I can't help but think that accuracy ought to be at least one of the objectives of political coverage. The fact is that calling the 2006 election a victory for centrism is like calling the 1948 election for Dewey. And given that I, like most liberals, believe that "the facts have a liberal bias," I think that we should always err on the side of promoting truthful, accurate reporting. In the long run it will be to our benfit.

Posted by OhioBoy | September 20, 2007 11:52 AM

Uh, Matt. Journalists who work for profit-seeking corporations are not allowed to publish things the management doesn't want the public to read. Rupert Murdoch makes sure that his flunkies promote plutocracy.

When the Atlantic changed hands and moved to DC, there was a rightward lurch, and bozos like McArdle showed up. You can't cross the Atlantic editors and keep your blog, so you have to pretend that America has a respectable government. But you know it isn't true. America has a crooked government and it has become a rogue state. You just aren't permitted to say that.

Posted by HH | September 20, 2007 11:52 AM

Krugman says that the analysis was inaccurate, which it was. He didn't discuss the effect of this press bias on future elections as you did or on current policy making as commenters did.

I'd say an accurate description is that given the Senators not up for re-election, the rules of the Senate, and the veto, Republicans are still running things even though they were overwhelmingly rejected. That means they have responsibility for everything going wrong. It just so happens that this is the narrative which is best for Democratic prospects in 2008, but that is a coincidence.

Posted by robert Waldmann | September 20, 2007 11:55 AM

I would have liked to see a cover with a picture of a donkey kicking ass

Posted by Ethel-to-Tilly | September 20, 2007 11:57 AM

i'm mostly with Ohioboy on this.

if the larger cause is to move progressive/liberal issues, it doesn't help to push the impression that it wasn't these issues that drove an election.

essentially, when conservatives won big, the media decided "america is mostly conservative". when liberals won big, the media decided "huh, america is a bit less conservative than we thought".

it seems to me that the former characterization is more conducive to claiming political capital for a cause.

Posted by josh bivens | September 20, 2007 11:58 AM

Yeah, I agree with SCMTim et al here. The media still acts like improving health care and beginning a withdrawal from Iraq are fringe concerns, while invading Iran is something that serious people like Joe Lieberman are seriously thinking about getting serious about.

Also, the fact that "liberal" became a term of abuse is not a tale of the, um, liberal media in action, either.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | September 20, 2007 11:59 AM

> but that's not the same thing.

Except that it means that with every conservative electoral gain conservatives gain momentum, but for every liberal electoral gain liberals do not gain momentum and may actually see their gains Lieberized.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | September 20, 2007 12:11 PM

Who cares if it's a discrepancy in favor of liberals or in favor of conservatives? It's still the media reacting differently to similar events based on the ideology of the participants, and thus wrong.

Posted by Daniel W. | September 20, 2007 12:32 PM

Matt's hypothetical 2006 Time cover compares apples to oranges. Due to the success of the Republicans and media in demonizing the word "liberal," a cover saying "THE LIBERAL TAKEOVER" would doubtless be scary to some people. But the '94 cover didn't say "conservative takeover" or "rightwing takeover," it said "GOP Stampede." There was no referece to ideology; only a declaration of a huge electoral triumph by one party over another.

An analogous 2006 headline would be "Democratic Stampede." That would accurately reflect that the Democrats had a big electoral victory, presumably because a lot of voters preferred Democrats. Instead, we got a cover assuring us that what Americans really prefer is the "center."

Krugman's right; Matt's wrong.

Posted by Gator90 | September 20, 2007 12:40 PM

On the other hand, headlines saying 'Liberals Take Over Congress' would have raised expectations that, um, liberals would take over Congress.

Posted by MattF | September 20, 2007 12:42 PM

the Dems didn't really take over Congress, they're just standing around in the corners while the GOP party rages on as if nothing happened.

Posted by cleek | September 20, 2007 12:56 PM

Slightly off topic but somewhat apropos considering that Harry Reids' jeremiad against Ted Olsen sunk him. Last Monday, I stated that we should wait to see what Robert Novak had to say about the nominated Attorney General, Mr. Mukasey. Cocksucker Novak did not disappoint. In todays' Washington Post, his column indeed trashed Mukasey, while praising the trashbag Ted Olsen. Based on this trashing, it can be concluded that Mukasey is probably OK. It's nice that one can depend on assholes like Novak to allow value judgments on presidential appointments.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091901706.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by SLC | September 20, 2007 1:01 PM

oh please!

it was Iraq driving the election...not the country "fundamentally moving to the left." Matt's right.

Posted by Nathan | September 20, 2007 1:04 PM

It's also worth mentioning that these reactions are typically borne out by subsequent events.

When conservatives are elected, polls generally show that despite their having gotten majorities to vote for them, people hope that their agenda will not be enacted, but the conservatives pursue that agenda zealously.

When liberals are elected, polls generally show that people hope their agenda WILL be enacted, but they don't bother to do so.

Conservatives being elected IS a bigger deal than liberals being elected, because wealthy liberals tend to be lukewarm on the liberal agenda.

APS

Posted by Ape Man | September 20, 2007 1:06 PM

It would be nice if the media started to realize that there aren't only two parts of this country: the Beltway-Manhattan corridor (where the media live) and the South (where "Real Americans"(c) live). Such bad spinning will continue as long as people in the media will be cowed into thinking that they are not "Real Americans" and that the only "Real Americans" are Southerners who fly a flag of treason.

