« Still Broken | Main | On The Record »

I Vote for "Free Pass"

08 Feb 2008 06:23 pm

Dave Roberts has questions about John McCain and the environment:

Will the media learn from its mistake, or will it give the candidates another free pass on climate? If it does look a little closer, it will find that McCain is no green champion (more on that in a subsequent post). It might even force McCain to put or shut up on this issue -- while voters who care about it still have a chance to act on their convictions.

Easy answer: free pass.

But to move beyond media-bashing, one reason George W. Bush was able to get away with climate flim-flam so easily in 2000, was that Al Gore didn't seriously try to make an issue out of this. His advisors thought they had good reasons to not make a big issue out of global warming. I think they were wrong, but their argument isn't crazy. And right or wrong, the point is that they had a deliberate strategy. The strategy had some benefits, but it also had some costs. And one cost is that it's much easier for your opponent to get away with flim-flam when you don't focus on the issue in question. It would be nice for the media to just kind of do politicians' job for them, but it doesn't work like that. When the leading members of the Democratic Party didn't make a big deal out of the administration's bogus intelligence claims in 2002, the press didn't make a big deal out of it either. If the candidate doesn't make a big deal out of the phoniness of McCain's environmental agenda, neither will TV news. That's life.

:: Comments (30) ::

Share This

Comments (30)

I suspect that if Al Gore endorses someone this time, that candidate will be forced to make a big deal out of these environmental issues.

Posted by Mike | February 8, 2008 6:46 PM

If the candidate DOES make a big deal out of McCain's (or Bush's, or whoever's) phoniness (or just-plain-wrongness), the candidate is said to be hectoring, bullying, lording it over everyone, sighing, condescending to everyone, etc., etc., etc. (Do you even remember the 2000 presidential election?)

Posted by mary | February 8, 2008 7:37 PM

Fact of the matter is, not many people outside of cities, and particularly outside of the so-called "liberal elite" really care that much about global warming and/or think it's a big deal. I'm not saying I agree with them (or with the term "liberal elite" for that matter), but whenever I talk to relatives who live in different parts of the country, global warming has become something of a joke. "Nice sunset we're having." "Must be that global warming -- ha!"

I don't really buy the notion that it's the media's responsibility to bring up issues that most people don't care about. Because if people across America really cared about global warming and wanted to hear what the candidates had to say about it the media wouldn't HAVE to be chided into talking about it.

And to get really tangential about this, the more the media hypes global warming, rightly or wrongly, the less people believe in it. Remember when the ozone layer was going to disappear and give us all cancer? Acid rain was going to kill us all and make all the forests disappear? The population bomb was going to overrun the planet? What about global cooling in the '70s when people thought carbon dioxide was going to COOL the planet too much? A lot of people have (again, rightly or wrongly), just become immune to this stuff because ten years go by and it's clear the whole thing was overblown.

Anyway, if climate change is something that's going to influence your vote, the candidates' records are pretty clear. But to me it doesn't make sense to hand-wring about whether the media is going to fulfill its "responsibility" to bring up something that only a fraction of the country really cares that strongly about.

Posted by NB | February 8, 2008 7:49 PM

Remember when the ozone layer was going to disappear and give us all cancer?

Yessiree bob! Despite the naysaying of idiot denialist about that problem like Rush Limbaugh, the world's political leaders were smart enough to look at the scientific evidence and conclude there was an actual problem Amazinging, no? Even more amazing, they came up with a solution that was equitable, practical, and by monitoring the problem has by-and-large been successful. Whoda thunk it possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol

Now, let's see. What current problem could we apply this historical lesson to? Hmmmm...I wonder...

Posted by Jeff S. | February 8, 2008 8:06 PM

Jeff S.-

Totally agree with you, and of course acid rain led to emissions trading, another practical solution that serves as another model for action on global warming. Unfortunately that's just not how most people remember it. I'm not sure what the balance is between hyping a legitimate problem so it will lead to action and not hyping it so much people tune out, but from my own admittedly anecdotal experiences it sure seems like we're in tune-out mode. Tough to make people care about something far off and abstract.

Posted by NB | February 8, 2008 8:17 PM

I know that relying on my personal cohort is a really poor substitute for gauging the political mood of the country, but I do think we've turned a corner as a country where we can actually point out things we can do for the environment and not instantly be labeled "treehuggers." Or at least not as much as, say, 8 years ago. Some reasons:

1. "An Inconvenient Truth."
2. Again, this may be California-centric, but Schwarzenegger, to his credit, has been leading the way toward implementing statewide policies and goals to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
3. Also, to a certain extent, I think the environmental movement and technology have matured to the point where the environment and the economy aren't necessarily antithetical to each other. Consumers can see how saving energy saves them money. At the macro level, becoming a global environmental leader can help spur high-tech research. And we have policymakers seriously considering market-based initiatives to reduce carbon usage.
4. In the debates, McCain at least paid lip service to the idea that we need to clean up after ourselves and not leave our children with a degraded environment. Ultimately, that's the kind of appeal that should eventually start appealing to thoughtful conservatives --- people who will never buy the gaia theory, or say that humans are a scourge to the planet or anything --- they can at least relate to "Hey, let's not treat this place like a cesspool."

