Well-chosen words on music, movies and politics, with the occasional special guest.
My new “Think Again” column is called “Remembering the ‘Feminine Mystique’” and it’s here.
My new Nation column is called “Ron Fournier, Doomsayer,” but it could have been called “High Fournierism” or perhaps “Fornierification,” but anyway it’s here.
The Cause is out in paperback and it strikes me as not as long (or thick) as I expected it to be. Here are some of the blurbs we decided to use:
"Alterman’s magnum opus . . . All aspects of liberalism are surveyed . . . the definitive work on its subject.” — San Francisco Chronicle
“What a relief it is…to read Eric Alterman’s superb new book, THE CAUSE. [I]f your goal is to learn about, and understand, one of this country’s most potent political forces, this book belongs in your hands.”— Boston Globe
“The most thoughtful critique of contemporary liberalism written from within that worldview.." —The Weekly Standard
“…an intellectual (and actual) history of liberalism that even [Lionel] Trilling would approve of… excellent….” — Daily Beast
“…an illuminating history of postwar politics, international relations, culture, and philosophy—all in one scrupulously researched volume.” — Publishers Weekly
Alter-reviews: Big week for live-music
A Tribute to Bobby Short at the Allen Room
Chick Corea with the Jazz@Lincoln Center Orchestra at Rose Hall
Friends of Chick Corea: Musicans of the Future at the Allen Room
Tom Jones at the Bowery Ballroom
Jane Monheit at Birdland
Last Thursday night I took in the tribute to Bobby Short at the Allen Room at Jazz at Lincoln Center. MC’ed by Michael Feinstein, it featured Barbara Carroll, whose voice remains full and fingers nimble at 88 and who worked with Short for decades at the Café Carlyle and they were close friends (but I’m not even sure she was the oldest of the performers that night). Paula West sang some bluesy Cole Porter lyrics that he probably didn’t write and T. Oliver Reid came across as a genuine torch-bearer. Marti Stevens made a rare appearance making this group even older collectively, than the Rolling Stones. But they were also pretty great. The band was Tedd Firth, Andy Farber Ed Howard and Mark McLean.
The evening certainly gave the impression that Short was just as jovial and entertaining in “real life” as on stage. I did manage to scrounge one performance of his out of the people at the Carlyle, luckily, but in my youth, I was not confident I would be able to. The prices, however, were so high as to be prohibitive and so I figured it was not to be.
One day, in mid afternoon, crossing Park Avenue not far from the Carlyle, I was noticed Bobby Short waiting next to me for the light to change. I introduced myself and said that while I was a great admirer of his work, I could not afford the prices at the Carlyle. He said that was too bad, and wished luck before going on his way. About a half a block later, however, he turned around with an idea: “You know,” Short advised me, “you could always marry a rich a girl…”
Friday night, I went back to Jazz at Lincoln Center for two shows on the same night: Chick Corea with the (complete) Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra and then Beka Gochiashvili and Gadi Lehavi at the Allen Room, playing the music of Corea, with Ravi Coltrane and Wallace Rooney joining in.
Did I mention that Gochiashvili (a Georgian) Lehavi (an Israeli) were only 17? They played piano together. I only caught their final songs--a thoughtful meditation on Corea’s “Matrix,” but the poise and patience each one demonstrated was impressive, especially given the big guns with whom they were performing.
I was forced to miss most of their performance because of the generosity of program being played at Rose Hall by Corea, Wynton Marsalis and the complete orchestra--with new arrangements, per usual, by members of the band. Chick Corea may be the most versatile composer alive in any musical form. I have been buying his albums since I was a teenager and I still can’t keep up. It would be impossible to do more than scratch the proverbial surface and that’s just what he and the band did though what a pleasure it was to hear them filled out by this incredible big band. Despite the formality of the hall, and everybody but Chick sartorially sporting Brooks Brothers suits, the evening had a relaxed, rather laid-back atmosphere, with Corea and Marsalis trading the mc role and the members of the band taking turns on a striking set of solos. (Mrs. Corea, Gayle Moran, stopped in the middle of her song to congratulate her husband for being able to surprise her on the keyboards after forty years of accompaniment. She, also, could not possibly have been wearing Brooks Brothers, to put it gently.) The selections moved back and forth over the past fifty years--including a striking recent piece commissioned for the the 50th anniversary of the MIT jazz program. Thankfully, there was none of the awful L. Rod Hubbard stuff, but even that is forgiveable, given everything the man has given us over the past half-century.
Saturday night I saw an amazing show by the sexiest seventy-two year old man on the planet, no contest. Tom Jones sounds as good or better than ever, and like so many of us, is much more handsome than he was before with his gray goatee. Seriously, Tom Jones has a voice that needs to be heard live to be believed and his choice of material in his newest incarnation makes him one of the most compelling and exciting performers I’ve seen in years.
With a tight-knit four-piece band, Jones did a 95-minute set that included songs drawn primarily from 2010’s gospel album Praise & Blame and this year’s terrific “Spirit in the Room.”
Drinking what he explained was “Gray Goose water,” he opened with “Tower of Song,” and ran through “Dimming of the Day,” “Just Dropped In,” Bad as Me,” “Sould of a Man” and some John Lee Hooker.
The only throwbacks to Jones’ past was a lovely encore of "Green, Green Grass of Home,"and in, in tribute to George Jones, "He Stopped Loving Her Today." Now behold the man’s awesomeness in this video: Crosby, Stills, Nash, Young and Tom Jones in 1969.
Finally, Wednesday night, I caught a shockingly crowded show at Birdland where one of my favorite singers, Jane Monheit, was celebrating the release of her new cd, “The Heart Of The Matter” her eleventh. Highlights include:
“Golden Slumbers/The Long And Winding Road” by The Beatles to Buffy St. Marie’s “Until It’s Time For You To Go” to “Depende de Nos” by Ivan Lins, Randy Newman’s “When She Loved Me,” and Hoagy Carmichael’s “I Get Along Without You Very Well” along with first song recorded by Monheit on which she has written both the words and the music, “Night Night Stars.” Believe it or not, she actually turns that horrible “Sing, Sing a song” song into something moving and almost beautiful—though few things are as beautiful as her live version—one of eight arrangements—of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow.” Not even loud German tourists who don’t know you’re not supposed to talk during the performance at Birdland could ruin that.
The new album was produced and arranged by Gil Goldstein, with Michael Kanan on piano, Gil Goldstein on electric piano and accordion, Romero Lubambo on acoustic guitar, Neal on bass, Rick Montalbano on drums, Rogerio Boccato on percussion, David Eggar and Richard Locker on cello, Barry Crawford and Kathleen Nester on alto flute and Sheryl Henze on bass flute and c flute.
How the Media Enabled U.S. Drone Policy
by Reed Richardson
For a nation that, by 2009, had grown both physically and politically weary from two interminable wars against ghost-like foes, it’s not surprising that the incoming Obama administration latched onto drone strikes as its favorite counterterrorism weapon. After all, in theory, drones have much to commend them. They’re relatively cheap, more readily deployable, don’t risk the lives of American service members, and, best of all, they dangle the enticing prospect of raining pinpoint, Zeus-like vengeance down upon the heads of specified enemy terrorists. Money saved, world safer, bad guys dead, good guys home for dinner. What could possibly be wrong with that?
Well, as is always true in the fog of battle, a lot, actually. In fact, the remote unbridling of lethal force against hard-to-identify individuals based on sometimes muddy, often chaotic intelligence has proven to be a sure-fire recipe to kill dozens of innocent people for every target hit. What’s more, it’s increasingly apparent the drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, and elsewhere have ensnared us in a kind of moral and ethical tar pit—the more we exercise this weapon to fight terrorism, the more we subvert the principles of justice and due process we’re supposedly fighting to uphold.
Thus, the president’s announcement that he’ll be curtailing the use of drone strikes and re-establishing military control over the program is long overdue good news. Following on the heels of Attorney General Eric Holder’s formal acknowledgment this week that the U.S. government killed four of its citizens overseas, three of them accidentally, the administration seems to have finally arrived at some kind of turning point on drones. However, it’s important to note that the new Presidential Policy Guidance on drones Obama signed on Wednesday is classified. Moreover, the administration, as was obvious by the unbowed tone of Holder’s letter to Congress, has by no means abandoned its troubling legal justifications for drone strikes overseas. It has merely deemed the strikes themselves less necessary. This leaves the door open for it, or a subsequent White House administration, to ramp it all back up again. That’s why a heaping helping of skepticism is in order.
Sadly, we’ve gotten anything but skepticism from the press since the drone program’s inception. Instead, the establishment media’s coverage has mostly been of the dutifully credulous variety, when not outright cheerleading. For instance, news organizations have routinely lauded the latest drone “success” or terrorist killed, by citing only “U.S. officials” or their proxies as sources. Little more than government propaganda, this kind of reporting uniformly ignores collateral damage and civilian casualties, and sometimes proves to be grossly inaccurate. (See this erroneous 2009 Fox News report that repeats a U.S. official’s claim about the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar Awlawki, who actually survived the attack in question unharmed.)
In addition to this steady drip of positive news briefs, the press has also served up several larger, gushing portraits of the drone program. For example, there was this cinematic, behind-the-scenes dive into the CIA’s role as well as this flattering, White House-insider account. When not chock full of macho posturing— “we are killing these son of bitches faster than they can grow them”—this reporting spins scenes of a steely but sober commander-in-chief—“The president is not a robotic killing machine. The choices he faces are brutally difficult.” Rarely encountered in the establishment media, though, was any discussion of the growing toll of innocent lives lost or the broadening legal quagmire that accompanied the rapid expansion of drone strikes during Obama’s first term.
Even when the mainstream media’s coverage of the drone program doesn’t resort to supple obeisance, there’s still a festering unwillingness to connect all the dots. For instance, New York Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Charlie Savage have been rare bright spots on drone coverage. But I scratch my head in wonder at why Mazzetti and the Times don’t pounce on one of the administration’s key drone strike justifications—that it’s not feasible to capture any of these suspected terrorists on the ground. This is particularly true in light of a Times article co-authored by Mazzetti from this past February, which profiled an elite Yemeni counterterrorism unit trained by U.S. forces for just such a task, but who are stuck doing traffic duty instead.
Indeed, head down to the story’s kicker quote, which raises serious questions about the proffered reasoning for drone strikes in Yemen: “‘For sure, we could be going after some of these guys,’” the [Yemeni] officer said. ‘That’s what we’re trained to do, and the Americans trained us. It doesn’t make sense.’” Ah, but perhaps it does, since any suspected Al Qaeda member captured in Pakistan or Yemen— even if they’re a U.S. citizen as Awlawki was—could end up at the prison in Guantanamo, a civil liberties nightmare that Obama has been unable to close down. Again, this is a critical discussion point that, up until Obama’s announcement today, has been missing from the traditional press’s coverage—until Guantanamo is closed down, it’s almost guaranteed that the drone program won’t be.
But while it’s one thing for the press to fall victim to source bias or a hedging its bets about challenging the government directly, it’s quite another for it to perpetuate a self-fulfilling prophecy among the public—that drone strikes are overwhelmingly popular. Now, it is true that during the Obama’s administration’s first term, the few polls conducted on the topic—including 2011 and 2012 surveys from Pew and one from ABC News/Washington Post—seemed to indicate broad, bipartisan majorities supported the drone program. And as these numbers dovetailed nicely with the Beltway conventional wisdom, the DC press corps gladly ate this narrative up, splashing headlines like “The American public loves drones.” Of course, these same news outlets consistently overlooked the fact that they were busy feeding the public a steady diet of upbeat drone stories in the first place. Round and round we go.
Still, the press’s negligence on the drone program’s popularity extends beyond a mere lack of self–awareness. Its failure involves digging deeper into the polling toplines on drones. If it did, it would have found alarming inconsistencies in the questions and presumptions baked into the drone terminology. For example, the 2011 Pew study’s question was incredibly vague, asking about “the use of unmanned ‘drone’ aircraft for aerial attacks in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.” Conflating a close air support mission in support of U.S. troops against Taliban in Afghanistan with a CIA-approved strike of a possible Al Qaeda member “elsewhere” in Waziristan makes the data gleaned here almost worthless. Similarly, Pew’s 2012 poll posed a question that said drones “target extremists” in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. Notably, Pew’s wording allows for no hint of doubt about the guilt or innocence of these extremists, which is akin to gauging the popularity of sentencing already convicted criminals to jail. Indeed, it’s amazing that only 62 percent of Americans supported drones in this context.
Lately, pollsters seemed to have awakened to this stilted language, and most now identify drone targets as “suspected terrorists.” But even this formulation can present problems because just using the word “terrorist” can trigger a strong psychological response that blots out a single qualifier. (How many parents would say they’re OK with a “suspected child molester” living next door?) What’s more, pollsters never ask follow-up questions about the consequences of these suspicions being wrong or point out how often these drones miss their targets, to see if the potential for killing innocent men, women, and children might cool the zeal for drone strikes. Such nuance can make a huge difference, however. Sadly, it took a grandstanding stunt in the shape of a Senate filibuster by drone-supporting Senator Rand Paul for pollsters and the press to figure this out.
Just days before Paul’s filibuster this past March, Fox News, no slouch when it comes to tapping into the latest oncoming right-wing outrage, added more questions to its own drone policy poll, mirroring the objections of Paul. Lo and behold, it found that as you fleshed out drone use scenarios, like the targeting of suspected terrorists who were also U.S. citizens or who were located on U.S. soil, support for drone strikes fell below majority support. Weeks later, a Gallup Poll using a similar array of questions, found broad disapproval< of drone use in all but the most basic (read: least detailed) case.
Does Paul deserve credit for changing the minds of Americans? I highly doubt it. A more likely explanation is that a latent unease for the use of drone strikes already resided among the public or has been slowly growing for years. But the Beltway press was either uninterested or unwilling to ask the right questions to ferret it out. Paul’s most important contribution was not to eloquently argue the moral and legal case against drones—his superciliousness I already linked to previously. It was to provide the “objective” news outlets a convenient Republican stand-in, so they could finally justify covering the drone issue now that it fell within the confines of a partisan debate. It’s telling that the Obama administration’s reset of drone policy took until now to occur, after all the newly critical press coverage and Congressional hearings took place. Or, as Long War Journal editor Bill Roggio—who has covered this issue tirelessly for years—noted about all the newfound sunshine on drones: “I get the sense that the microscope on the program is leading to greater selectivity in ordering strikes.”
That’s perhaps the most important lesson we should learn about the press’s complicit behavior on drones during the past few years. Public scrutiny can eventually translate into political action. But by going along to get along, the media for far too long provided the Obama administration the cover it needed to freely conduct a counterproductive drone policy that will reverberate for years to come. And the press’s passivity, to this day, enables the president to excuse his actions through a poisoned calculus, one that weighs the largely forgotten civilian casualties from U.S. drone strikes against the innocents killed from terrorist attacks by other Muslims. That kind of ugly moral relativity should remind the media that there is still a toll being paid, and a steep one at that, for having failed to hold this president accountable on his drone policy.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com. Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
Sanford Sklansky, Racine
Regarding Watergate, one of the things the precipitated Watergate was that Nixon wanted files that would show at worst that he had committed treason by trying to stall peace talks while Johnson was still president. Johnson had Walt Rostow take those files before Johnson left the White House. The files later went to the Johnson library in 1974 and where not to be opened for 50 years. They were later opened in 1994. While not specifying exactly the Nixon tapes do indicate that this is what they were looking for. Robert Parry does a lot better job of explaining than I can.
Secondly this has not gotten much reporting in the main stream media. Here is Greenwald explaining it all. He wrote a column about this the other day as well.
Hi- Your article "Worse Than Watergate?" was great. But the PPP results included some related results. One was that fewer (70% vs. 74%) thought that Benghazi was worse than Iran Contra. I tend to think this indicates that a few more people actually remember Iran Contra. Similarly, the same number (74%) thought that Benghazi was worse than Teapot Dome! (I had a lot of fun with this fact at my website, if you are interested.) There is no question that almost no one in the poll even knew what Teapot Dome was. And that makes me think that no one remembers what Watergate was either. Regardless, all the poll really tells us is that Republicans don't like Obama and that the conservative media outlets have been pushing the Benghazi scandal. You are right to be concerned that people don't remember Watergate. But that can't be a surprise when they don't know where Benghazi is. On the other hand, I hope they end the embargo so I can visit Benghazi, Cuba before I die! -Frank
PS: Have you seen the brilliant "The Mitchell and Web Look" bit about Watergate-gate? It would go well with your article.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new Think Again is called “Worse than Watergate?” Guess what it’s about.
Congratulations once again to the Hillman Foundation for their award to Andrew Sullivan, who is quick to remind them of his pride in promoting the racist/eugencist-based research of Charles Murray going all Bell Curve-y about the Richwine scandal, here. I’m sure immigrant unionists are particularly pleased....
So it was a relatively quiet week musically. I did catch my first ever Hays Carll show last Friday at City Winery. I missed out on Hays for a while, but I saw him on PBS during last year’s Americana Awards show and boy was he funny. I bought two albums of his and they were pretty funny too but also quite a bit more than that. He’s from the Steve Earle/Robert Earl Keen/Jimmy Dale Gilmore school of Texas ironic soulfulness in songwriting—Corb Lund is another member—and he’s pretty funny and charming in concert. Pretty impressive band too. If any of the above is your thing, then you’ll be glad you invested in. His website is here. Oh and “Wings over America is back,” remastered like the most recent McCartney re-releases. It’s a great album—I was there—as it pulls together much of what was great about McCartney’s early post-Beatle releases and only a few from what totally sucked (“Silly Love Songs” is bad. “Let Em In” is one of the worst songs of all time.)
That’s all. Now here’s Reed.