Posted by Reality Man | September 20, 2007 1:19 PM

After the 1994 election, the balance in the Senate was 53-47 in favor of the Republicans (48 Dems were elected but Richard Shelby of Alabama immediately switched parties), and we had a president willing to "triangulate" by appeasing the Republican majority.

After the 2006 election, he balance in the Senate was 49-49, with 2 independents who caucus with the Dems, one of whom usually votes with the Republicans, a solid Republican bloc that is willing and able to filibuster any Dem initiative (as we have just seen on the habeas restoration bill, votes for DC, and the Webb bill), and a president who does what he wants in defiance of Congress and the Constitution.

So if Time had put a charging donkey on its cover, it would have had to show the donkey charging into a brick wall.

Where Time went wrong was its invocation of the concept of the center. There is no center. Either Bush and the hard right win, or they lose. They never compromise.

Posted by bloix | September 20, 2007 1:50 PM

Add to that the fact that the Dems had their hands on the tiller from the cradle to the grave for some people ('32 to, depending on the count, '00), and Dems as "centrists" and Reps as interlopers seems a defensible reaction, if not a good description.

SCMT is exactly right. Krugman is missing the story of 1994. The story wasn't that the Republicans had a 7% popular vote margin. It was that the Republicans had any popular vote margin at all. Maybe some people forget, but prior to 1994, the Republicans had not controlled the House in two generations. When the 1994 elections occurred, I'd bet that almost no Time writer or editor recalled anything about a Republican-controlled House ever. You can bet that if the Democrats had not controlled the House from 1966 until 2006, there would have been a greater reaction from Time Magazine. But 90% of the Time writers recall 1994.

The focus on comparing 7% to 8.5% is simply fundamentally misleading.

Posted by Al | September 20, 2007 1:55 PM

Ummm, Nathan?

It was 'the country "fundamentally moving to the left"' on Iraq that drove the election.

You get a gentleman's B- for getting the right facts on the page, if not in the right order.

Posted by David S | September 20, 2007 1:56 PM

I don't have any disagreement with the overarching claim of Krugman's column, but I was wondering about the data he cites to support his point. Is the vote total for one party divided by the two party total really a good way to measure the magnitude of an election victory? Wouldn't it be thrown off if there were an abnormal number of landslide victories in a given year? I'm not actually sure what the proper metric would be, but the one he uses doesn't seem like it would capture the phenomenon of magnitude of victory.

Posted by washerdreyer | September 20, 2007 2:19 PM

Gator90 is right. I don't need to see 'LIBERAL TAKEOVER', but DEMOCRATS KICK ASS with a Donkey booting an Elephant would have been fair treatment of similar events.

Posted by DanF | September 20, 2007 2:43 PM

I like Krugman, but there is an odd sleight of hand in his description. What is relevant is not whether the democratic majority is more solidly progressive than it was pre-1994. It is whether it is as solidly progressive as the republicans were solidly conservative when they won in 1994. And that seems a doubtful proposition.

The strength of the Republicans was their ability to march in lockstep. The Democrats don't match that by being more unified than their completely disunified past.

Posted by Lon | September 20, 2007 2:52 PM

RE: 1994, I don't think Republicans had been in control of the House since 1955.

http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/partyDiv.html

RE: 2006, I don't think it's that most Americans are anti-war progressive, it's just that many are isolationist. Why spend lives and cash on a dusky skinned people thousands of miles away? Americans want a quiet life, which cost the Republicans Congress, plus the poor managment of the war and Katrina.

Posted by Peter K. | September 20, 2007 3:30 PM

The Democrats have followed up their FISA performance with allowing the Senate - with 25 Democrats supporting - to approve a Republican backed censure of Moveon.org

Tell the Senate and the Democrats to shove it. First, contribute to MoveOn. Then write your senator and tell him that that this is anti-American

Posted by Ralph | September 20, 2007 4:23 PM

The whole frame is weird "which political change was more important". But I would be cautiously optimistic about the long term outcomes.

Short term, Bush is resolute about using veto power and Republican are quite disciplined, so he can get away with it, procedurally. But politically, this is just finishing the job of finishing off a certain generation of conservatives.

Democrats did not force changes in Iraq, so they will bear no responsibility for FUBAR there. And it is fubar, because there is hardly a viable political movement in Iraq that is pro-American. Kurds try to be as cordial with Iranians as they can, judging on those trade delegations from Iran to Kurdistan that we keep arresting. If we will patch it up in Sunni areas, doo-doo becomes deeper in Shia areas and vice versa. This war is Groundhog day war. I just wonder how the endgame will look like. It will not be pretty.

Economy is entering the second part of the sinusoidal bussiness cycle, and it is good to keep GOP fingerprints on it.

The current crop of Presidential candidates that GOP is fielding bespeaks of a deep crisis in the party. First, what was until very recently "GOP mainstream" is barely visible. The front runner are both marginal within the party, and each has somewhat pathetic baggage. Perhaps Thompson can show truly Reganesque amiability and stupidity. Otherwise we have a glib flip-flopper and a Skeletor who is on the record of ranting against cute little furry animals.

So, why is the dog not barking? Where is GOP machine that mere 3 years ago was driving us to despair? Apparently, the best brains are in the deepest funk. It was mathematically proven that a combination of hedonistic egoism, xenophobia, homophobia, mysoginism, and, last but not least, racism will allow GOP to have an iron grip over "heartland voters", basically, forever.

I imagine folk like Rove maniacally rechecking their calculations and trying to figure where they went wrong.

Posted by piotr | September 21, 2007 2:02 AM