Posted by Adam Villani | February 8, 2008 8:25 PM

Fascinating, this idea that it's scandalous if the media gives a Presidential candidate a "free pass" on a thing ("the climate") about which no President can do anything tangible in the first place.

If you claim otherwise, make an actual argument or something. These cozy assumptions of universal agreement get tiresome. Is it just supposed to be taken as read that the President of the United States controls "the climate" now? And the media are required to act on this notion?

For an upcoming blog post I'd like Matthew to go into whether the media will give McCain a free pass on the orbit of the earth.

Posted by Sonic Charmer | February 8, 2008 9:02 PM

Anyone notice that the coal industry paid for ads on all the debates? And almost no questions were asked about environmental policy. Coincidence?...I think not.

Posted by Jo | February 8, 2008 9:29 PM

Well, remember, from the moneystream media's point of view, action regarding industrial fuel & production related climate change is a partisan obsession by Democrats, and the fact that Republicans aren't obsessed with it is simply normal.

Posted by El Cid | February 8, 2008 9:38 PM

It would be nice for the media to just kind of do politicians' job for them, but it doesn't work like that. When the leading members of the Democratic Party didn't make a big deal out of the administration's bogus intelligence claims in 2002, the press didn't make a big deal out of it either. If the candidate doesn't make a big deal out of the phoniness of McCain's environmental agenda, neither will TV news.

Meaning that the media, including you Matthew, are content to be just stenographers.
Care to tell me why the American media - as described by you - should have a privileged place in the US society?

Posted by Detlef | February 8, 2008 10:31 PM

While the coal lobbyists' umbrella group sponsors debates? Fat chance.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 8, 2008 11:05 PM

Fascinating, this idea that it's scandalous if the media gives a Presidential candidate a "free pass" on a thing ("the climate") about which no President can do anything tangible in the first place.

Nothing tangible? How about, say, taking steps to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities in the US? Are you denying that the President has some power to influence that, or are you denying that this carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the climate?

Posted by Jesse M. | February 8, 2008 11:10 PM

simple answers to simple questions.

Posted by della Rovere | February 8, 2008 11:12 PM

No doubt it will take a generation of forward thinkers to even attempt to stem the damage of this administration's neglect of the planet we live on. I've never met a Republican that didn't think profit, no matter the hardship placed on the American people,trumped logic or reason.

Posted by R Lee Webb | February 8, 2008 11:56 PM

No doubt it will take a generation of forward thinkers to even attempt to stem the damage of this administration's neglect of the planet we live on. I've never met a Republican that didn't think profit, no matter the hardship placed on the American people,trumped logic or reason.

Posted by R Lee Webb | February 8, 2008 11:58 PM

How about, say, taking steps to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities in the US? Are you denying that the President has some power to influence that, or are you denying that this carbon dioxide has a significant effect on the climate?

Both, now that I think about it.

You really think that the President of the United States can significantly reduce the amont of carbon dioxide emitted by humans in the United States? And you really think that this reduction that he can supposedly engender (=the portion of the earth's carbon dioxide that is produced by United States humans x the percentage by which a United States President can reduce United States humans' carbon dioxide production) would, if implemented, significantly alter the climate?

Based on what?

Posted by Sonic Charmer | February 9, 2008 12:30 AM

P.S. And even if a President could alter the climate tangibly by this reduce-CO2 method, would that be a good thing? You don't know that.

But don't get me wrong, go ahead, by all means, fantasize about a President altering "the climate". It's pretty entertaining. Also pretty out of touch; to inner-city 'liberals' (as opposed to actual poor people, etc.) the biggest problem they can think of is some hypothetical about "the climate" and the most important demand they think needs to be made of a President is that he promises to change "the climate". LOL

Posted by Sonic Charmer | February 9, 2008 12:35 AM

Matt's point about how the media works is well taken. A political story is not a story unless members of the major parties are talking about it. The first example that comes to mind is filibusters. The Republicans made getting an 'up or down vote' on Alito an issue by talking about constantly. Since the Democrats have taken over, we haven't heard a peep about filibusters from the media because Democrats are unwilling or unable to make a concerted effort to talk about it...loudly.

It's not rocket science. If Democrats are unified and talk loudly about global warming, the media will cover it closely. It not, it won't happen.

Posted by owenz | February 9, 2008 1:20 AM

Sonic Charmer wrote:
You really think that the President of the United States can significantly reduce the amont of carbon dioxide emitted by humans in the United States?