Obama’s Media Shield Kabuki
by Reed Richardson
In battle, assessing the true strength of one’s defenses necessitates taking full measure of the forces opposing them. Armor is only as worthy as the threats it can protect against, in other words. This is why taking cover—either physically or intellectually—behind a position that offers little to no real protection becomes twice as risky; it perpetuates a false sense of security where none exists and encourages ignorance of the real dangers lurking about.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s renewed interest in a federal media shield law this week presents just such a hazard for the press. Coming on the heels of a revelation by the Justice Department that it secretly scooped up phone records of Associated Press reporters to identify the source of a classified leak, it’s not hard to see this as a transparent ploy at damage control. (The AP story that drew the government’s scrutiny, which included leaks about how the CIA thwarted an Al Qaida bomb plot, is here.) While it may be tempting to view the passage of a media shield law as a potential silver lining to an otherwise ugly case of executive overreach, context here matters greatly. And it’s why it’s worth closely examining what the press really would—or more accurately, wouldn’t—gain if the bill gets passed.
Some background is necessary—the debate over how much constitutional protection the press enjoys regarding confidential sources was the fundamental issue in the landmark 1972 Supreme Court case of Branzburg v. Hayes. Though a majority of the Court found the press does not have an absolute privilege to withhold sources in every circumstance, an ambiguous concurrence by Justice Lewis Powell and a compelling dissenting opinion essentially snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. Thanks largely to these arguments, a large majority of states in the past forty years have been able to enact media shield laws that either do grant absolute privilege or that recognize the dissenter’s more press-friendly, multi-part test framework. (For a handy state-by-state breakdown of shield laws, check out the Reporter’s Committee for the Freedom of the Press.)
This patchwork quilt of state-based media shield laws is problematic, obviously. It punishes the press in states with less progressive legislatures, makes navigating interstate or national stories that much more difficult, and fails to address the unique circumstances in play when reporting on national security. Thus, a robust, federal version of the shield law has been a goal of free press advocates almost since the Branzburg decision came out.
Here’s the rub, though. The compromised 2009 federal media shield bill that Obama wants to revive is anything but robust and, overall, it might actually end up being a net negative for press freedom. Though a federal shield would undoubtedly help the press in the states that currently offer no source protection, the media outlets in places that already enjoy absolute privilege (12 states, including, critically, New York, as well as the District of Columbia) would experience a noticeable roll back in rights. What’s more, when it comes to national security and classified leaks, this particular bill’s language provides little more than a legal speed-bump for any overzealous government agency. And worst of all, Obama knows this.
How? Because four years ago, he was the one responsible for weakening it. The truth is, had the 2009 federal media shield law been in place last year, when the Justice Department secretly obtained the AP’s phone records, the outcome likely wouldn’t have changed. This even the bill’s chief sponsor tacitly acknowledged this past week: “Schumer himself made no claims that a shield law would have blocked the probe. Instead he says, ‘at minimum, our bill would have ensured a fairer, more deliberate process in this case.’”
Even this claim of a “more deliberate process” seems dubious, though. As the Times noted of the changes requested by the Obama administration in 2009:
[U]nder the administration’s proposal, such procedures would not apply to leaks of a matter deemed to cause ‘significant’ harm to national security. Moreover, judges would be instructed to be deferential to executive branch assertions about whether a leak caused or was likely to cause such harm, according to officials familiar with the proposal.
Previously, the government’s burden of proof had been more stringent and tangible—it would have had to document that “imminent and actual harm to national security” would result if a media source was not identified. But due to White House fears that this language afforded the press almost blanket immunity, this time-critical element was stripped out and, in its place, the government was given broad leeway to interpret a leak’s impact. Thus, the press would be left in the unenviable position of pleading a case of “he said, she said” against a national security apparatus that now enjoys the benefit of the doubt in the court’s eyes.
Sadly, this comes as no surprise from an administration that has undertaken a disturbingly aggressive approach toward leaks. Just this past Wednesday, Attorney General Eric Holder demonstrated this us-versus-them mindset during a House Judiciary Committee, where he was ostensibly advocating for press freedom:
“There should be a shield law with regard to the press’s ability to gather information and to disseminate it,” [Holder] said. “The focus should be on those people who break their oath and put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather this information.”
This statement displays a rather stunning lack of cognitive dissonance on the part of the Attorney General. But it does explain a lot about the Obama administration’s unprecedented “War on Whistleblowers” and adversarial approach toward leaks in the press. After all, an administration can hardly be expected to operate under the presumption that leakers are betraying the country and harming its security without eventually losing professional respect and judicial regard for those in the press to whom they are leaking. No matter the president’s words, all too often his administration’s actions demonstrate a contemptuous attitude toward the press for abetting these leaks.
Which us brings to the final disgrace of the media shield law—its rapidly growing irrelevance. In an environment where our sprawling national security apparatus repeatedly abuses its power and increasingly relies upon secret “215” subpoenas and gag-ordered National Security Letters (NSLs) to out confidential sources and collect data, the law represents little more than the legal equivalent of the French Maginot Line, an outdated, easily-bypassed fortification. While the revelation about Justice Department’s monitoring of the AP is shocking, it really shouldn’t be. The fact is, our government secretly gather vast troves of surveillance information about journalists (and the public) thousands of times every year without them (or us) ever knowing about it.
What impact would the proposed media shield law have on this supra-judicial spying of the media? Precious little, if any. And therein lies the trouble. Passing it would only offer a pretense of a solution to a much more insidious problem confronting our government and the press. Repairing this critical relationship requires more than Obama signing a largely symbolic piece of legislation, one that fails to honestly address our out-of-control secret surveillance state. Encouragingly, some of the excesses of our national security apparatus are finally being questioned by the courts. But unless the establishment press also refuses to be co-opted into accepting the status quo, things won’t get better for it, or for our democracy. In other words, to truly safeguard our freedom of the press, merely giving it a shield is no longer enough. We now have to start taking back the weapons our own government is using to attack it.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com.
Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
RE: “Why Does the Press Take the Heritage Foundation Seriously?”
Dear Mr. Richardson:
A couple of points: Immigration reform will not help Social Security or Medicare in the long run, as millions more citizens mean trillions more in unfunded liabilities, the short-term windfall notwithstanding.
Of course an expanded population typically means a bigger GDP; if America absorbed China our output and income would increase gigantically. Problem is, per capita income and production would go down in a major way.
Quite frankly, I don't give a damn about your feelings on whether Richwine used racist stereotyping. What does matter is if his arguments or numbers can be refuted. If so, well and good, we've advanced in knowledge a little. If not, we've still gotten ahead in what we know, despite liberal pieties that seem eternally meant to stifle truth.
Well, at least the PC corps got Richwine booted out. So much for the disinterested search for truth.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new “Think Again” column on Niall Ferguson’s ridiculous apology and the issues it raises is here.
My new Nation column advises that regarding the Tribune papers, we worry about Murdoch, not Koch, here.
Alter-Reviews (These are pretty long, but take heart, Reed is below):
Crosby, Stills & Nash with Jazz@Lincoln Center Orchestra.
Steve Tyrell singing Sammy Cahn at the Café Carlyle.
The final weekend of Jazzfest.
I must have done something nice for someone at some point in my life because fate rewarded me with a last minute ticket to the annual benefit show presented at the Rose Theater at Jazz at Lincoln Center featuring the complete orchestra together with Crosby, Stills and Nash.
The old guys were thrilled by the experience, which David Crosby likened to “getting to play with the bigger kids.” They even dressed up in Brooks Brothers suits, like the rest of the band and wore shoes with laces. The show consisted of CSN songs re-imagined with jazz arrangements by members of the orchestra. It was rarely a complete success, but always an audacious and welcome experiment. I say “audacious” because unlike previous participants in these benefit/collaborations, Eric Clapton and Paul Simon or even Willie Nelson, one cannot easily the jazz, or even blues elements of the CSN catalogue.
I particularly liked the latin vibe attached to “Long Time Coming,” the big-band swing of “Military Madness” and back and forth dueling in “Marrakesh Express.” The deserved crowd-pleasers were a wonderful “Suite: Judy Blue Eyes” with an impressive Steve Stills solo that mimicked “Within You Without You” and a lovely Crosby/Nash duet on “Guinnevere,” with Wynton Marsalis perched between them playing a quiet trumpet accompaniment.
As it ended, and Nash announced that “I think we have time for one more song before Brooks Brothers takes the suits back,” they ended as do all CSN shows: with a sing-along “Teach Your Children.” But this time the crowd wouldn’t leave and so they formed a second line and danced and chanted around the stage for another ten minutes, with everybody (I imagine) thinking how lucky they were to be there. J@LC has a Chick Corea and a Bobby Short tribute coming up next week so you should be able to find me there too. More here.
I also caught a wonderfully up-tempo show by the great Steve Tyrell who has developed into a kind of latter-day Tony Bennett but with a touch of Tom Waits in his voice. He’s doing a run at the Café Carlyle through May 18 in celebration of his brand new 10th album, It’s Magic: The Songs of Sammy Cahn. It is also Cahn’s centennial year. I had a wonderful time, as Tyrell is a charming storyteller and an almost irresistible interpreter of the classics to which he devotes himself, pretty much exclusively. (I did get him to give the crowd about a half of “Spinning Wheel” in honor of his B,S& T days and the fact that its original trumpeter Lew Soloff is in the band.)
Anyway, the album was a marvelous idea. Cahn’s songs are quite well known, but their composer is not. Tyrell told the crowd that he was drawn to the material because of the moment in American popular culture when, just before the Beatles, “the old-world thinking ran into the sexual revolution. That’s around 1958. Before that, everybody was ‘goody two-shoes,’ sleeping in twin beds on TV. Then all of sudden, there was the Rat Pack, Las Vegas, James Bond, and Playboy magazine. Things started getting sexy,” Tyrell explains. This is the period most revered by this current generation as witnessed by the success of Mad Men, the remakes of Ocean’s Eleven, Twelve and Thirteen, and this year’s salute to James Bond at the 2013 Oscars. And then there’s Diddy with his Rat Pack Vodka commercials.” (Actually Mad Men’s a little later, but still…) The songs--“Ain’t That a Kick in the Head”--“Come Fly with Me-- “All the Way,” etc, are often associated with Sinatra. Nobody can compete with that and Tyrell doesn’t try. He’s not new arrangements and a different approach.“
You can’t have a bad time at a Steve Tyrell show, but you can spend a great deal of money. The cover at the Carlyle runs between $60 and $160. My intrepid reporting discovered that a Gray Goose martini will set you back $22.00 plus tax and tip. That’s what I call a kick in the head….
More than 425,000 fans attended the 2013 New Orleans Jazz & Heritage
Festival. Here’s a report on the final weekend by one of them:
New Orleans Jazz Festival
by Katelyn Belyus
The rain was gone, and with the sun came droves of people, which is to be expected for the last Saturday of Jazz Fest. After marveling at my stuffed artichoke (and the idea that each year, there must be thousands of artichokes plucked, trimmed, cleaned, and stuffed for the masses), I checked out Robert Mirabal. He's pretty much a jack-of-all-trades from Taos, where he lives a traditional Pueblo lifestyle. In addition to writing poetry and making music (for which he's won two Grammys), he paints, acts, farms, and is known for his work on the Native American flute. From far away, his sputtering movements reminded me of Iggy Pop, and his flute-playing floated through the crowd. “It's the music where the ceremony begins... it's the dance where the ceremony begins... it's the blood where the ceremony begins... demand that! Demand that! Demand that!” He commanded the crowd, and they answered by dipping their hands in some sort of ceremonial bowl that was passed around the first few rows of people. “Your prayers will go to my river,” he promised.
I needed a break from the seriousness, and Chubby Carrier and the Bayou Swamp Band (also a Grammy winner) was just that. “I wanna thank my granddaddy for introducing me to Zydeco music,” Carrier said before going into the jumpy, accordion-driven “Jalapena Lena.” A blend of Cajun, blues, and rhythm and blues music, Zydeco is a uniquely American, and many a Fest-er celebrated by cheering on the guy playing his washboard and by dancing in the mud, clad in white shrimping boots, their bellies proudly exposed.
Next up: The Little Willies, also known as “Norah Jones' country band.” Of course, they're much more than Jones on the piano and vocals, but it's worth noting that her voice is so well-suited for country, and especially for their vocal harmonies. Their music is a little country, a little bluegrass, marked by the molasses in Jones' voice. It wasn't immediate get-up-and-dance music, but by the time they launched into their cover of Johnny Cash's “Tennessee Stud,” people were moving. Word on the street was they did a stand-out cover of Dolly Parton's heartbreaking “Jolene,” perhaps the finest example of a successful pop song written in a minor key.
I was torn between the two major acts of the night--Fleetwood Mac and Frank Ocean--and I decided on Fleetwood first and Ocean to follow. Of course, FM came out to “The Chain,” and then rolled right into “Dreams,” which, though predictable, did not make it any less awesome. I'm a huge FM fan, but have never seen them live, and I was struck by how effortlessly they come together, even after all these years (or perhaps because of all these years?). And yet they still know how to write solid songs, especially crowd-pleasers, as they revealed with “Sad Angel,” an upbeat song recently released in April that literally asks the crowd to “call out for more.” I danced as best I could, which was no minor feat considering I was up to my ankles in mud, with my boat shoes struggling to stay on my feet. They went into “Rhiannon” and everyone around me-- college guys, hippie gals, parents, kids-- sung along with Stevie, wearing her signature long black sleeves on the hottest day of the weekend. Before going into a few songs off “Tusk,” including the title track and “Sara,” Lindsay Buckingham noted how the album was famously not wanted by record execs but seemed vindicated in its popular appeal that has grown over time. “Time has revealed the reason that was done,” he said about the album before launching into “Not That Funny” and practically shouting at the record label. As they began “Looking Out for Love,” (Buckingham pointed out that he was “defending [love]”), I trudged over to Frank Ocean's stage, my current love whose music I would defend with my life.
I joined the crowd towards the end of “Super Rich Kids,” a cutting critique of said subject matter, with lines like “Super rich kids with nothing but loose ends/ super rich kids with nothing but fake friends.” For those of you unfamiliar with Frank Ocean, I implore you to check him out. A native of New Orleans, he's young, vibrant, and black, and his music is lyrically eloquent and technically lush. He's a cross between hip-hop and R&B, but with intensely personal lyrics. He gained press last summer with the arrival of his Channel: Orange album that coincided with his coming out-- how far out, people tend to disagree-- but he has spoken and written openly about loving another man, and it's both amazing and incredibly sad that it's become such a topic of conversation-- the “out” black R&B kid. Not surprisingly, other artists seem split on the idea-- some embrace him, some question its validity, and some hate him for it, as Chris Brown (who nauseates me to begin with) demonstrated after a very public physical altercation (or were there two?). Ocean, for what it's worth, maintains a very strong sense of privacy, but still remains very public-- he's a perfect example of personal curation in the Twitter age.
I'd heard mixed reviews about his live performances and the sound quality, but when I arrived, his voice was crystal clear, his falsetto mesmerizing, and he was smiling. My heart leapt. The crowd was mixed and knew most of his lyrics, and it was nice to be nestled among so many young people, gay and straight, of all racial backgrounds, who could throw up their hands to “Thinkin Bout You” (featuring an electric cello and Ocean's crisp vocals) and not care who the song was about. There's something about Ocean that crosses racial and gender boundaries and touches people at their core, because of the honest mix of pleasure and pain in his lyrics. I first heard “Bad Religion” last year on an alt-rock station in Philly, and I stopped everything and sat down slowly. I had never heard anything like it-- a love song for a man by a man, as told in this century's confessional: inside a cab, with a non-English-speaking driver who can't judge, with incredible lines about what it is to live disguised, “Taxi driver, I swear I got three lives/balanced on my head like steak knives.” The first time I heard it, I had chills. Hearing it again live was perfect-- aside from his having to stop and re-start because he hadn't been counted in correctly-- and human, and I became untethered as I watched the crowd's wants and needs collide.
I woke up exhausted from a night of dancing to Sunpie & the Louisiana Sunspots, a happy, upbeat mix of blues, Caribbean, funk and Zydeco fronted by Sunpie Barnes on the accordion and vocals. I’d missed him at the fest, so I caught him at Dos Jefes Cigar Bar on the West Riverside. As I walked in, Sunpie was in the middle of an original that sounded like a funky accordion take on “You Sexy Thing,” and he was surrounded by Fest-ers, their shoes caked with mud a telltale giveaway.
Sunday at the Jazz Fest was glorious—less heat, no mud, and a smaller crowd. I’d come to specifically to see the Black Keys, but had a few stops beforehand.
First up were the New Orleans Nightcrawlers, another brass band with some heavy, sophisticated trumpet work and typically energetic call and response from the crowd. They hit the classic “I’ll Fly Away,” eliciting the most cheers so far from a local band, and the musicians were joined on stage by a pair of kids, one wearing a fake mustache, presumably related to a band member.
I promised my brother I’d check out the Pine Leaf Boys, a Cajun band from South Louisiana he fell in love with around the same time he took an interest in grilling and noodling, a form of bare-fisted catfishing (it’s as painful as it sounds). “Prepare for your mind to be blown,” he texted me. The Pine Leaf Boys were a great, even mix of fiddles, guitars, drums, and accordions. They’ve been nominated for four Grammys but are still waiting for a win. Their energy was contagious, and they played through a whirlwind of Cajun and Creole dancehall hits.
