Letters to the Editor
-
The problem:
The problem is not that the American people believe what they hear on tv or even radio, given the relatively small numbers of viewers and listeners. The problem is that politicians start believing them and move to this mythical Center.
-
Fringe
I don't think it's fair to call the position that we should look at the facts on the ground before withdrawing a "fringe" position based on the data you presented.
For one, in every poll you presented at least a third and usually over 40% of the people support staying in Iraq. A third is hardly fringe.
Secondly, there are probably plenty of people in the withdraw now, in a year or in two years camps who think they HAVE looked at the facts on the ground and that's how they've made their mind up.
The Mara Liasson position is a minority position, but it is certainly not fringe.
Oh, and I think she's wrong. I want us out within 12 months, based on what I consider the facts on the ground.
-
And the Chattering Classes can think that way because the Palace
is a self-reinforcing -- as well as self-referential -- system, never really disturbed by forces outside the gates.
As long as The American People are passive, denizens of the Palace like Liasson have no reason, certainly no motivation, to reconsider their own pundit pap.
The American People may well have "opinions" about this or that, but obviously they have neither power nor influence within the Palace corridors, so why pay any attention to their "opinions?" Better by far to just tell them what they think and what they believe.
Anything else is just too messy.
-
The decentered center
Glenn, this always strikes me when reading your posts: on the one hand, it seems obvious that the majority of Americans want to get out of Iraq and think it was a bad idea. But on the other hand, if this were simply the case, then why would it matter what the media says and how they frame the issue? If the "American people" were really so against the war, wouldn't they just ignore all this tripe and vote Obama overwhelmingly? But then you have the fact that McCain is still doing relatively well in matchup polls, and the polls that say a majority of Americans 'trust' McCain to 'handle' the war and national security better than Obama. What do you make of this? What it suggests to me is an electorate where the majority are not sure of their own opinions, hold self-contradictory views, and can be easily swayed simply by the wording of an issue. But I'd like to hear your analysis.
-
Proudly ignorant
Ah, the pundit class. Diabolical manipulators or ignorantly cocooned elites. Probably a little from column A and a little from column B.
Hey, just for shits and giggles, I encourage everyone to fax (feeling retro this morning) this column to Mara Liasson at NPR.
The fax number is: 2025133329
You can make a PDF of the article here: http://createpdf.adobe.com/
Free internet faxing: https://faxzero.com/
It takes all of 3 minutes. Fax attack.
-
Edit
Penultimate paragraph, first sentence: change "say" to "stay".
-
NaR
I don't think it's fair to call the position that we should look at the facts on the ground before withdrawing a "fringe" position based on the data you presented.
For one, in every poll you presented at least a third and usually over 40% of the people support staying in Iraq. A third is hardly fringe.
It all depends on how you want to define "fringe," I suppose. There aren't many positions that can't attract 30% (even George Bush, almost certainly the most unpopular president in modern American history, continues to attract that percentage).
Some of these polls show that the McCain position -- stay in Iraq for as long as it takes to "win" -- are embraced by 20-30% of Americans. You can bicker about whether that's enough of a minority to call it the "fringe" -- I think it is -- but if any position is the "fringe," it's not the one the pundit class claims (leave Iraq regardless) but the one that they almost unanimously embrace.
-
Endless Loop
This phenomenon is the same one that led so many Americans to believe that Saddam had something to do with Sept. 11, months, years, after it had been thoroughly debunked. At least as important as the rote repetition of such falsehoods is the unanimous, tacit agreement to never, ever correct the record, thereby maintaining the "authority" of delusional blatherers like Kristol, and on and on. That's why the mantra of "going forward" is endlessly repeated; even a glancing look at the past would leave too many reputations in tatters. Thus, Condi Rice can say, "No one could have predicted (insert entirely predictable, warned against, scenario here)"
This bunch repeats the same lies, verbatim, as if following the beads on a BS rosary, seemingly solely to allow themselves to put on pancake and lie to the cameras another day.
There is no past, no future, just an imagined present to be spun before the camera's red light.
-
achilleselbow
But on the other hand, if this were simply the case, then why would it matter what the media says and how they frame the issue? If the "American people" were really so against the war, wouldn't they just ignore all this tripe and vote Obama overwhelmingly?
The problem is that the narrative of what is "the fringe" or "confined to the Left" v. what is "mainstream" can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. People like to see themselves as reasonable centrists and view the positions that are characterized that way as more compelling.
Nonetheless, it's clear that Americans have ignored this. Look at what has happened to Bush's approval ratings and views of the war. Even while the media class continues to insist that we can't leave, that things are going better, etc., he remains extremely unpopular and they want to leave Iraq.
But then you have the fact that McCain is still doing relatively well in matchup polls, and the polls that say a majority of Americans 'trust' McCain to 'handle' the war and national security better than Obama. What do you make of this?
A few things to note:
(1) I don't think it's accurate to say that "McCain is still doing relatively well in the polls." Think about it:
A relatively unknown, inexperienced, allegedly "liberal" African-American Senator is running against an establishment, white war hero who is probably the single most well-liked GOP candidate they have. And all polls show McCain behind -- from anywhere between 5-15 points. That's pretty extraordinary.
(2) It's still very early in the election cycle. Low-information voters, the vast bulk, don't start paying close attention until much later, if they ever do. I'll guarantee you many of them aren't aware of how identical Bush and McCain are on their views of the "war." He rides his "Maverick" media image and low-information voters assume he deviates. That awareness will only increase as the months go by. That's why they're so desperate to inculcate people into believing that the War is now good -- because McCain is so tied to it.
(3) When the choice over the war is clear, the GOP will get killed. 2006 left no doubt about that, and Americans are even more against the war now than they were then.