The experts seem to think so. See the analysis by Nobel Prize-winning economist Kenneth Arrow at tinyurl.com/2m65rd , which suggests that CO2 levels could be stabilized at 550 ppm, at a cost of at most 3.4% of the GNP (this is still higher than many global warming advocates think is safe, I'll see if I can find any analyses of what it would take to get stabilize it at lower levels like 450 or 400 ppm). A 'business as usual' scenario where no attempts are made to stabilize CO2 levels could lead to CO2 levels of 700 ppm by the end of the century (see the article at tinyurl.com/2wjxmx ).

U.S. leaders might also fund something like the plan at tinyurl.com/2vygvs to switch over to solar energy over the next 50 years, which is estimated to cost around 400 billion dollars (less than has been spent on the Iraq war).

And you really think that this reduction that he can supposedly engender (=the portion of the earth's carbon dioxide that is produced by United States humans x the percentage by which a United States President can reduce United States humans' carbon dioxide production) would, if implemented, significantly alter the climate?

The Kenneth Arrow piece notes that the US contributes around 25% of the entire world's anthropogenic CO2. Besides, attempts to stabilize CO2 emissions by our President might be part of international agreements involving other major CO2 producers, US leadership can influence the success of attempted agreements. As for the effects of stabilizing CO2 vs. doing nothing, the second link I posted above predicts significant climate differences between the scenario where CO2 is stabilized at 550 ppm by 2100 and the scenario where it climbs to 700 ppm or higher, and the last part of the article at tinyurl.com/34tpgu notes that if CO2 could be stabilized at 450 ppm global warming could be kept down to 1.2-2.3 C by 2100, whereas under a "business as usual" scenario it could be anywhere between 1.4 and 5.8 C. And the article at tinyurl.com/35zlm6 notes the possibility of reaching a "tipping point" which could lead to feedback effects that cause runaway warming if CO2 levels aren't stabilized.

Posted by Jesse M. | February 9, 2008 2:13 AM

P.S. And even if a President could alter the climate tangibly by this reduce-CO2 method, would that be a good thing? You don't know that.

That's why I listen to scientists who know a lot more about the subject than I do. And in case you weren't aware, CO2 levels have been rising drastically throughout the last century thanks to human activities (have a look at the graph here showing CO2 and temperature over the last 450,000 years, and note the huge spike in the green line representing CO2 levels as you get to the present), all that's being suggested is that we try to *stabilize* the CO2 levels at some value (probably higher than it is today) instead of doing nothing and letting them increase by further huge amounts.

But don't get me wrong, go ahead, by all means, fantasize about a President altering "the climate". It's pretty entertaining. Also pretty out of touch; to inner-city 'liberals' (as opposed to actual poor people, etc.) the biggest problem they can think of is some hypothetical about "the climate" and the most important demand they think needs to be made of a President is that he promises to change "the climate". LOL

Yes, that's the thing about scientific claims, they often sound outlandish to those who haven't studied the issues. But if the climate scenarios predicted by scientists are correct, the future consequences for huge numbers of "actual poor people" would be pretty dire.

Posted by Jesse M. | February 9, 2008 2:30 AM

"It's life" on any particular issue, perhaps.

But as Franklin said, we've got a Republic, if we can keep it. In order to do so, we need multiple institutions pushing back against the consolidation and misuse of power. In the not-so-long run, this nation can't afford a supine press that only joins the pushback after the opposition party does - if then. Because then what happens when the opposition party has no guts? Not that that would ever happen.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 9, 2008 7:57 AM

IMHO, this is why we need a progressive third party - call it the "Backbone Democrats." Who knows how long it will take to implant a backbone into the existing Democratic Party? We need an institution that can push back at a high level. The blogosphere is great, but it's limited in its reach.

Yeah, I know the standard rap about third parties. But I've got a new plan for starting one: skip the Presidential elections, and run only in "safe seat" Congressional races. Did you know that in 3/4 of House races in 2006, either the Dem won by >30%, or the Republican by >15%? That's a lot of races a new party could run in, without jeopardizing Dem control of the White House, Congress, or anything else.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | February 9, 2008 8:07 AM

We've all heard the joke about how the press would report that "opinions vary" about the flatness of the earth.

But if opinions don't vary, the press will conclude that, for all practical purposes, the earth is flat.

In 2000 I searched for some reason to support Gore. Forget that "Clinton prosperity" rap- that didn't trickle down. In eight years of Clinton-Gore there wasn't even rhetoric supporting peace, the environment, or personal liberties.

My neighbors who work in the naval shipyard, man the nuclear subs, work at Fort Lewis or McChord AFB, or teach the DARE program in schools- they got lots of rhetoric, showers of cash, and fulsome promises of more from Democratic politicians here.

So, the Democratic consultants thought it would be smarter to snub the Greens than to court them in 2000- are those same consultants working in this election?

Posted by serial catowner | February 9, 2008 8:56 AM


Comments closed February 22, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.