Finally, it was time for the Black Keys, a bluesy indie rock band formed back in the early ‘00s but whose popularity has grown exponentially in recent years (they landed a coveted music spot on SNL in 2011). They started as a garage rock duo—yes, like the White Stripes, Local H, and the Kills—with Dan Auerbach on guitar and vocals and Patrick Carney on drums. For the past few years, they’ve been touring with a full band, which sort of cheapened the duo aesthetic for me, but I was open to hear them. Caveat: I was open to rock out with them. Remember “Heavy Soul?” I firmly believe that song was made for shaking. Even the more recent—and more pop—“Lonely Boy” crushes as a rock song. I last rocked out to it in a room full of 30-somethings at a wedding in upstate New York, and I figured Jazz Fest would be similar. I was wrong.
It’s not that they didn’t play a solid set—they had a diverse mix of old and new tunes, and they kicked off the rest of the band and did the duo thing for a while, too. On “Little Black Submarines” (one of the best songs of 2011, if you want my truth), Auerbach rocked a steel guitar that glinted gold in the sunlight. But the wind was a little too strong, the music was a little too soft, and the crowd just a little too young. The sound was muddied. But really, the crowd was the worst part—they just weren’t into it. Sure, they sang along with the more recent “Gold on the Ceiling,” and a bunch of tracks off of Brothers, including their openers “Howlin’ for You” and “Next Girl,” but the crowd never really got lifted. I was all rubber legs and hair in my face, but next to me was a gym rat tossing beers on the ground, and a couple of pre-teens with their parents. It was crowded, but not too crowded not to dance, and I was mystified. The guys started late, ended early, and did a two-song encore (“Lonely Boy” and “I Got Mine”). It was a good set; it just felt wan.
Luckily, I recovered by hitting the Blues Tent for Taj Mahal, who earned his Grammys that day. He’s about seventy and hails from Harlem; and he does some wickedly good work on harmonica and guitar, among other instruments. The tent was jam-packed, and he opened with “Going Up to the Country, Paint My Mailbox Blue,” a harmonica-fronted ode to an exodus from the city life. He switched to guitar and was joined by The Real Thing Tuba Band. The man is a true blues musician, mouthing along with his guitar as he played, as if his lips were doing the work, not his fingers. His voice is muscle and sinew. His hands play with purpose. He said, “It’s Sunday, so you know you gotta do a piece of church music,” and went into “You’re Gonna Need Somebody on Your Bond,” the old Blind Willie Johnson tune. I left right after he finished “Chevrolet” searching for one final act.
The Fais Do Do stage was where the believers were. Del McCoury’s band was playing with the Preservation Hall Jazz Band. Apologies: Del McCoury’s band was battling the Preservation Hall Jazz Band. It was a full-on bluegrass country folk outlet battling one of the most famous brass bands in New Orleans. Del McCoury is seventy-four and looks about that. He hails from Pennsylvania and has been playing bluegrass guitar and banjo since the ‘60s. He even started an annual bluegrass festival called DelFest. His band members are seasoned professionals, and they went head to head with members of the Preservation Hall Band. The crowd was wild and exuberant; it was the perfect merging of bluegrass and jazz, with a fiddler battling a trumpeter (I called a draw). It was the perfect finale. Indeed, this pairing was exactly what I’d come for, without having known it, and both bands were triumphant.
A final note: That night I caught the Brass-A-Holics on Frenchman, and they were awesome—a different kind of brass band, doing pop covers and their own songs, with a nice blend of kitsch and funk. They mashed up Nirvana’s “Smells Like Teen Spirit” with Sir Mix-A-Lot’s “Baby Got Back,” hit a high note with the “Rocky” theme, and even went Jersey Strong with Bon Jovi’s “Livin on a Prayer.” What was most interesting is that they feature female keyboardist and electric guitarist, doing massive licks atop a speaker, and they were racially mixed. Definitely worth checking out.
Why Does the Press Still Take the Heritage Foundation Seriously?
by Reed Richardson
Around Washington, and even inside the organization itself, it’s not uncommon to hear the Heritage Foundation referred to as “the Beast.” This is no surprise, since Heritage, founded forty years ago by frustrated right-wingers Paul Weyrich and Ed Feulner, has grown to become perhaps the largest, most lavishly funded conservative advocacy group in the country. Funded by corporations like ExxonMobil, non-profits run by the Kochs and numerous secret individual donors, Heritage currently boasts a staff of 275, an annual budget of $82.4 million, and the ear of nearly every Republican in Congress.
Its massive footprint doesn’t stop there, however. When it comes to influence, Heritage routinely ranks as the single-most popular right-wing think tank in the country among the media. In its annual 2012 think tank survey, media watchdog FAIR found Heritage topped the partisan ranks again with 1,540 press citations, a figure, it should be noted, that outnumbered the combined citations of the top two most-cited left-wing groups. For those of us who beat back ceaselessly against the tide of phony “liberal media bias” claims, this reality is galling. But not nearly as much as the reality that, for a long time now, the Heritage Foundation has done less and less of what might be called honest thinking, and more and more of what could accurately be called intellectual tanking.
Fresh evidence of their analytical posing arrived this past Monday, when Heritage unveiled a patently dishonest report on immigration reform, which pegged the policy’s potential economic cost to the nation at a whopping $6.3 trillion. How dishonest was it? By ignoring any benefits of reform, Heritage overlooked other studies that found a net gain of $300 million to Social Security and Medicare and as much as $1.4 trillion to the national economy over the next decade. In fact, Heritage co-author Robert Rector, at a Monday press conference, openly acknowledged: “It is not an analysis of the entire immigration reform bill.” Of course, he knew that this nuance would be lost in the media scrum that followed its release and, sure enough, many of the usual media suspects quickly conflated Heritage’s one-sided focus on the supposed costs of “amnesty” with that of the entire “immigration reform bill.” In short, Heritage’s report, though utterly worthless as a work of policy analysis, had already begun to succeed at its true goal—handing right-wing opponents of immigration reform a pseudo-economic talking point with which to brandish in the press.
In what passes for good news these days, Monday’s Heritage report did ignite some noticeable pushback among pundits, mostly on the left but, surprisingly, a few on the right as well. For example, Washington Post conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin and longtime GOP politico Haley Barbour, who normally carry more water for the latest right-wing meme than the capacity of the California aqueduct system, both lambasted it. Rubin said it was an "embarrassment," Barbour labeled it "a political document" and "not serious analysis." Bracingly good candor, to be sure, but let’s temper our celebrating a bit, shall we. After all, Heritage’s latest immigration reform report was essentially the equivalent of giving the Washington chattering classes a do-over from 2007, when the pundits readily swallowed a similarly transparent ideological attack (that one had a $2.6 trillion price tag). And while calling out Heritage’s latest analysis as flawed is a start, it’s a far cry from what those in the media should be doing—courageously outing the entire organization as unworthy of media attention.
If you think that’s a bit harsh, don’t just take my word for it. Listen to current Heritage president, and former Tea Party senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint last December: “If ever you compromise your research, one time, then no one ever believes you again…My goal is to protect the research and policy people from the politics.” That DeMint would even dare to utter such a statement speaks volumes about the press’s incestuous relationship with Heritage. Why? Because time and again, his organization has either compromised its integrity or pulled its intellectual punches in pursuit of political goals:
– First and foremost are the legendary contortions Heritage has engaged in regarding the individual mandate for healthcare, which it helped pioneer nearly twenty-five years ago. The same mandate it raged against last year as “unprecedented” and “unconstitutional” now that the provision had become a key part of Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
– Earlier this year, Heritage went and hired chief Cheney lieutenant David Addington to take over its legal division and, ironically, be a watchdog against "executive overreach" by Obama. The same Addington who argued the vice president wasn’t part of the executive branch and who participated in discussions about destroying CIA videotapes of torture.
– In 2012, one Heritage scholar, so incensed that people might disagree with his organization’s austerity agenda, decided to go from think tank to fight club on a protestor in Seattle.
– What about that time in 2011 when Heritage was caught red-handed arbitrarily swapping out unemployment figures to make its analysis of the House GOP budget appear more plausible?
– Then there was the 2010 fiasco where Heritage flagrantly cut ten pages from a British environmental analysis in a shameless attempt to introduce doubt about climate change, conflicting the actual report’s conclusion.
– Let’s not forget the Heritage blog post from 2008 that subtly warned a United Nations Green Economy Initiative was merely a first step on the road to Nazi/Soviet collectivism and oppression of freedom.
– And then there’s my personal favorite, this 2012 Election Day video-cum-summer-blockbuster-
trailer from Heritage Action, the foundation’s political campaign advocacy arm. In it, the group’s leader dramatically declares that his group is fighting nothing less than “a war to save this nation” from Obama’s policies.
I could go on, but you get the idea. Whatever intellectual legitimacy the Heritage Foundation once had, it should have long ago been exhausted in the legislative corridors of Washington, and along with it the patience and credulousness of the media. Nevertheless, Heritage’s recent immigration reform rollout was accompanied not just by a friendly reception in so-called straight news stories, but a welcoming hand on the nation’s op-ed pages, too. In recent weeks, both USA Today and The Washington Post have given over to DeMint a full column to push Heritage’s anti-immigration reform “research.” Now, it’s one thing to cite Heritage in a news story, where presumably (although, admittedly, not always) opposing viewpoints will also be aired. But it’s quite another to give an extreme right-wing group like Heritage the imprimatur of your news organization by letting them author an opinion piece that will showcase their ideas unchallenged.
This editorial malleability can lead to almost comic consequences. The Post, for instance, perhaps sensing trouble, made a point of running a simultaneous rebuttal editorial this past Monday that accused Heritage of “distort[ing]” the immigration debate. To which one might respond, well yes it is, but guess who else is damn well helping them?
Indeed, the Post seems to have a bit of a soft spot for Heritage as they gave DeMint an op-ed platform right after he was hired back in November to discuss the “new message” he was bringing to the foundation. DeMint repaid this editorial generosity by repeating the same old fully debunked lie about President Obama having “disabled welfare reform last year.” But that isn’t even the most sadly ironic part—to substantiate his charge about welfare reform, DeMint linked to a scurrilous op-ed piece by Heritage fellow Rector that was published, you guessed it, in THe Washington Post.
In the past few days, the Post, among others in the media, very publicly learned an embarrassing lesson about the company one keeps when it came to light that the Heritage report’s co-author, Jason Richwine, harbored some disturbing racial stereotypes. In his recent Harvard dissertation, for example, Richwine wrote: “No one knows whether Hispanics will ever reach IQ parity with whites, but the prediction that new Hispanic immigrants will have low-IQ children and grandchildren is difficult to argue against.” Faster than you can say “The Bell Curve,” both the media and even the Heritage Foundation dumped Richwine over the side. But notably, Heritage stuck by their “amnesty” report, even though, in various parts, it echoes Richwine’s pessimistic dissertation about the potential educational progress of a mostly Hispanic immigrant pool.
This shocking level of intellectual intransigence is something of a double-edged sword for the media, however. In such an egregious case like this, the press doesn’t have to exercise much in the way of editorial judgment to see the politicized deception that colors the entire Heritage “amnesty” report. But until the press figures out, once and for all, that reverse engineering policy analysis to satisfy ideological dogma is what Heritage does every day, then it’s liable to keep on sullying its reputation by giving journalistic oxygen to the foundation’s incendiary goals. For the sake of better, more honest discourse in our democracy, it’s the time for the media to finally start treating the Heritage Foundation like the permanent political campaign shop that it is. That means far more skepticism of its actions and far less interest in its obvious ploys for attention. In other words, it’s long past time to start starving “the Beast.”
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com.
Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
I’ve got a new Think Again: A Realistic Approach to Syria. Read it.
(I wrote this earlier): Here’s an idea for Tina Brown: Fire the clownish, incompetent Howard Kurtz, replace him with Conor Simpson or Jamison Foer.
A “Howard Kurtz is a clown” sampler:
Kurtz suggests Fox News is balanced, WaPo editorial page is liberal
Howard Kurtz's double standard on double standards
Howard Kurtz's bogus conflict-of-interest defense
Howard Kurtz's wasted opportunity
or Alex Pareene here too, or one of the anchors on that website where they strip when they read the news. Really, who could be worse?
This just in. Apparently I telepathized my idea to Tina and Kurtz is “resigned” in the ignominy he has been so richly earning for the past two decades.
Isn’t this a funny comment? I read it in Tablet:
“In a characteristically candid interview, he said that, despite his patronage of arts institutions from the Metropolitan to the Israel Museum, he never thought about donating the collection.
“There’s a virtue in these things being in homes rather than on some museum shelf,” he said. By many accounts, Steinhardt’s collection, focusing on ceremonial objects for home and synagogue, is the most significant of its kind to come to market in the half century since the 1964 Sotheby’s auction of Judaica amassed by Polish émigré Michael Zagayski.”
What a humanitarian, making millions so that people can keep this stuff to themselves rather than share it with the wider world. Oh and the Met and the Israel Museum did team up to buy an illuminated Torah for over $4 million. Too bad that won’t get to be held privately so only rich folk could see it like the great humanitarian whom Tablet quotes so crazily sympathetically would have liked.
Does Steinhardt fund Tablet? I dunno...But if he does, it would esplain the above.
Alter-reviews: Catherine Russell and the Jazz@Lincoln Center Orchestra does Duke
I went to Jazz@Lincoln Center on consecutive evenings last weekend. Friday night, at the club, Dizzy’s, I caught one of my favorite female singers, Catherine Russell, with her band, doing a jazz and blues set. (Catherine is also top-tier backup singer for bands like Bowie’s and Steely Dan.) The daughter of Luis Russell, was Louis Armstrong's long-time musical director, she sure is schooled in the history of the music, and picks out chestnuts from the past which you can’t believe you’ve not heard before. She makes them her own, at least as far as I can tell, being unfamiliar with the originals, but they sure do sound great with her band (and of course, against the background of Columbus Circle at Dizzy’s). I first discovered her because Terry Gross is a big fan and then I caught her singing with the Donald Fagen/Boz Scaggs/Michael MacDonald band, where she pretty much stole the show. See the woman if you can, or at least check out her cds. I think there are two of them.
The following night, however was one for the ages. The full Jazz@LC orchestra—which strikes me as a pretty difficult get, of late, playing an all Ellington night. There’s no question that Wynton Marsalis has always modeled his adult self on Duke, but there are many other influences fighting for pride of place there as well (Miles, Louis, his dad, etc.) Bak in 1988, Wynton Marsalis put together members of his (then) septet which included Ellington alumni Jimmy Hamilton, Willie Cook, Jimmy Woode, Norris Turney, Britt Woodman, and Joe Temperley to create the first iteration of the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra, he and the players have always demonstrated a special relationship to the enormous Ellington oeuvre and it’s hard to imagine a group of musicians alive today who could do this body of work greater justice than this band did the night I saw them. Joe Temperley is still in the band and he played masterfully. Ditto Walter Blanding on sax and Wynton himself, letting go on solos that were written as if for him to play that way on that night. The two versions of “Mood Indigo” were the highlights, together with “Do Nothing ‘till You Hear from Me,” at least from my seat, but I can tell you, everyone in that full hall (and there were four shows) felt him or herself lucky to be there.
The Jazz@LC calendar is here. Sorry if you don’t live in New York.
Though, come to think of it., it’s the second weekend of Jazzfest in New Orleans. Teaching commitments kept from going to what I insist is the Western world’s best party, but The Nation’s Katelyn Belyus is there and has volunteered for the role of Altercation Roving Reporter. Here is her first filing (Reed appears below):
Wed night arrival: It began at the Howlin' Wolf's Megalomaniacs Ball. I rolled into a gnarly, open space filled with a mixed crowd spilling out of the open bar into the street. Not a surprise, since every place down here spills onto the street at some point or another. Marco Benevento, the brilliant indie pianist from Brooklyn, was just finishing his set. I'd had the pleasure of catching Benevento a couple of years ago at the House of Blues' Piano Night, and I marveled at his performance then-- using a guitar pick on the piano strings while he accompanied himself on the keys; the covers of Amy Winehouse and Cee Lo Green. He is a true experimentalist.
Benevento made way for the Mike Dillon Band, and Dillon's lunatic artistry crept over every inch of the stage with tentacle-like majesty. The band is a collaborative effort that sounds like a combination of punk and ska, Zappa and Sublime, with a touch of marching band and hardcore. I know that sounds crazy, but the really crazy part, is that it actually succeeds. Dillon's work on the vibes is enthralling, but perfectly in sync with Carly Meyers on trombone. A tour de force, Meyers fronts that stage with frenetic energy that lends a new interpretation of the trombone-- and of the police whistle, which she also aptly “plays.” This was not the first I'd seen her, but it was the first I'd seen her so completely absorbed with the music. Where I had detected shyness now held court for a fierce vitality and abundant energy. She practically galloped around stage before diving off into a crowd of devotees and then finishing the set. “That was intense,” breathed a lady behind me.
Dillon's band left the stage to the Stanton Moore Trio, always odd to me that the band is named for the drummer, until you watch the drummer drum. Stanton Moore shows up to the kit looking like a kid fresh out of Sunday School. Skerik on sax and Charlie Hunter on the eight-string round out the trio, and their synergy is tight. Everyone knows their place at any given moment, even if that place is to repeat a riff forty or fifty times to keep the others on track. Mike D and Benevento dropped back in, and the crowd relived their favorite Garage A Trois days. They are so striking in their shared smiles and laughs onstage. Skerik's gotta take a leak? Moore and Hunter have him covered. And though all are remarkably talented, Hunter remains my personal favorite. Eight-String Guitar: that means he's playing bass, rhythm, and his solos simultaneously, and though he's certainly not the only person to do it, he's the only one I've ever seen do it so with such grace and with seemingly little effort. I wanted to write that his fingers flow like water over the strings, but it wouldn't be accurate. They move more like gears, like watch gears, touching and pressing in on themselves to make the thing work, to give it purpose. His fingers give that guitar purpose and to elevate Moore, Skerik, and the rest of their buddies-- indeed, they act like buddies-- to a place of eclectic soul.
Thursday—I arrived at the Fair Grounds for the first day of the final weekend after multiple rainstorms had passed through. The grounds themselves function as a horse racing track for most of the year, and the place was ripe with mud, hay, and the smell of manure. In some places, the mud was four inches deep, and people were digging out their flip flops like amateur archaeologists. But no one seemed to mind, and though folks were clad in rain boots and ponchos, they could still be found dancing near the stages. There are ten music stages, and the smaller ones each feature a different genre like blues, brass band, contemporary jazz, zydeco, and gospel.
After an oyster po' boy doused in hot sauce, I got comfortable next a lady wearing full-on waders. We were checking out the Forgotten Souls Brass Band, a classic jazz brass band with over nine members. They were a solid group and gave Charlie Parker a shout-out, but once they slowed down their set, I moved on to something more upbeat.
The Hot 8 Brass Band were up on the Congo Square Stage, a traditional brass with a little more soul and funk. Like most of the New Orleans-based groups, they wore matching tee shirts and strutted with confidence. There was the obligatory roll call for members, and Big Peter matched the crowd's cheers with some riffs of his own-- on sousaphone.
I moved to higher, slightly drier grounds for Henry Butler, and was immediately sucked in. Butler is a legendary New Orleans pianist who was blinded at birth. He doesn't just know his way around the keys: he gives direction around the keys (he is also an avid photographer and has been taking pictures for nearly thirty years). Butler plays in a variety of different styles of jazz piano, but with a nod to the blues, and his voice-- equal parts soul, blues, butter, and grit-- complements the music perfectly. The thunderclouds rolled in, everyone's phones flickered Flash Flood Warnings via emergency texts, but Henry Butler and his Friends paid no heed. And towards the end, in the middle of “Big Chief,” a classic Professor Longhair piece that I'm sure to hear at least three more times before the end of the weekend, I was stunned yet pleased to hear Butler's guitarist launch into what could only be Slash's final solo in “November Rain.” “That,” I said, “was freakin' awesome.”
The flash floods had me worried, and I made my way for the exit, but not before stopping off at the gospel tent to check out the Bolton Brothers in their flashy vests singing in smooth harmony. Of all the music I don't listen to regularly, gospel is the most accessible. Even though for me it's ideologically problematic, there's something very universal about gospel's message of hope that appeals to me. The four brothers (of twenty total siblings) gave a stand-out (and stand-up) performance, and during their cover of “We are the World,” even the out-of-sync arm-waving felt right. The brothers dropped down to the audience and invited random people to sing the verses, and when a person stumbled over the lyric or skipped a line, the backing band skillfully brought them back into the fold. In the middle of the flash flood warnings and downpours, the Bolton Brothers were a fun, shining moment.
Now here’s Reed:
Why Won’t Congress Follow?
by Reed Richardson
“Why won’t Obama lead?” Posed as an innocent question, variations of this disingenuous critique can be found lurking all across op-ed pages, political blogs, and cable news shows of late. To be sure, this caricature of a cold, aloof, and distant Obama, who is uninterested in the nitty-gritty of political back-scratching, is not a new one. During the past few weeks, however, this idea that Obama is almost spitefully refusing to steer our ship of state has now achieved critical mass, becoming the leitmotif through which, many pundits believe, all of Washington’s political paralysis can be traced. But to lay the blame for the acrimony and gridlock on Capitol Hill at the feet of Obama is be guilty of intellectual malpractice. For, if all of Obama’s commonsense efforts at compromise—everything short of full capitulation—still come up empty, it’s time for the media to start honestly scrutinizing the flip side of the coin and ask the next question: “Why won’t Congress follow?”
That these pundits will likely resist any such re-orienting of their rhetorical slings and arrows is no surprise. In their estimation, the President, as the country’s chief executive, enjoys an almost superhero-level of influence over events—a viewpoint sometimes jokingly referred to as “Green Lantern Theory”—and so if he doesn’t get his way in Congress, it’s indicative that he just didn’t try hard enough. But, to be fair, the Beltway media is not alone in routinely misunderstanding the dynamics between the leader-follower relationship.
“There is no leader without at least one follower—that’s obvious,” notes author and Harvard lecturer Barbara Kellerman in this Harvard Business Review article. “Yet the modern leadership industry, now a quarter-century old, is built on the proposition that leaders matter a great deal and followers hardly at all.” In fact, Kellerman argues this kind of apportioning of power is exactly backwards. “Followers are more important to leaders than leaders are to followers,” she writes in her 2008 book, Followership. “Leaders are often incidental to the action.”
To proclaim the president as “incidental” to a legislative debate, of course, doesn’t exactly suit a pundit class that needs to cast a dramatis personae of heroes and foils in a column twice a week. But to ignore the critical role followership plays in how our government functions is to continually engage in facile, one-sided analysis. It unfairly denies the followers, in this case Congress, any agency in the decision-making process, while it conveniently relieves them of all accountability should things go wrong.
Just listen to New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd, ranting about Obama’s helpless attitude after his press conference this past Tuesday. “Actually, it is his job to get them to behave,” she cavils. “The job of the former community organizer and self-styled uniter is to somehow get this dunderheaded Congress, which is mind-bendingly awful, to do the stuff he wants them to do. It’s called leadership.”
The concept that Congress has as much, if not more, of a democratic responsibility to follow as the President does to lead is anathema to the self-defeating Beltway logic on display here. Dowd’s condescending and infantilizing tone (“dunderheaded,” “behave”) effectively lets Congress off the hook while demeaning Obama, a typical Dowd two-fer. And then she, like so many other pundits, lets herself off the hook as well, by never offering up a single specific example of what this magical leadership might look like or why a Congress hell-bent on undermining the President would ever respond to it.
Indeed, if you needed any further proof that Republicans in the House and Senate will sacrifice any good idea and absorb any indignity as long as Obama does too, GOP Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania offered up yet another smoking gun this past week. While revisiting the filibuster that killed an expanded gun background checks amendment he and Democratic Senator Joe Manchin had hammered out, Toomey admitted: “In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it.” It’s no surprise then, that some pundits even counseled Obama to “lead from behind” on immigration reform, warning that it he became personally involved “that is the surest way to piss off Congress, especially congressional Republicans, just as it is children and bosses.”
Put simply, this is anti-followership—whatever you’re for, I’m against, precisely and only because you’re for it. Who cares if nine out of 10 Americans support expanding gun background checks or eight out of 10 Americans want a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants? According to this zero-sum thinking, if Obama wins, then Republicans in Congress see themselves as having failed. And a myopic media plays along, never quite comfortable enough to state the obvious—that the modern day GOP’s goal is not good governance, it’s defeating the president, as it has been, literally, since his first day in the White House. Needless to say, one cannot lead followers who don’t operate in good faith and who only see incentives in opposing rather than cooperating.
And let’s be clear, this wholesale embrace of, well, not following is by no means an exaggeration. Extreme conservatives in the House and Senate are further polarizing Congress and wresting ideological control of their party away from their own caucus leaders (as we saw again this week). As a result, Congressional Republicans are increasingly drawing power from an energized base of extremists who are more than willing to engage in electoral self-immolation and punish those who dare to negotiate. For instance, when a study of Tea Partiers finds an overwhelming majority want no compromise with political opponents and, likewise, care more about their chosen candidate winning a party primary than a general election, the foundation for legitimate cross-party followership can never exist.
Nevertheless, this idea, that the President and the Republicans in Congress are not cooperating but competing, just will not compute in many pundits’ minds. Thus, we get an entire column from the National Journal’s Ron Fournier torturing an old sports canard about great players and leaders always overcoming bad breaks to win. Remarkably, in Fournier’s analogy, he acknowledges the President and Republicans in Congress are not on the same team, yet in a somewhat incredible twist of reason he still expects the latter to follow the former. You know, because whenever the Red Sox come to New York, they look to Joe Girardi for guidance on how to beat the Yankees.
Ironically, within Fournier’s hackneyed, nonpartisan critique of Obama is the real, uncomfortable truth about what it will take to break the logjam in Washington. “Mr. President, I’m not excusing the other team," he writes. "They suck. But you need to beat them, sir. That’s your job, because if you can’t stop them, we lose. And there’s no excuse to losing to such a lousy-bleeping team.”
Fournier’s right in one respect, when one party all but gives up on governing, all that’s left is lousy politics. But what he and his pundit brethren will never admit is that the most effective way to fight lousy politics in Washington right now is with more, better politics. In fact, the best thing the president could probably do for his country is spend the next 18 months campaigning for a Democratic majority in the House. Of course, the Beltway conventional wisdom would roast him alive for such a transparently partisan strategy. But at least it would be an honest attempt at creating the conditions for a functioning democracy. The fundamental problem plaguing our country isn't a shortage of leadership from Obama, in other words, it's a shortage of his followers in Congress.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com. Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
Las Vegas, NV
Dr. A., many thanks for a solid piece on the fraud that is MoDo (and the fraud that is Politico, while we're at it). If you read the columns for which Dowd won her Pulitzer, once you get beyond the fact that she could not even carry one of the keys from Russell Baker's typewriter, you notice that they are all about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and all reflect a sense of proportionality about the Republicans involved and, indeed, Clinton's failings—in other words, while they could be called well written (they certainly are more readable than whatever it is she is submitting and calling a column nowadays), they also have a serious undertone and deal with broader issues.
It also strikes me that while she may have influenced today's alleged reporters in the tendency to focus on the trivial, we also can credit or blame that on news magazines and perhaps even on Theodore H. White. The difference is, those writers at least thought about it before they wrote it.
Dear Mr. Alterman:
You are my favorite journalist. I look forward each Friday to read your (and Reed's) column. I also enjoy your Center for American Progress articles.
I must take issue, though, with your list of the worst mistakes of the 20th Century. I believe the worst mistake committed in the prior century was when Archduke Ferdinand's driver took a wrong turn down a street in Sarajevo back in June, 1914.
Eric replies: Ok, Ok. It was just the last 98 years....
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
My new Nation column is called “The Reluctant Fundamentalist (and the Journalist Spy)” and it’s about the conflicts raised by Mira Nair’s challenging new film.
And here’s a second column I did for the Nation website on Maureen Dowd’s various crimes against common sense and gun control.
Oh, and I gave a talk at to Cornell’s Mario Enaudi Center for International Studies on the topic of “On the Search for a Liberal Foreign Policy” on Monday afternoon. It’s written up here and you can watch it on video, here.
Bad Judgment Awards:
Two of the worst decisions in all human history occurred recently. The first was to award the 2013 Pulitzer Prize for commentary to Bret Stephens. The second, even worse if anything was even remotely imaginable, was to award the 2013 Sidney Hillman Award for commentary to Andrew Sullivan. I had a few other things to say this week, but nothing so important that it should draw attention away from the above atrocities. Seriously, when I first read about this award, my first thought was “We liberals deserve to lose,” and I should have gone to work for Goldman Sachs when I had the chance.
I did a little investigation, and it turns out there is apparently no truth to the rumor that the Hillman Foundation plans to rename itself the “Fifth Columnists’ Foundation” for the occasion. Ditto the “Charles Murray Cheerleader Society.” As to whether it plans rename itself the “Kick Liberals in the Teeth, Slander Them, Lie About Them and Brag About It and then Be Given an Award By Those Very Same Liberals” Foundation, I could not get anyone to confirm or deny. Here is the foundation’s excuse for its betrayal of the great union leader Sidney Hillman’s life. Here is my (true) assessment of Mr. Sullivan contributions to craft...
Today’s List: Worst Ten Decisions of the Past Hundred Years:
1) 1922, Stalin, rather than Trotsky, becomes dictator of the Soviet Union
2) 1941, Germany invades Russia
3) 1941, Germany declares war on the United States
4) 2000 Supreme Court gives Bush election
5) 2003, Bush invades Iraq
6) 1964 LBJ orders retaliation for imaginary Gulf of Tonkin attacks
7) 1948 Palestinians turn down UN partition offer
8) 2013 Hillman Award for Commentary to Andrew Sullivan
9) 2013 Pulitzer for Commentary to Bret Stephens
10) 1974 New Republic is sold to Marty Peretz
I wanted to like “Smash” but it’s so horrible that I had to stop watching it. Who cares if that fellow is an imperfect director or those two kids get their play done? Not me. I watch too much TV anyway. (I also deleted “Nashville” and “Revenge” from the DVR so all I’m really watching is HBO and FX, with a little PBS and a lot of TCM.) Anyway, I did rather admire Megan Hilty and so I was pleased for the opportunity to check out her, um, pipes at Joe’s Pub last week. The show was strangely short, forty minutes tops including the encore (which was a double bummer since, owing to the sequestration, my flight from Ithaca had been cancelled and I had taken a six hour bus ride to be there). She did a powerful version of one my favorite songs, “Heart of the Matter,” and I did not recognize the rest, which are apparently on her new CD. Hard to judge, hearing them for the first time, but I’d be surprised if she doesn’t grow and grow as an artist. I wondered if people felt this way about Streisand, in the beginning....
The Iridium is hosting “Four Generations of Miles this weekend” and it features Jimmy Cobb (who played drums on Kind of Blue), Sonny Fortune, Buster Williams and Mike Stern. I caught the first of these shows on Thursday night, as things were just jelling. I was familiar with, I guess, three generations of Miles. Pretty much everyone knows that Mr. Cobb played on Kind of Blue and he still plays with plenty of energy. And Buster Williams and Sonny Fortune, well, what is there to say. They were and are pros, and their solos were thoughtful and intelligent. But the revelation, at least for this blogger, was Mike Stern. He took the lion’s share of the solos—including especially on “My Funny Valentine,”—and it was hard to imagine where all that imagination began. What was great about the show was the fact of having no trumpeter—so the other instruments, particularly Stern and Fortune—got to redefine the songs and allow one to hear them anew.
Also, it’s Ellington Week at Jazz@Lincoln Center with Wynton Marsalis leading the band in Rose Hall and other shows in the Allen Room. Duke is a surefire way to improve your mood, if anything is. Check out the website for details. (And while you’re there, look into Catherine Russell at Dizzy’s. I’ve plugged her repeatedly in the past; she’s a throwback in the best sense.)
Lest We Forget: Why is the Press So Willing to Rehabilitate George Bush’s Legacy?
by Reed Richardson
“The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.” Milan Kundera wrote these words in his powerful 1979 novel, The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. Set against the backdrop of totalitarian Czechoslovakia, Kundera’s book opens with a chilling example of the poisonous example of rewriting history to serve political needs.
On a cold, wintry day in February 1948, two Communist leaders, Klement Gottwald and Vladimir Clementis, stood side-by-side on a balcony in Prague’s main square to rally hundreds of thousands of citizens to their cause. It was a “fateful moment,” Kundera writes, one captured in an iconic photo of the two men that would soon be ubiquitous throughout the new country. Only four years later, however, Clementis would fall out of favor with the party, be charged with treason and hanged. Desperate to rid themselves of any trace of his now tainted legacy, the Czech censors set about dutifully scrubbing any documentary record of Clementis’s role, including that photo that every schoolchild in Czechoslovakia knew by heart. Right before the original picture had been taken, though, in gesture of solidarity, Clementis had removed his fur cap and placed it onto Gottwald’s head. In the new, doctored photo, the censors had predictably removed the image of Clementis, but not all evidence of his presence that day. For, still sitting atop Gottwald’s head, was that same fur cap. Truth is stubborn and isn’t so easily erased, in other words, as long as one knows where to look and is willing to remember it.
During this past week, what we as a nation choose to remember or forget has proved to be especially salient. Barely four years removed from his last day in the White House, the reclusive ex-President Bush has enjoyed an outpouring of media attention in anticipation of the opening of his new presidential library in Dallas. Of course, this is to be expected and naturally leads itself to some reflection of Bush’s tenure. But what was startling to see this past week was the degree to which the press willingly obliged a phalanx of Bush apologists intent on airbrushing out the many inconvenient and dreadful aspects of our 43rd president’s legacy.
This revisionism took many forms. Befitting a Washington press corps obsessed with horserace numbers, there was plenty of poll cherry-picking. Thus, much was made of an ABC News survey that found Bush’s overall approval rating had rebounded to 47 percent, up from the woeful 33 percent mark it stood at just days before he left office. Andrew Malcolm of Investor’s Business Daily squeezed a whole, sneering column out of this stone, mocking the similarly middling approval numbers of President Obama, who, he claims, has blamed Bush for just about everything that’s gone wrong, “except his miserable NCAA tournament brackets.” (Uh, Andrew, Obama’s 1-for-5 in picking March Madness winners, where’s your sheets?) Notably less popular among pundits like Malcolm, naturally, was a recent NBC News poll that showed Bush’s favorability still mired in the mid-30s.
The National Journal’s Ron Fournier chose to remind us that our presidents are “human” and that we could go ahead and admit “George W. Bush is a Good Man.” As proof of this revelation, Fournier cites a personal thank-you note he received from President Bush on May 24, 2002 during an overseas trip, bestowed upon him for his willingness to stand when Bush arrived at a press conference. (Fournier’s German counterparts in the press remained seated.) What Fournier leaves out of this story, though, is that, just the day before, this “good man” stood before the German Bundestag and said:
"I have no war plans on my desk." But, [Bush] added, "It's dangerous to think of a scenario where a country like Iraq would link up with the al-Qaida organisation...It's a threat to civilisation."
This passage contains one outright lie and one egregiously misleading statement. In fact, by late 2001, Bush had already begun extensive war planning with the military for the invasion of Iraq. And the 9/11 Commission and a Pentagon report both subsequently affirmed that at no point was there ever any credible evidence suggesting a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda’s 2001 attacks.
Though Fournier generously concedes that these critical parts of Bush’s record are “worth exploring skeptically,” he nonetheless spends far more time touting how Bush was always on time for presidential meetings, required a formal dress code in the Oval Office, and had a knack for remembering the names of staffers’ spouses and children. But to imply Bush ably demonstrated “respect for the office of the presidency” simply through punctuality, politeness and political instincts is the very definition of, to borrow a tired phrase, “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” Bush’s legacy of shamefully disrespecting the nation’s highest elected office with his outrageous prevarications on Iraq can’t be overlooked simply because he’s a “good man.”
Over at RealClearPolitics, former Bush aide Keith Hennessey was given free rein to serve up another juicy red herring: "George W. Bush is Smarter Than You." Hennessey, a lecturer at Stanford, recounted a recent classroom discussion about the 2008 financial crisis where one of his students asked: “How involved was Bush with what was going on?” To which Hennessey, in a classic debate gambit, reinterpreted the question to suit his own agenda: “What you really mean is, ‘Was President Bush smart enough to understand what was going on,’ right?” Perhaps caught off-guard, the student and the class remained silent in response, Hennessey recalls, which he took as proof of a grand liberal condescension of Bush’s intelligence.
This know-nothing “caricature” of the 43rd President, Hennessey complains, was sketched out by a meretricious press and filled in by mean late-night talk-show hosts. In contrast, he regales us with stories of a George W. Bush who was “extremely smart” and “highly analytical” and routinely outthinking his very smart advisors. What Hennessey noticeably fails to address is the critique behind the student’s actual and very legitimate question, however. For, at numerous points throughout his presidency, Bush, brilliant or not, was known for mentally checking out and displaying abjectly poor judgment.
During the height of that very 2008 fiscal crisis, for example, Bush inexplicably thanked Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson for "working over the weekend," as if rescuing the world’s economy was a task that might keep till Monday morning. In Bush’s first term, another former Treasury Secretary, Paul O’Neill, described a similarly frightening detachment on the part of Bush in economic briefings, “a blind man in a roomful of deaf people,” as he colorfully put it. Then, of course, there was this photo, taken 30,000 feet above Katrina-ravaged New Orleans. And let’s not forget that a mere six months after 9/11, Bush’s stance on Osama bin Laden, the man who had masterminded the murder of thousands of Americans on his presidential watch, was one of dismissive nonchalance: “I really don’t spend that much time on him.”
More guest-columnist misdirection took place when the folks at USA Today conveniently turned over space on their op-ed page to Bush’s 2004 campaign manager, Ken Mehlman. His message, couched as advice for the future of the Republican Party, was little more than a rosy recounting of the many supposed ways his former boss practiced “inclusiveness” in his policies and politics. Here again, a more careful look can see right through the legacy whitewashing. Bush’s message of tolerance toward Muslims after 9/11 was far from effective, despite Mehlman’s suggestions to the contrary. The climate of fear, ably stoked by the White House, notably led to a 1,600 percent rise in anti-Muslim hate crimes in 2001.
But this isn’t even the most outrageous bit of revisionism in Mehlman’s column on Bush “inclusiveness.” That would be total absence of the issue of gay marriage. Indeed, one could argue no politician in US history demagogued anti-gay fears as successfully as Bush did during his 2004 re-election campaign, when his campaign architect, Karl Rove, helped orchestrate a nationwide effort of anti-gay marriage referenda to boost evangelical Christian turnout. (While their impact in most states seems to have been negligible, this University of Florida study found evidence that the anti-gay marriage ballot measure did prime Bush turnout in Ohio, the state that ultimately decided the 2004 election.) Ironically, in 2010, Mehlman himself came out as gay, yet he still seems to harbor enough loyalty for Bush to paper over one of the most shameful political moments from the president’s legacy.
Over at The Washington Post, Bush enjoyed an embarrassment of image-rehabilitation riches. The least worst of them probably belonging to Dan Balz and his long article about Bush “back in the spotlight.” Herein follows the sources, in order, quoted by Balz for the first three-quarters of the story: Tony Blair; Karen Hughes; Karl Rove; Hughes (again), Rove (again), Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Foundation; and Joshua Bolten, former Bush White House chief of staff. Notice a theme, there? Only in the final three paragraphs of the thirty-two-paragraph article, when Balz quotes three successive academics who study presidential history, do we hear from any uniformly critical voices of Bush’s presidency.
Speaking of academics, the Post also let Stephen Knott, a professor at the US Naval War College, fire a barrage of broadsides at his profession in an op-ed entitled "George W. Bush is a Victim of a Rush to Judgment." (And looky here, Professor Knott also has a book by the same name you might want to buy.) In a way, though, Knott does his readers a service by listing a number of historians whose critiques place Bush among the worst presidents in our nation’s history. Not surprisingly, Knott makes little attempt at refuting their actual arguments, instead he just lumps them all into a bag labeled "too-soon-to-tell" and calls them partisan, liberal fear-mongers. At what point academic and historical studies on the Bush administration will be far enough removed in time to be valid in his eyes, well, he doesn’t say.
All of these are but prologue to the ne plus ultra of Bush revisionism, however. Boldly declarative, "Bush is Back" reads the Post headline over Jennifer Rubin’s latest attempt at hagiography. Even for Rubin, who has a well-documented history of intellectual contortionism, this post is blatantly, flagrantly dishonest. And at the nucleus of her breathtaking swing at writing Bush’s next memoir stands this paragraph:
Why the shift? Aside from the 'memories fade' point, many of his supposed failures are mild compared to the current president (e.g. spending, debt). Unlike Obama’s tenure, there was no successful attack on the homeland after 9/11. People do remember the big stuff—rallying the country after the Twin Towers attack, seven-and-a-half years of job growth and prosperity, millions of people saved from AIDS in Africa, a good faith try for immigration reform, education reform and a clear moral compass.
Where to begin? “People” may remember the big stuff, but not Rubin, apparently. Besides giving Bush what Charles Pierce rightly calls "The Great Mulligan" for 9/11, she’s also cast down the memory hole the post-2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people and the 2002 terrorist attack on the El Al airline counter at the LA Airport that killed three. As for seven-and-a-half years of job growth, it’s actually more like four. And what to say about a pundit who unironically ascribes to Bush a “clear moral compass” after the recent release of a bipartisan report that clearly documented his administration’s willful embrace of torture?
But wait, there’s more! Rubin is careful to ladle in heaping helpings of clichés to make the indoctrination go down smoother. Thus, we get “a robotic, cold president like Obama” contrasted with Bush’s “tender, tearful love of country.” Our enemies, naturally, must instead contend with Bush’s “steely anger.” What’s more, she recalls a “warm,” “productive” relationship between the US and Israel during Bush’s tenure, while overlooking his administration’s spectacular failure, where it inadvertently assisted the militant organization Hamas in gaining operational control of the Gaza Strip. And when she concludes with an assault on financial reality that judges Bush’s trillion-dollar debacle in Iraq, profligate government security costs and ridiculous tax cuts for the rich as merely “some excess in domestic spending,” compared to Obama’s “non-existent” courage in tackling our fiscal woes, I honestly wondered if she wasn’t a plant installed by the Post merely to keep its fact-checkers employed.
After such a climactic rewriting of history, delving into the mindset of native conservative media presents something of a denouement. Still grappling with how to treat a toxically unpopular president the Republican Party has been shunning since 2009, former Bush aide Ed Gillespie gives it a go over at National Review Online. His essay, "Cataloguing the Bush Years," proclaims in its subhed: “The opening of President George W. Bush’s library is a chance to look at the facts of his legacy.” As one might expect, the right has had to get creative to deal with the “facts” of Bush’s financial legacy. Fortunately, they’ve hit upon a fantastic arithmetic device called “averaging.”
[Bush] presided over an average unemployment rate of 5.3 percent (the second strongest of the past seven presidencies) and saw jobs grow steadily for four years from 2003 through 2007. In fact, the highest unemployment rate of any one year in Mr. Bush’s two terms (6.3 percent) is more than a full point below the lowest annual rate of Mr. Obama’s.
This is such a fun game, let’s play along with Ed, shall we? Let's see, the Titanic averaged 21 knots for the first 90% of its voyage (and 0 knots for the remaining 10%), which means the ship would have averaged a speed of a little less than 19 knots when its overall speeds were averaged across the entire trip. Not too shabby of a crossing time to New York harbor, amirite?
Okay, perhaps that’s not a fair mathematical comparison. Symbolically, however, one struggles to find a better analogy for the Bush administration’s combination of hubris, excess, recklessness, incompetence and calamitous conclusion than the disastrous voyage of the Titanic. And just as the iceberg that laid the ship low was never seen by those in charge on its bridge, it’s striking that in former party leader Gillespie’s “catalog” of the Bush years, one never encounters the word “Iraq.” But unlike with the Titanic, this is no accident.
If Kundera, who is still alive, chose to write a sequel to The Book of Laughter and Forgetting, he could do a lot worse than set it in the US during the first decade of the 21st century. If so, he might well begin the story about that period with a short passage based on another iconic photo, one where a stubbornly inconvenient “Mission Accomplished” banner sits in place of Clementis’s fur cap. No doubt, the powerful here in our country are now eager for us to forget that day and a lot of what we know about George W. Bush. But now, as then, it falls to the rest of us to remember—history and truth depend upon it.
Programming note: I’ll be discussing my recent cover story for The Nation, “The GOP-Fox Circus Act,” on Mark Thompson’s radio show, Make It Plain, tonight (Friday, 4/26). You can listen in on SiriusXM Left channel 127; his show begins at 6:00pm, but I'm told I'll be on sometime in the 7 o'clock hour.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com.
Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
Barack Obama lays out his gun control package with Joe Biden in January. (Reuters/Larry Downing.)
It’s no easy task to come up with an interesting newspaper column twice a week. Virtually no one has genuinely original thoughts—or groundbreaking reporting—on so demanding a schedule. Columnists therefore rely on hobby horses, lenses through which they see and interpret events that lead the front pages and other news outlets.
The New York Times’ Maureen Dowd is most famous for her tendency to reduce almost all political conflict almost exclusively to the personality quirks of the president and those of his top advisers and opponents. She assumes the role of armchair psychiatrist with verve and vigor and because she is believed by many to be a felicitous writer—and occupies what remains the most prestigious perch in opinion journalism—her work has provided many others with an example of how to analyze politics as well. Dowd’s influence is only one reason why so much of our political conversation is so intensely personality-driven, but it is an important one nevertheless. It has always been so to a certain degree, but the fact that she has achieved so much success and enjoys so much prestige for what is essentially a soap-opera driven model of policymaking.
Dowd, moreover, often combines her obsession with personality with a fairy-tale notion of the power of the presidency—at least Barack Obama’s presidency. In a most recent column, for instance, she blames the death of new gun regulations on Obama’s refusal to “get down in the weeds and pretend he values the stroking and other little things that matter to lawmakers.” She goes on to explain that while an effective campaigner, Obama “still hasn’t learned how to govern.”
And why not? Apparently it’s because he doesn’t want to. She asks:
How is it that the president won the argument on gun safety with the public and lost the vote in the Senate? It’s because he doesn’t know how to work the system. And it’s clear now that he doesn’t want to learn, or to even hire some clever people who can tell him how to do it or do it for him….
My oh my, observes, Dowd, “Even House Republicans who had no intention of voting for the gun bill marveled privately that the president could not muster 60 votes in a Senate that his party controls.” Note here, as Dowd does not, that the president’s party may “control” the senate, but they do not control 60 votes. Note, as well, as Dowd does not, that gun control is an issue that has historically divided the Democratic Party. Finally, note how ridiculous it is to hear of “House Republicans” tsk-tsking the president for failing to win the vote when it is the intransigence of their party that was the cause. Had they allowed an up or down vote on the issue, instead of resorting so frequently to filibuster tactics, the bill would have passed. Apparently there was no room in Dowd’s column to mention that.
Another suggestion Dowd makes is that “Obama should have called Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota over to the Oval Office and put on the squeeze: ‘Heidi, you’re brand new and you’re going to have a long career. You work with us, we’ll work with you. Public opinion is moving fast on this issue. The reason you get a six-year term is so you can have the guts to make tough votes. This is a totally defensible bill back home. It’s about background checks, nothing to do with access to guns. Hedi, you’re a mother. Think of those little kids dying in schoolrooms.’” Does Dowd know Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama by 20 percentage points in North Dakota and hence, it is to her advantage to distance herself from her national party. And does Dowd really have a handle on the trending of gun control issues in that state, which happens to the be one that concerns Heitkamp, mother that she may be? I sure don’t. Given the fact that, as Dowd must surely have heard somewhere, candidates raise their own funds these days, Dowd is remarkably unclear about exactly how was Obama to convince Heitkamp to excite the passions of her potential opponents with no apparent benefits to offer.
Here’s another of her ideas for the president: “Bring the Alaskan Democrat Mark Begich to the White House residence, hand him a drink, and say, ‘How can we make this a bill you can vote for and defend?’” Did Dowd not notice how watered down this bill was from compromising to begin with? Just about the only effect would have been to make some gun buyers use the Internet a bit more frequently. If you didn’t vote for this bill, you don’t vote for “gun control” period, no matter what the details are.
Dowd goes on in this vein before topping herself, by suggesting that Obama adopt the tactics of a Hollywood-movie make-believe president created by her old flame Aaron Sorkin. I swear I’m not making this up. She writes, “The White House should have created a war room full of charts with the names of pols they had to capture, like they had in The American President.”
One expects this kind of thing from Peggy Noonan, who as it happens, made a virtually identical argument. That aside from being a believer in magical dolphins and a diehard supporter of the Republican Party. But Dowd, who has no particular ideology to speak of, should really be aware that when one party proudly and consistently refuses to compromise on anything and everything, it’s not really sensible to blame the guy who’s trying hard to make the deal. After all, as Jamelle Bouie points out in The American Prospect, “President Obama won reelection by nearly five million votes, but he didn’t win a majority of congressional districts, and only won half of all states. For a large chunk of Congress, there’s no particular reason to support Obama’s priorities—he holds no leverage over their political situation.” What does have leverage? Well, votes for one thing. And the fact is that far more people vote against politicians because of their pro-gun control votes than the opposite, especially in the states represented by the politicians Dowd believes to amenable to persuasion. Meanwhile, nowhere does she mention this salient fact: The NRA dispensed $18.6 million to candidates during 2012 election period in addition to an additional $4.4 million in lobbying funds directed towards Congress. The numbers for the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence: $5,816 and $60,000, respectively.
Meanwhile, Dowd’s attack was considered so important that Politico’s editors though it was news all by itself. (Politico’s style of coverage, described in detail in last week’s “Think Again” column, is in many respects a tribute to Dowd’s pioneering focus on personality.) More surprisingly, so too did the Times lead news reporters on the subject. Writing a few days after Dowd, the paper’s Michael D. Shear and Peter Baker complain that “after more than four years in the Oval Office, the president has rarely demonstrated an appetite for ruthless politics that instills fear in lawmakers. That raises a broader question: If he cannot translate the support of 90 percent of the public for background checks into a victory on Capitol Hill, what can he expect to accomplish legislatively for his remaining three and a half years in office?”
Once again, where are the details about the dysfunction of the current system, the power of money and the recalcitrance of the Republicans?
Apparently... nowhere. And that’s the “news.”
Read George Zornick on how the Senate managed to torch the gun control package.
My new Think Again column is called “‘Class Warfare’ Revisited” and it’s here.
This might interest some people: Mel Scult and Susie Heschel discussing “Abraham Joshua Heschel and Mordecai M.Kaplan : Cross Sections and Intersections” at the Jewish Theological Seminary last week. Note, by the way, that Cornel West is sitting in the front row and JTS chair Arnie Eisen notes that Cornel is teaching a course on Heschel and writing a book on him right now. An odd choice for an alleged anti-Semite. Also note that Susie Heschel remarks of Barack Obama’s expressed admiration for her father. Again, weird for a guy who hates both Jews and Israel, huh?
But speaking about Jews, yet again, let us note that the BDS lecture at Brooklyn College reflects even worse on the BDS movement than merely the cynicism of its proponents. Note the letter Brooklyn College President Karen Gould wrote below with regard to the forcible rejection of Jewish students from the hallway:
“Dear students, faculty, and staff,
Last Friday evening, I received a report (see attached) from the CUNY Office of Legal Affairs. It summarizes this administration's handling of a number of aspects of the event held in the Student Center on February 7. The report is the result of a thorough, independent inquiry, which I requested upon learning that four students were removed from the event under questionable circumstances. According to one of the report's conclusions, "it is clear that there was no justification for the removal of the four students."
I am deeply troubled that these students were not permitted to remain at the event, since, as it turns out, they were not being disruptive. On behalf of the entire Brooklyn College community and members of the administration, I want to apologize for the serious mishandling of this matter. I have already issued a personal apology to the four students. Moreover, I pledge to take appropriate steps to ensure that similar situations do not occur in the future…..”
More Jews: I saw “Assembled Parties” last weekend. It’s the new play by Richard Greenberg produced by the Manhattan Theater Club and it gets a rave from the Times’ theater critic, Ben Brantley, which I second enthusiastically. The dialogue of Greenberg’s about-to-close “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” was weirdly stilted, given how great much of his past work has proven. AP might be his most sparkling dialogue. Opening at the Samuel J. Friedman Theater, it features the wonderful--almost luminous--Jessica Hecht who is trying to hold it together in a mere 14 rooms above Central Park West and throwing Jewish Christmas dinners in which various truths about life and hidden feelings and stuff are revealed. It’s a real play, but with a wink. For instance, one of the nice Jewish boys says to his parents on the phone: ““You would love the apartment, mom — it’s like the sets of those plays you love. With the ‘breezy dialogue.’ They sort of talk that way and everybody’s unbelievably nice and, like, gracious and happy. It’s like you go to New York and you look for New York, but it isn’t there? But it’s here.”
Anyway, it’s about Jews, and families and love and loss, and most of all, being entertained in a Broadway theater without having your intelligence insulted or your feelings manipulated. I thought the last two words of the play were a mistake. Beyond that, it was nearly flawless. It’s directed by Lynne Meadow and in addiction to the marvelous Ms. Hecht, Judith Light is also a marvel to watch. The men are not bad, but they really can’t compete. Go see it.
I was looking over a couple of coffee table books that were decidedly out of the ordinary this week. Harry N. Abrams has published Revisionist Art, Bob Dylan offers up imagined silkscreened covers of popular magazines from the last half century. Some are so weird that they defy description. In the accompanying text, Luc Sante writes that they appear to us “from a world just slightly removed from ours—a world a bit more honest about its corruption, its chronic horniness, its sweat, its body odor.” The book also features a history of Revisionist Art, from cave drawings, to Gutenberg, to Duchamp, Picasso, and Warhol by art critic B. Clavery and commentaries on the work with discussions of Cameron Chambers, whose mustache became an icon in the gay underworld, and Gemma Burton, a San Francisco trial attorney who “used all of her assets in the courtroom.” Also out recently from It Books is The Best of Punk Magazine, which for most people, will be the only Punk Magazine they ever see. It’s pretty clever in spots and if you are nostalgic for punk, well, then where else would you go? Me, I’m not nostalgic for punk at all. Still I found it interesting and funny. It’s got photos, essays, interviews, and the occasional handwritten contribution from the likes of Andy Warhol, Lou Reed, Debbie Harry, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, Lester Bangs, Legs McNeil, Lenny Kaye. Plus it’s only thirty bucks. (Did I mention that the Dylan book was $100?)
On the DVD front, my friends at Acorn have just released the U.S. debut of The Syndicate, which they claim is an addictive BBC drama following the fortunes and misfortunes of five supermarket co-workers who win the lottery and is about to be ripped off by ABC is currently making a US version. It might be great, we’ll see, but more dependable is the The Lord Peter Wimsey Mysteries: Complete Collection, which inspired the start of the PBS Mystery! after its success on Masterpiece Theatre. It’s six discs of Brits being clever and cute and solving crimes in the 1920s and if this is your sort of thing, it’s a bargain.
Did someone say “Nascar Geniuses?”
Things I hate most about academics:
1) The “Reply All” addiction.
Just a reminder, you can read more from me elsewhere on The Nation about the increasingly apocalyptic nature of mainstream conservatism, “The Doomsday Prepper Caucus,” and—last week’s cover story in the magazine—my long essay, “GOP-Fox Circus Act,” on the not so rosy future of the right-wing’s favorite cable news network.
Give Me the Bad News First
by Reed Richardson
Like many clichés, “no news is good news” has stuck around all these years because there’s a kernel of eternal truth to it. In some walks of life, absence of evidence really can become it’s own powerful kind of proof. But for those who work in actual newsgathering, the adage’s converse is of far more professional importance. Though positive, uplifting stories with peaceful, satisfying outcomes might seem like a successful recipe for journalism—after all, it’s something the public always claims to want more of—the reality is news of the worthy usually isn’t all that newsworthy. Even worse, it’s downright boring. And if you want to see this dynamic in action, look no further than that paragon of insightful press criticism, “The Simpsons,” which ably demonstrated that “Playtime is Fun” is a much less compelling headline and interesting story than something like “Extra Extra! Todd Smells.”
We might not like to admit it and we often seem to forget it, in other words, but it’s instructive for the media to occasionally remind itself that it is in the bad news business. Without it, there would be no need for journalism and certainly no need for journalism awards. Not coincidentally, high-fives were shared and champagne was popped in newsrooms across the country this past Monday after the announcement of the 2013 Pulitzer Prizes. Easily overlooked amidst these celebrations, however, was the punishingly grim subject matter the involved. Whether it was government corruption, mass murder, natural disasters, corporate malfeasance, or civil war, print journalism’s most prestigious award served up a smorgasbord of great reporting about bad news, just as it does every year. And almost fittingly, at the very moment a few select members of the press were learning of their good fortune, a whole lot more bad news suddenly needed reporting in Boston, where a horrific, chaotic story was being vividly captured in photos that will likely be considered for next year’s Pulitzer Prize.
The attack at the Boston Marathon was far from the only bad news, though. On Capitol Hill, Congress kept its streak of disappointing performances intact by quietly passing a bill that shamelessly rolls back self-imposed restrictions on Congressional insider trading, which our president then gutlessly signed. On Wednesday, a minority of NRA-beholden Senators cravenly filibustered an already watered-down gun control amendment thatnearly nine out of 10 Americans support. Later on Wednesday, a massive explosion at a fertilizer factory in Texas killed more than a dozen people and wounded hundreds more, upping the bad news ante even further. And we’re not even to Friday yet, when yet another Simpson-Bowles budget plan will arrive and no doubt suggest we punish millions of the sick and elderly in order to satisfy some misguided academic research the debt that was just proven to riddled with errors. All in all, this has been perhaps the biggest week of bad news in recent memory.
But none of these events during the past week, however tragic or frustrating, are deserving of pushback as much as this ridiculously awful essay in the Guardian. Entitled “News is bad for you – and giving up reading it will make you happier,” one Rolf Dobelli spends more than 1,400 words throwing together a bunch of sloppy analogies, personal anecdotes, and broad generalizations in a brief against the societal role of the news. Mind you, this is no “everything in moderation”-type call to disconnect from your Twitter feed more often, or a warning against getting sucked into the mindless tit-for-tat talking-head battles on cable news. No, what Dobelli is doing is trafficking in full-on news hating, and his only solution: “cut yourself off from news consumption entirely.”
Setting aside the head-scratching logic of a journalistic enterprise giving someone, anyone a platform to advocate for completely unplugging from the very thing that it produces, Dobelli’s rant is poisonous to the press and our society at large for other reasons. “News stories are overwhelmingly about things you cannot influence,” he points out, in something less than a shocking revelation. Doubling down on this bid for public apathy, he huffs “We are not rational enough to be exposed to the press,” employing the same patronizing attitude long used to by the powerful to keep the powerless oppressed, uninformed, and disenfranchised. We delicate flowers just can’t be trusted to consume the news without being “mislead” or “recognis[ing] what’s relevant,” so why bother are pretty little heads with it?
Dobelli’s not above hooking a total red herring to make his case either: “If more information leads to higher economic success, we'd expect journalists to be at the top of the pyramid. That's not the case.” As if news production and consumption were part of some strictly financial transaction that provides a “competitive advantage,” instead of the informational give and take that marks a shared community. In addition, he matter-of-factly states, sans proof: “Most news consumers—even if they used to be avid book readers—have lost the ability to absorb lengthy articles or books.” In a mere 10 seconds searching on Google I came across a Pew study from last fall that found a notable correlation between higher rates of news/newspaper consumption and the regularly reading of magazines and journals. And there’s this bit of unscientific pseudo-data: “I don't know a single truly creative mind who is a news junkie—not a writer, not a composer, mathematician, physician, scientist, musician, designer, architect or painter.” Pity he never met a fella by the name of Thomas Edison, who still holds more patents than anyone alive or dead on the planet, since was known for “devour[ing] science books and… newspapers, magazines, and novels.”
Does the press make mistakes? Of course, and I don’t begrudge Dobelli the right to complain about it when they do. Certainly, the press provided him and us plenty more examples during the past week’s coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, whether it was the New York Post’s reckless reporting about a “Saudi national” suspect who was merely a victim, or CNN’s farcical performance touting an arrest that never occurred. But he’s presenting us with a false choice when he argues that the news isn’t worth our attention because it “leads us to walk around with the completely wrong risk map in our heads. So terrorism is over-rated. Chronic stress is under-rated.”
Sussing out the important news will always be a messy, uneven affair for us; that’s part of the bargain of having a free press. Yet, the noisy nature of this daily marketplace of information clearly holds little appeal for Dobelli. “Important findings don't have to arrive in the form of news. Long journal articles and in-depth books are good, too,” he writes, maybe while wistfully staring out his log cabin window onto Walden Pond. But no modern government or society can subsist solely on a news cycle with such a long gestation period anymore. We depend upon a constant stream of actionable intelligence to help us identify and contextualize today what problems need fixing, what crimes need solving, what laws need changing, and what tragedies need averting tomorrow. Our democracy deserves the chance to heal itself, no doubt—and right now perhaps even more so—but unless we’re willing to get the bad news first, we’re unlikely to ever hear the good news.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com. Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
RE: Article in The Nation, “Beltway Media’s Best Kept Budget Secret”
Thank you for an excellent article about the press. Just listen to Rendell and Scarborough piping that Pete Peterson crap.
Richard W Thelin
I just read your article on how Social Security does not add to the deficit. I get that. Do you think that President Obama knows that, but understands that a lot of Republicans don't, so that he calls for a reduction in the increase in annual benefits to get them to agree to some tax increases (i.e., loophole closing) by letting them think they are reducing the debt? And wouldn't the reduction in the growth of benefits increase the longevity of the Social Security Trust Fund (same money coming in, less money going out)? Going to the chained CPI doesn't really bother me, but perhaps I don't fully understand the implications of doing so. While I wouldn't mind seeing us reduce the debt, and deficit, I don't see that as a be all and end all (it certainly wasn't during the W years). Spending money on infrastructure, which would put people to work doing something that needs to be done, seems like a good idea to me, for example.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
The conception that tax breaks pay for themselves was recently debunked. Read Reed Richardson on another financial myth: that Social Security adds to the deficit.
My new Think Again column is called “Campaign-Finance Reform in an Age of Corporate Influence,” and it’s here.
My new Nation column is called More BS About 'Both Sides' and it’s here.
Below is a copy of a letter I sent to The Forward regarding the newspaper’s coverage of the hiring of Josh Block to run The Israel Project. The sections in bold are the ones they chose not to run. (It was edited without my participation and The Forward does not appear to have updated the “letters” section of its website since December.)
1 April 2013
To the Editor:
I was disappointed to read The Forward’s coverage of The Israel Project’s hiring of ex-AIPAC flack Josh Block to be its new head. According to your coverage, “Block entered a highly publicized quarrel with the Center for American Progress, a progressive Democratic think tank whose views on Israel, according to Block, were biased and at times ’borderline anti-Semitic.’”
Actually, Block did not accuse the entire center with this term. He referred specifically to yours truly. I thought it rather funny at the time, given that I was also a columnist for The Forward, which rarely offers regular columns to anti-Semites, “borderline” or otherwise. Moreover, the quote of mine to which he specifically referred as allegedly anti-Semitic merely called attention to AIPAC’s desire to see the United States attack Iran. This is hardly a controversial view regarding AIPAC’s aims, even among its supporters. As it happens, I felt forced to resign my Forward column over the enforced delay I experienced in responding to Block’s McCarthyite attack on CAP and myself in the Forward’s pages. So that was one victory for Mr. Block. He has won yet another with the Forward’s coverage of his appointment. Here, again, Block’s false charge against the Center for American Progress (where I was, and remain, a senior fellow) was repeated, albeit inaccurately, without any response from the accused, nor any context for readers unfamiliar with Mr. Block’s nefarious tactics. (It was a rather big deal at the time, and was covered in The Forward’s news and editorial pages).
It’s shame that yet another Jewish political institution will now likely adapt such tactics with regard intra-community disagreements, but that is clearly the direction The Israel Project has chosen in picking Mr. Block to represent it. What remains unclear to me, however, is why The Forward, whose reporting on Jewish political organizations is second to none, chooses to sugarcoat these actions, and in doing so, encourage their continued abuse by Mr. Block and his allies in the future.
Former Forward Columnist
Interesting how The Forward kept in the compliment I gave them regarding “second to none” but took out every other reference, including especially, the reason I resigned. Note also that the letter does not now reveal that I was the topic of Block’s attack, which could lead to accusations that I sought to cover this up in my criticism of The Israel Project’s decision to hire him.
Alter-reviews: Here’s Danny Goldberg on the new film, War on Whistleblowers.
Robert Greenwald, whose previous films include the great "Outfoxed" has a new film about the way that the US government has discouraged and sometimes published whistle-blowers ."War on Whistleblowers" highlights four cases where whistleblowers noticed government wrong-doing and took to the media to expose the fraud and abuse. It exposes the surprisingly worsening reality for whistleblowers and the press.
The film includes interviews with award-winning journalists David Carr, Lucy Dalgish, Glenn Greenwald, Seymour Hersh, Michael Isikoff, Bill Keller, Eric Lipton, Jane Mayer and Dana Priest. More info, trailer and info about downloading here.
My cover story for The Nation magazine this week, "GOP-Fox Circus Act," is now up. It’s a long, detailed look at how the network, despite suffering from the same worsening symptoms as the Republican Party it shamelessly fronts for, has changed little since the 2012 election. And how honest conservatives are suffering from the co-dependent relationship between the two. (And a big thanks to the proprietor of this blog for giving me the platform here every week that eventually led to me getting the chance to write it.)
The Beltway Media’s Best-Kept Budget Secret: Social Security Does Not Add to the Deficit
by Reed Richardson
Let me sketch out a ridiculous, outlandish conspiracy theory for you. It involves an overwhelming majority of the nation’s establishment media, who meet secretly so that they can uniformly mislead the public into believing one of our most popular safety net programs has a deleterious impact on our federal budget. At times, this misinformation campaign is brazenly direct, and might involve using op-ed columnists and TV pundits to endorse the wrongheaded conclusions of bipartisan presidential commissions. Most other times, though, this insidious, dark-cloaked cabal works more subtly (as all great conspiracies do), choosing to confuse the debate through carefully positioned citations of conventional wisdom and sly rhetorical conflation of thoroughly dissimilar fiscal platforms. After enough time, this falsehood might even come to be seen as true among many of our government’s key decision makers. And only by the grace of God, the bracing power of common sense, and perhaps a healthy dose of fear about being left destitute in old age, does the public resist buying into this same propaganda.
Well no. In fact, this same familiar scenario played out this past week after President Obama released his latest federal budget proposal. (OK, I have no proof about the secret meetings or the dark cloaks.) With the White House budget’s inclusion of a benefit cut to Social Security—by embracing a chained-CPI cost-of-living adjustment for recipients—the American public was once again treated to a widespread assault on the truth regarding what Social Security is, what it does, and, most importantly, what it does not do. Fortunately, there is a simple mantra one can use to avoid all these distortions. Reporters, producers, pundits, bloggers—repeat after me:
Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. (Special for our conservative readers.)
I know, I know. How can these statements be true? After all, no serious person in Washington has ever admitted as much. Even the illustrious fact-checkers at the Washington Post and Associated Press say it does add to the deficit, as does the editorial board of a national newspaper. Isn’t it just the dirty hippies who think this way—along with other crackpots like Pulitzer Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman and conservative Social Security trustee Charles Blahous?
The fact is that, Social Security cannot contribute to the federal budget deficit because, by law, the program is not a part of the federal government’s “on-budget” accounting, as it’s called. (See slide 14 of this CBO report.) But the mainstream press routinely dismisses this part of the US Code as mere artifice, and loves to point out that the federal government pays out Social Security revenue as fast as it comes in and then borrows against it for more spending. All that’s left, then, is supposedly a bunch of government “IOU”s—a favorite trope of Social Security Cassandras. But here’s someone much smarter than me—George Washington University political scientist professor Robert Stoker, explaining how the Beltway conventional wisdom goes totally awry with this analogy:
If you owe a $5,000 credit card bill and you take a home equity loan to pay off the credit card, your total debt has not changed; you have refinanced the debt, transferring it from one financial instrument (and one creditor) to another. Much the same can be said about repaying the OASDI Trust Fund. The fund’s assets are composed of debts already accounted for as part of the nation’s total debt. When the Treasury borrows to pay current Social Security benefits, the debt owed to the Social Security Trust Fund is repaid, refinanced, and transferred to whoever purchases Treasury securities.
Of course, the cost of refinancing the debt is a key concern. However, the only scenario in which repaying the Social Security Trust Fund can increase the nation’s debt is if interest rates are higher now than they were when the original debt was incurred. Given current market conditions (nominal interest rates are presently quite low, the rate on ten-year Treasury Bonds is around two percent), the more plausible claim is that refinancing the Social Security Trust Fund’s debt has reduced the nation’s debt slightly by reducing interest costs” [italics mine].
Yes, you read that last part right, the negative interest rate spread we’re currently enjoying actually means borrowing money effectively lowers the deficit. (One note of caution, probably not wise to share this bit of data with any right-wing friends in the midst of taking a drink.) How this reality plays in the press looks radically different, though, as I found after trolling through dozens of news articles about the president’s budget this past week.
Among the worst offenders of up-is-down reporting, somewhat ironically, was this CNNMoney report that explicitly tied Social Security and the deficit together:
All told, the switch to chained CPI could reduce spending over ten years by $216 billion and raise $124 billion in revenue, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. That would mean total deficit reduction of $340 billion, before counting interest savings.
This is falling directly into the Republican trap of conflating Social Security “entitlement cuts” as necessary to stem out of-control spending. Thankfully, most of the rest of the media wasn’t this brazenly wrong, but that doesn’t mean they’re not marching to the sound of the same out-of-step drummer. For example, below is the opening paragraph of the Associated Press’s big lead story on President Obama’s budget. It’s Social Security-deficit conflation manipulation is one step removed, but noticing that nuance is beyond mere mortals, and certainly out of reach for most Congressmen. By lumping Social Security cuts in with other stuff as one big “debt reduction” deal, the point is made:
President Barack Obama’s proposed budget will call for reductions in the growth of Social Security and other benefit programs while still insisting on more taxes from the wealthy in a renewed attempt to strike a broad deficit-cutting deal with Republicans.
This Washington Post lead story on the budget commits the same sin, juxtaposing the two disparate items into the same thought:
Obama also proposes to slow the growth of Social Security benefits through chained CPI, trimming cost-of-living increases by roughly three-tenths of a percentage point a year and saving the government about $130 billion over the next decade.
White House officials said the change would not affect programs for the poor, such as Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, and would be adjusted to reduce the impact on retirees 77 or older. Still, the proposal has infuriated many Democrats, who have long demanded that Social Security be protected from any debt-reduction deal.
Gee, I wonder why many Democrats might be infuriated? Oh yeah, probably because Social Security does not add to the debt. Guess that motivation isn’t worth mentioning, though. Sadly, The New York Times’s straight news coverage stumbled over this Democratic anger as well. In last Friday’s front-page story, the Times ambiguously conjoins the two and omits any mention of why those on the left might be, again, “infuriated”:
President Obama next week will take the political risk of formally proposing cuts to Social Security and Medicare in his annual budget in an effort to demonstrate his willingness to compromise with Republicans and revive prospects for a long-term deficit-reduction deal, administration officials say. […]
The idea, known as chained C.P.I., has infuriated some Democrats and advocacy groups to Mr. Obama’s left, and they have already mobilized in opposition.
Over at Politico, one could read any number of its trademark process stories, like this one, that obsessed over the insider details of the budget deal, and encounter the same mistaken formulation:
There was some praise from Republicans about the inclusion of ‘chained CPI,’ a provision that would reduce Social Security benefits in the long run. Obama offered the language as an olive branch to Republicans in hopes it would help kick off a large-scale deficit deal.
Funny that a cut in a program like Social Security, which you might have heard, doesn’t add to the deficit, is characterized as a something that would “kick off” a deal on the deficit. Still, let’s give (partial) credit where it’s due. Nine paragraphs later, the article does at least quote Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse as saying: “Social Security hasn’t contributed to the deficit and shouldn’t be included in deficit talks.” But sticking a fact inside a politician’s quote is an age-old journalistic trick to effectively undermines it; it’s a way to sidestep controversy and taint the truth by ascribing it to a “biased” source. To see how the pros at this behave, look no further than this Fox News story, which establishes that only the radical left cares about preserving Social Security:
The 2014 plan, delivered to Congress Wednesday morning, was pitched by Obama as a compromise—twinning tax increases, which Republicans dislike, with changes to Social Security, which liberal Democrats despise.
That’s true, liberal Democrats do object to sacrificing the sanctity of a vital social insurance program on the (phony) altar of deficit reduction. Probably because Social Security doesn’t add to the deficit. And this viewpoint, I might add, is actually shared by a majority of Americans, including half of independents and nearly four out of ten Republicans. Although you likely wouldn’t know it from consuming the mainstream media’s output the past week. Indeed, only by venturing into the realm of subjective reasoning, like the New York Times editorial page, might one finally encounter a reality-based approach to the deficit/debt and Social Security reform, which are two distinct issues:
Social Security reforms should be decided separately because the program is not driving the deficit…Social Security did not cause today’s deficits, because the payroll taxes that support it have been more than adequate; and it will not contribute to future debt, because it is barred from spending more than it takes in.”
Hallelujah! But sadly, what little the Beltway media giveth in terms of the truth, it quickly tries to take away, as the frighteningly predictable lead editorial in yesterday’s Washington Post demonstrates:
Unlike the Senate Democrats’ budget, Mr. Obama’s does not pretend that deficits can be meaningfully reduced by soaking the rich while largely avoiding entitlements.
Most important, the president committed himself in writing to more than $100 billion in Social Security spending restraint over the next decade, along with $400 billion in health program reductions. Mr. Obama too often casts entitlement reform as a concession to extract Republican assent to higher taxes, rather than a worthy end in itself [italics mine].
Here, the Post can’t quite let itself explicitly acknowledge that, yes, Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit, so readers are treated to a clever usage of a euphemism, “spending restraint” that merely implies the same thing. But then they just come right out and say what the Beltway’s thinking is really all about—cutting Social Security is all about doing it for the sake of doing it—a “worthy end in itself.” Pain for pain’s sake.
So, let’s be 100-percent clear, to misunderstand and then misrepresent how Social Security figures into our national debt and deficit is gross injustice. By helping to propagate this myth among our nation’s leaders, the press is guilty of nothing less than journalistic malpractice. And for a profession that proclaims its devotion to objectivity, it’s critical to point out that media’s failure here significantly redounds to the political benefit of the party and ideology of the right-wing. (Although, to be fair, this president also enjoys the fruits of this misreporting, as it makes his callous ploy of sacrificing the quality of life of our nation’s seniors on an altar of phony debt reduction and legacy building less obviously craven and depraved.)
Ten years ago, our establishment media failed spectacularly, resulting in a disastrous war that claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and cost trillions of dollars. This, despite the fact that its premise was known to be false at the time we launched it. So, one has to wonder if, ten years hence, the tattered remnants of the most effective social insurance program in our nation’s history will occasion another pathetic round of self-recrimination among the press corps. The same names and publications will shrug their collective shoulders and admit that thing might have turned out differently, if only they’d admitted the obvious truth: Social Security does not contribute to the deficit.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com. Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
For more on Josh Block and The Israel Project, see Eric Alterman's last blog post.
My new Think Again column asks the (obvious, I think) question: “Shouldn't the Iraq War have finally killed the "Liberal Media?"
One question that if you read me at all regularly you know constantly confuses me is “What do the US leaders of the BDS movement think about Hamas?” I always suspected this, but now it’s official, at least if you take Sara Schulman as your guide. They don’t. Amazing, I know, but how else could a leftist lesbian feminist activist support a movement that is virulently and violently opposed to everything for which they profess to stand?
And since I don’t like to be personally abused from my left without also catching flak from my right, I note with regret that The Israel Project is being taken over by one of Washington’s foremost Jewish McCarthyites, ex-AIPAC flack Josh Block. In the universe of The Nation, I am often accused of being no better than AIPAC on the issue of Israel/Palestine, and so it's funny that in the universe of AIPAC I get the no-less ridiculous accusation of actual anti-Semitism. Anyway, Block’s appointment is bad news for honest, respectful discourse about Israel and the Palestinians but good news for Sarah Schulman and BDS, since behavior like Block’s often pushes people in the camp of BDS, simply out of distaste for the hardline tactics of the Israeli right-wing. What neither organizations will do, I can promise you, is further the cause of Middle East peace or improve the lives of the victims of its violence.
Alas, the Forward piece whitewashes Block’s nastiness and exploitation of the anti-Semitism issue, which is particularly ironic for me, since it was a trigger for my decision to resign my gig as a columnist there. I wrote a letter to the editor about it, which has received no acknowledgement, alas. If it remains ignored, I’ll throw it up here next week. In the meantime, I look forward to slanderous attacks on my character from both organizations in the not-too-distant future.
And speaking of genuine anti-semites—and believe me, I do not use the term lightly or without evidence—The New York Times has a wonderful feature on Majora Carter, Betrayer of the Poor and Powerless whose interests she apparently exploits to enrich herself, (and incidentally) a shande on the good name of the Bronx High School of Science.
Alter-reviews and this week’s list
This week’s list is: “Musicians who are generally considered to be lame or kind of a joke, but are actually really good and in a few cases, genuinely great.”
I was inspired to choose it because I came across two genuinely amazing YouTube videos featuring Tom Jones and Janis Joplin and Tom Jones with Crosby, Stills Nash & Young. That reminded me that I forgot how much I really liked Jones’s last two albums: the gospel one that came out the summer before last and the new one, which is sort of gospelly, Spirit in the Room, which begins with a killer “Tower of Song” and also has a wonderful “Just Dropped In,” another classic of my misspent youth. So if you think Tom Jones is lame because he kind of reminds you of Engelbert Humberdink, you could not be more wrong. Now I just need to see him live. A friend of mine, who took his mom’s cleaning lady saw him once and said, “He’s not just great; he’s James Brown-great.”
So here’s the list:
Seventies Bee Gees
America (the band, not the country)
Almost but not quite:
Barry Manilow (though I am sorely tempted about Barry because of how great this video is)
And speaking of great videos, have you ever seen anything more amazing than 13-year-old Derek Trucks on “One Way Out"?
I post a lot of music on my Facebook page, so everyone should feel free to look it up there. I use it for public stuff only so you don’t need to “friend” me—I hate that verb—but you can. I am indiscriminate.
My first long feature for the Nation website, "The Doomsday Prepper Caucus," was published earlier this week. It’s all about how mainstream conservatism is increasingly adopting the dystopian narratives and apocalyptic mindset of this country’s right-wing survivalist fringe.
The 'Undo-Everything' Congress: What the Press Doesn't See
by Reed Richardson
There is a frustrating tendency within the Washington press corps to misattribute individual behaviors to things or groups that are not, strictly speaking, a single person. Of course, everyone who covers politics, including yours truly, takes some liberties in using broad generalizations like “Republicans act like X” or “liberals think like Y.” When done judiciously, these rhetorical shortcuts can serve as a handy synopsis of the stakes of an issue. But this practice can easily become a lazy, intellectual crutch, one that misleads and misinforms.
Perhaps nowhere is this convention more abused by the media than when covering Capitol Hill. (A common example of this: Pollsters’ annoying habit of only testing the approval rating of “Congress” without asking the public their views on the respective parties therein, which can elicit noticeably different results.) By treating the many disparate parts and motives of 535 Congressional members as one amorphous (and highly unpopular) entity, then the press can completely muddy the picture of what the public does or doesn't like. This ambiguity shouldn’t be tolerated even if our federal legislature was working well, but when it has effectively ground to a halt, as it has right now, media misdiagnosis only serves to exacerbate the crisis.
How badly broken is our nation’s highest lawmaking body? Consider this: The 112th Congress that just concluded in early January set a record for the lowest number of laws passed—220—since record-keeping began in 1948. Ezra Klein explains the awful, awful record of the 2011–12 “Do-Nothing” Congress in more detail:
[I]t almost shut down the government and almost breached the debt ceiling. It almost went over the fiscal cliff (which it had designed in the first place). It cut a trillion dollars of discretionary spending in the Budget Control Act and scheduled another trillion in spending cuts through an automatic sequester, which everyone agrees is terrible policy. It achieved nothing of note on housing, energy, stimulus, immigration, guns, tax reform, infrastructure, climate change or, really, anything. It’s hard to identify a single significant problem that existed prior to the 112th Congress that was in any way improved by its two years of rule.
Last term’s Congress was so bad, in fact, that it surpassed the previous low benchmark of productivity, the 104th Congress, which just so happened to have ushered in a new House majority with this ethically challenged guy as Speaker. Quite a coincidence—the first arrival of robust Republican majorities while a Democrat is in the White House also occasions a near fatal case of Congressional gridlock. History shows us the 105th Congress wasn’t much more attentive to our democracy’s needs and neither, by the looks of it, will the current Congress. Though there may be fewer Republicans in the 113th, three months in the number of laws successfully passed by it can be counted on one hand.
But again, for Beltway pundits to lament Washington’s inability to put policies to problems as merely the unwillingness of Obama to show leadership and compromise with Congress, as a whole, is to grossly misread the myriad currents and eddies at work. The truth is, the injection of hard-right Republicans into the House and Senate the past two election cycles have tipped the scales of conservatism’s center of gravity severely rightward. Hailing from blood-red, GOP-safe districts, fueled by Tea Party animosity, and obsessed with reducing the deficit, this new amped-up fringe of the Republican Party is holding up the people’s business in an unprecedented manner. Yet for all their radical intransigence, they rarely draw anywhere close to the same amount of scrutiny or pundit criticism as that which befalls President Obama.
To get a sense of who these folks are, one good proxy is the list of twelve Republicans who voted against John Boehner for Speaker back in January. But that still undercounts this nihilistic caucus a bit. A fuller picture involves cross-referencing the “Nay” votes on the fiscal cliff bill, debt ceiling extension and the first and second tranches of recovery aid for Sandy victims from earlier this year. All told, you’ll find the names of roughly two-dozen reactionary Republicans coming up again and again.
The rising stars among this group—men like Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Rep. Justin Amash, Rep. Paul Broun, Rep. Thomas Massie, Rep. Steve Stockman, Rep. Ted Yoho and Rep. Louie Gohmert—may have lost the battle on the aforementioned votes, but, make no mistake, they’re winning the war on the direction of this Congress. And on their coverage by the establishment media, as well. Each one of the linked-to stories above, for instance, was published by Politico, the breathless industry newsletter of the DC political scene. Read through the articles and you’ll find most are written as unrepentant “beat sweeteners,” a.k.a. gauzy profiles that offer up little to no context of just how out of the mainstream their views really are.
But by lavishing uncritical attention on people like Huelskamp, who labeled the sequestration’s Draconian spending cuts a ‘significant victory’; Stockman, who has already threatened to impeach Obama over his gun control reform; and Broun, who claims Obama has “upheld the Soviet Constitution,” publications like Politico allow themselves to be co-opted into the breakdown of Congress itself. The failure to hold the like of Huelskamp and Stockman accountable sends a warning shot across the bow of more mainstream Republicans. The not-so-subtle message: to avoid a 2014 primary challenger—someone liable to get the same glowing attention by a Beltway publication that merely wants to "drive the conversation"—don’t even consider voting alongside Democrats, and think twice about acceding to the wishes of the House GOP leadership. That’s right, this small coterie of conservatives is even willing to blow up its own party’s chances at gaining a majority and passing a bill if it doesn’t suit their fringe views. Or as Huelskamp ominously noted not long after the 113th Congress convened: "You know, it’s only going to take seventeen of us."
In 1955, William F. Buckley unapologetically defined his magazine National Review as being for conservatives who "stand athwart history, yelling 'Stop.'" The extreme right-wingers in Congress today have even grander ambitions, however, which might best be described as standing athwart government, yelling ‘Back.’ No longer content with grinding the wheels of our federal government to a halt, they’re looking to unscrew the lugnuts, roll away the tires and sell off the rest of the parts for scrap to the states and private industry. While they may call themselves Republicans, they function more and more like anti-Democrats—their policies universally defined as the undoing of almost anything and everything the left is doing or has done. To them, there is no aspect of Obamacare not worth repealing, no income tax on the rich not worth cutting, no social insurance program not worth weakening, no regulation not worth gutting, no budget not worth rolling back to levels last seen decades ago. In other words, there is no pain on the poor and the middle class not worth inflicting.
That Congress has devolved to the point where a small, radical minority can exert such an outsized influence on it and, by extension, our political future is undoubtedly a tragedy. That the same press corps that bemoans undue partisanship and unfulfilled compromise can’t seem to be bothered to notice this suggests another—that the undoing will only get worse before it gets better.
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com.
Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
S. Rex Cohen
re: Richard Vatz-
Check out the Baltimore Jewish Times "Letter to the Editor" section for March and July-August 2012, where right-winger Vatz is outed as an "alibi Jew"—i.e., someone Jewish (on their pareents' side) who never met an anti-Semite he wouldn't defend. The instance in question had to do with a local talk-show host, a Joe Sobran acolyte known for his animus toward Jews and Israel.
Vatz's attempt to defend this bigot (on whose show Vatz often appeared)—as was true in your case—consisted of high-flown bluster and rhetorical tricks, not refutation of specifics, since the latter were irrefutable.
Plus, engaging in "vulgar bullying," he was caught red-handed deliberately misrepresenting/falsifying the case against the talk-show host!
Finally, FYI: Vatz has served as the faculty adviser to Towson University's "White Student/Pride" club.
Terry C. Maine Kenny
Dear Eric, Thank you for a piece that honored the memory of Anthony Lewis; his work and courage. It moved me to tears. Some history of the book that introduced me to your excellent work, Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy, and your experience with Lewis was a gift. Thank you for printing the correspondence, also. Keep standing up for our country, for facts and logic, for liberalism. We who believe in the principles upon which this nation was founded find matter-of-fact sense and response to those "barking dogs" of the right who name call or offer no actual debate a tonic is these times.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
Read Eric's e-mail spat with the Richard Vatz mentioned above in his last blog post.
My new Think Again column is called “Acknowledging Our Mistakes in Iraq Would Prevent Us from Repeating Them” but I would have called it “Liberal Hawks on Iraq Anniversary: 'We were right to be wrong.'" Anyway, it’s here. You can be the judge of what it should be called.
My Nation column is called “The Passion and Eloquence of Anthony Lewis” and it is here.
How to get into Bruce Springsteen.
An annoying back and forth:
I found myself forced last week to get into a letters to the editor hassle with a conservative academic named Richard Vatz, who, in attempting to make the case in the Baltimore Sun that “Liberal media bias is beyond doubt,” wrote the following sentence:
“Nation magazine journalist Eric Alterman wrote a book, 'What Liberal Bias,' that is widely cited and heavily researched but filled with evidentiary problems.”
That was it. No evidence. No follow up. No nothing. And the dude could not even get the title correct.
Anyway, I responded:
To the editors:
I was almost tempted to admire both the irony--to say nothing of the audacity--of being accused of producing work flawed by “evidentiary problems” in a newspaper column by a professor who cannot be bothered to produce a single scintilla of evidence to support his claim. But since it’s my reputation at stake, my amusement was minimal.
For the record, the work to which your guest columnist, Richard E. Vatz, refers: What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News (Basic Books, 2003 and 2004), was meticulously fact-checked and contains fully 43 pages of source notes. I do not deny the possibility of error. It’s almost impossible to write a work of over 350 pages without them, though I am aware of none that have survived beyond its first printing. I also do not deny the likelihood that many people will disagree with my arguments. That is, after all, what honorable public discourse is all about. But I do deny both Mr. Vatz and by extension, the Sun’s right to cast aspersions on my scholarship by throwing out casually derogatory accusations without making any attempt to support them.
I hate to sound defensive, but it so happens that The New Yorker magazine, which is considered to be an authority on such matters, noted the“ meticulous care with which [Alterman’s] arguments are sourced and footnoted.” The Los Angeles Times called the book “well-documented” and “even-tempered.” The Columbia Journalism Review said the “research really is excellent.” The Orlando Sentinel called the book “thoroughly researched.” The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel termed it “masterful, painstakingly documented.” Publishers Weekly thought it “well-documented” and “well-argued.” Providence Journal: “Exhaustively researched.” The Boston Review: ”Exhaustively researched.” I could go on, but my point is not to brag, but merely to point out that Mr. Vatz’s opinion is a lonely one, and requires, at the very least, significant supporting evidence to be taken seriously as anything but an ideologically motivated ad-hominem attack.
Such baseless accusations may be the appropriate manner to conduct oneself in the on Fox News or right-wing talk radio, but Sun readers deserve better and so do I. I look forward to both an apology and a retraction.
So then he wrote back:
Eric Alterman criticizes my recent commentary in The Sun on major media bias ("Liberal media bias is beyond doubt, March 18) because, he claims, I lacked "supporting evidence" in claiming his book, ""What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News," had "evidentiary problems" ("Vatz's baseless attack," March 21). He unsurprisingly quotes variously liberal sources as finding his thesis well-proved. In several e-mails to me, he recklessly analogized me to the reckless Joe McCarthy, ending with addressing me as "Joe." Very adult.
As I explained to him, it is impossible to provide full analysis to every example one cites in a 600-700 word op-ed piece, but I shall be happy to now, quoting just a few problems in his work from a book review I wrote for a major journal in my field, the Fall, 2003 issue of Qualitative Research Reports in Communication. Incidentally, Mr. Alterman's book was required reading in my class for years.
Mr. Alterman disputes the existence of most liberal bias and even argues that there is much conservative bias in the media (p. 1, p.11, p. 15). He concedes that there may be some liberal bias here and there in the media, but he undercovers it and claims without proof it is not "overwhelming" in the significant areas of abortion, gun control, campaign finance reform, gay rights and the environment (pp. 108-109).
Mr. Alterman is simply not careful with his generalizations in his book and often his evidence is conspicuously selective. For example, he cites a 1996 Freedom Forum poll of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents as "the right's Rosetta Stone..." He simply ignores the very long list of other media surveys that reveal as well that elite journalists skew left or liberal in comparison to public opinion.
There are also glaring omissions in his work. For just one example, absent is any careful analysis of National Public Radio. In his very selective and limited analysis of this source of liberal bias (NPR), he simply claims that it was inadequate in criticizing corporate wealth. There also has been a long concern about allegedly anti-Israeli reporting by NPR, which is also unaddressed by Mr. Alterman.
I could go on, but the point is that one cannot write a lengthy treatise about every supporting point in an op-ed piece. But a writer should have knowledge about criticisms he makes, and I do. Mr. Alterman doesn't.
Richard E. Vatz, Towson
So then I wrote back:
I have no doubt your readers find the back and forth between Richard E. Vatz and myself about the evidence contained in my 2003 book, What Liberal Media? The Truth about Bias and the News, to be tedious. Be assured I find even more tedious to have to participate in it. But a scholar’s reputation for accuracy and evidence is the equivalent of his personal integrity. Mr. Vatz appears intent on impugning mine, but insists upon doing so behind nothing more than the verbal equivalents of smokescreens and mirrors.
I’ll be as brief as I can. In his March 26 letter in response to mine, Vatz notes in his first sentence that “claim that he lacked ‘supporting evidence’” for his attack on the evidence in my book. I did not “claim” this, I note it as a simple fact. Vatz made no attempt whatever to support his accusation. He later attempts to excuse his action because he writes, “it is impossible to provide full analysis to every example one cites in a 600-700 word op-ed piece.” Again, “full analysis?” How about none whatsoever? Mr. Vatz appears not to know the difference.
In his next sentence he writes that I “unsurprisingly quote variously liberal sources as finding his thesis well-proved.” Again, check the record. Not a single one of the sources I quote was a “liberal” one. Each was a mainstream media newspaper or newsmagazine. They are “liberal” only the sense that anyone to the left of say, Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter is also “liberal.” Perhaps this is also true of Mr. Vatz, though, lacking further evidence, I hesitate to draw any definite conclusions.
I apparently hurt Mr. Vatz’s feelings when I emailed him that it was also a tactic of Joe McCarthy’s to make accusations without bothering to present any evidence. For that I am sorry, accurate as the analogy may be.
As for his belated attempt to support his initial carelessness, he huffs and puffs a bit before insisting that one piece of evidence I cite is “selective.” Goodness! A scholar being “selective?” What will he accuse me of next? Exercising careful judgment? As for his revelation that there exists “a very long list of other media surveys that reveal as well that elite journalists skew left or liberal in comparison to public opinion.” It is false to say I ignore this. I address it by noting that a variety of factors, including professional pride, the belief in objectivity, media ownership, and right-wing pressure—all of whose effects are described in detail in my book--can prevent liberal journalists from publishing liberally biased stories. I’m sorry if I stated this in such a way that Mr. Vatz failed to understand it. I hope I have done so more clearly now.
As for the “glaring omissions,” in my work, and my “very selective and limited analysis,” once again, I plead guilty. In a book of only 350 or so pages with a 43 mere pages of supporting source notes, one cannot cover absolutely everything. I am selective. My analysis is limited. This is true. It is also a truism. All scholarship is by definition “selective” and “limited.” It’s true of Robert Caro’s (so far) 4000 page biography of Lyndon Johnson and it’s true of everything Mr. Vatz has ever published, whatever that may be. As a professor of “rhetoric,” I would have expected him to know this, but then again, I would also have expected him to be acquainted with the meaning (and importance) of evidence.
Finally at the end of his letter, Mr. Vatz writes “There also has been a long concern about allegedly anti-Israeli reporting by NPR, which is also unaddressed by Mr. Alterman.” I have to admit, I find this bizarre. First, it has nothing whatever to do with anything in my book, since I barely discuss NPR. Second, once again--and I am getting as tired of writing this as Sun readers are of reading it--Mr. Vatz provides no evidence. for his accusation. Sure “there has long been concern” about lots of “alleged” matters. Many people are apparently concerned about President Obama’s “alleged” birth in Kenya and his “alleged” desire to turn the United States into either a Socialist or an Islamic Republic, or perhaps both. In the past, we have heard of others “concern” with President Clinton’s “alleged” murder of his wife’s “alleged” ex-lover or his “alleged” love child of mixed-race parentage. The idea that Vatz would end his missive by tossing out yet another allegation for which he provides no evidence is either sad or comical, depending on one’s point of view. What it is not is worthy of space in your newspaper.
Alter-reviews: Carrington and Ellington, Stephen Stills and Duane Allman
I was unfamiliar with the work of the drummer, Terri Lyne Carrington, but she certainly caught it with her tribute to the 1963 album by Duke Ellington, Charlie Mingus and Max Roach, Money Jungle. Her album features Featuring Gerald Claytonand Christian McBride, with guests, Clark Terry, Lizz Wright, Herbie Hancock and picks up the previous commentary on the perennial tug-of-war between art and commerce that has only grown more desperate in the half century that’s passed. I caught her band at Dizzy’s on Tuesday night and she and the players (which included Mr. Clayton) It was an interesting and provocative night, and in addition to educating me about Carrington’s work, whetting my appetite for next month’s Jazz@LC tribute to Mr. “Beyond Category.” The Ellington festival begins on April 24 and you can read about it here. For more about Ms. Carrington, go here.
It’s been a magnificent week in my favorite category: “Box sets of the music of the people to whose work I grew up listening but with whom I could not entirely keep up, much to my regret.” Up first, Carry On is a four-CD set, spanning 50 years. One great thing about it is that it’s the right size to fit on your cd shelf (as were the slightly less expansive Crosby and Nash boxes.) You get over five hours of music and a 113 page booklet and most of it, I’m betting, is stuff with which you’re not familiar. Produced by Nash with Stills and Joel Bernstein, it hits most of the high spots but throws in a plethora of alternate recordings, demos, live cuts, new mixes, totalling 25 previously unreleased tracks.
I also appreciate that the box is organized chronologically—beginning with The: "Travelin " a previously unreleased recording that Stills made at age 17 in Costa Rica (one of the many places he lived growing up in a military family). The most recent recording is from one of those incredible Beacon shows I reviewed in the fall and has CSN performing "Girl From The North Country." There’s a lot of music here that will be a revelation to people who know only CSNY, Buffalo Springfield and Marrakesh Express. Did you know, for instance that Stills played with Hendrix? (He says they were planning to record together.) There’s a great jam here. And I particularly love the 2002 CSNY “Ole Man Trouble” at MSG with on Booker T. and Donald "Duck" Dunn. You’ll also find Herbie Hancock, Eric Clapton, Maynard Ferguson, Ray Baretto, Willie Bobo, and Larry Harlow sprinkled throughout the musicians, but overall it’s a compelling play for Stills’ centrality in the history of rock n roll, as well as just some great stuff to have all in one place. I would have preferred a bit heavier emphasis on the Manassas albums and the much undervalued solo work from the late seventies, but hey, I didn’t do the work. The price is pretty reasonable too, all things considered. More here.
p.s. I see the May 3CSN/Jazz@LC gig is sold out. That’s a shame. I fear the scalpers will get rich on what will undoubtedly be a once-in-a-lifetime experience.
The monster box this month is the enormous seven cd 129 track retrospective of Duane Allman's work, “Skydog.” Duane’s career has been examined before, over the course of four cds, but this set will tempt even those who, like yours truly, already have everything the Allman Brothers ever put out plus a few albums where Duane was just a studio hand. It begins in 1965 with Duane, at age 18, together with his baby brother, Greg, fronting a band called the Escorts, doing a quite decent version of “Lovelight.” A year later we get six songs, also with Gregg, as the Allman Joys. Plus another nine with same as The Hour Glass and then two more as the 31st of February follow. These are much better than I expected them to be—few are “work” the way say, listening to “The Bruce Springsteen Band” or “Steel Mill” can be. Next we get a tour through Duane’s studio work, much of it done down in Muscle Shoals for Jerry Wexler and includes the work of Clarence Carter, Wilson Pickett, Arthur Conley Aretha Franklin, Boz Scaggs, Ronnie Hawkins, Lulu, Herbie Mann, Hammond Jr., Barry Goldberg, Otis Rush, King Curtis, Johnny Jenkins, Sam Samudo, Delaney and Bonnie, and even Laura Nyro and Lulu. There is no new Derek and the Dominoes material unfortunately and the Allman Brothers stuff, which is a lot of it, is mostly from performances that have been released in the past few years but are not on the classic albums that everybody has. I had them, but the studio work and the early stuff more than justifies this box even with the repeats. In fact I’ve even gone out to buy a few albums by people with whose work I was unfamiliar after listening to Duane play on their songs. The mixes are excellent and the liner notes, while not terribly elaborate, provide all the dates and players for each of the songs. There are too many highlights spread across this to name any one—especially since this will differ from person to person--to name any of them. But everything’s here. It takes one up a bit short to note that Duane died at just 24. I’ve been seeing the band twice a year (at least) for the past quarter century, and while they are better technically now than ever—better I would submit, than just about any band of musicians playing popular music of any kind anywhere—the creative period obviously took place under Duane and shortly thereafter (through “Brothers and Sisters.”) There is a richness to this music, given his versatility as a studio player and the excellence of those whom he sought for collaboration and vice versa. “Skydog” is not cheap but it will sell out, and if you are considering it, even with the repeats of previous releases, I feel pretty certain you’ll regret it if you let it go by. I know I would. There’s a video here.
by Reed Richardson
Ever wonder where a piece of right-wing misinformation comes from? Or how it got started? Or what kind of long, strange trip it took from conception to gestation to arriving, fully formed, in the talking points of conservatives, after which one can expect the mainstream media to treat the lie seriously on the Sunday morning news shows?
Then come with me down the rabbit hole.
Our first stop is this Mediaite column from earlier this week authored by columnist and site editor Noah Rothman. The premise of this column was that the millions of dollars New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg is currently spending to push for reasonable gun control legislation was, in fact, counterproductive. Instead, he argued Bloomberg is conveniently providing right-wing folks from the redder parts of America an attractive archenemy to rally against. But Rothman’s real objection to Bloomberg comes later in the piece when he suddenly pivots to the topic of campaign finance reform [italics mine]:
Bloomberg is the physical embodiment of the hypocrisy the Democratic Party and the media display on campaign finance reform issues.Combined with the news that the liberal Tides Foundation had contributed five times more to Democrats than the oft-maligned libertarian Koch Brothers contributed to Republicans, Bloomberg’s financial contributions to liberal candidates demonstrate that progressives and the media establishment are only concerned about campaign finance issues when Democratic candidates are in danger of losing elections.
As someone who has occasionally written about the pernicious effects of outside spending on political campaigns—for example, right here last week—I was admittedly surprised by the claim in the italicized portion above. Could it be that the Tides Foundation really is this secret liberal leviathan whose Democratic campaign funding dwarfs even the infamously outlandish spending by the Koch brothers? Only a few seconds after clicking the link, which brings you to a page on the Human Events website, does one begin to realize the short answer is no.
The Human Events article is, itself, merely a waystation for this bit of propaganda, one that uses the supposed smoking gun about the Tides spending for “activist causes” to aim criticism at the supposed liberal media’s unfair obsession with the Kochs. But to get the full measure of the deception here requires clicking the link for the block-quote. Doing this drops you down one more level, to the original source of the talking point, a Washington Examiner op-ed from early March. And here, predictably, is where the wheels start to come off:
Three Koch foundations made a total of 181 grants worth $25,405,525 in 2010 (most recent available records). The one Tides Foundation made a total of 2,627 grants worth $143,529,590 in 2010.
Put otherwise, for every one grant made by a Koch foundation, Tides made more than five grants.
First, let’s set aside Examiner executive editor Mark Tapscott’s innumeracy and sloppy conflating of the comparative ratios of grants and grant dollars. What’s really noteworthy here is that these bottom-line numbers lack any context at all, and that Tapscott doesn’t bother linking to the pertinent tax forms for these four foundations so the reader could see for him or herself where all this money is really going.
There’s a reason for all this opacity, of course—it’s because the details tell a radically different story when it comes to these two groups’ actual spending on partisan causes. If you actually look into their individual grants, you’ll see only a tiny percentage of it went anywhere near politics. The foundations of the Kochs donated almost all of its monies to apolitical causes, with most of the grants going to the general funds of several dozen universities. And at nowhere in these three foundations’ records is any mention of the Kochs’ notoriously spendthrift 501(c)(4) political group, Americans for Prosperity, which spent $140 million during the 2012 election.
As for the Tides Foundation, more than 96% of its 2010 grants—$138 million—went to 501(c)(3) charities that are barred, by law, from partisan activities. These grants ran the gamut from the Academy for the Love of Learning to the Zen Community of Oregon. The remaining $5.1 million of Tides grants did go to 501(c)(4) groups, also known as social welfare organizations—most notably, groups like the ACLU and League of Conservation Voters—that can engage in robust political lobbying and endorse partisan candidates.
So what’s going on here? Simple, Tapscott is cherry-picking two distinct sources of charitable giving from either side of the ideological spectrum whose spending, when compared without any regard for accuracy or precision, conveniently fits longstanding feelings of conservative resentment and claims of media bias. Thanks to some vestigial remnant of intellectual honesty, however, Tapscott acknowledges as much in the very next paragraph, what I’ve taken to calling the greatest disclaimer of all time:
There are important qualifications to these numbers, including that the two Koch brothers also contributed to numerous political candidates, there may be other Koch-controlled foundations that didn't surface in this study, not all of the grants included here went to political or ideological groups or causes, and the two men may have significant influence on yet other foundations not under their direction.
Qualifications, indeed. What we have here is a four-part(!) self-defeating timebomb stuck squarely in the middle of his argument, which essentially blows apart the conclusions therein. This selective conflating of grants to like-minded charities with direct donations to political campaigning is little more than trafficking in willful misinformation. And while adding this shameless disclaimer gives Tapscott an out, it won’t come as a surprise that when this talking point gets picked up and repeated among the usual right-wing suspects, this bit of context magically disappears. Instead, the core critique becomes ground down and polished into a soundbite ready diatribe where the “secret” Tides foundation gets to escape “liberal media” scrutiny while contributing hundreds of millions to “political causes,” all of which is further cross-contaminated and intentionally confused by intermixing vague talk of funding partisan candidates.
Notably, Rothman makes the very same mistake in his column, which contains nary a mention of the huge caveat that accompanied the Examiner op-ed about the Kochs many other political spending efforts. Even the Human Events page Rothman links to manages to keep the disclaimer. Now, I don’t consider Mediaite part of the right-wing media constellation, nor do most others in the media I suspect, so it’s important to understand that when Rothman’s column got picked up and featured on Hot Air, Michelle Malkin’s website, his lack of due diligence effectively launders this bit of conservative misinformation through an ostensibly liberal or at least apolitical news site, where it can then be approvingly cited and injected back into the right-wing media feedback loop.
Once ingrained, these talking points can be almost impossible dislodge, no matter how much logic is applied, as I found out. Right after Rothman’s column came out, I pointed out the deceptive nature of this claim that Tides give “five times more” to Democratic candidates than the Kochs do to Republicans, citing the actual 990 tax form as proof. His initial response, via Twitter, was encouraging, if also suggestive of someone who doesn’t take glaring errors very seriously: “Strive for accuracy, but we’re all imperfect beings. Does not change the underlying point of that post.”
Rothman’s subsequent “correction” was anything but, however, as it kept the same A vs. B textual construction from the original and simply substituted “progressive causes” where it had previously said electing Democrats (which is how it now reads). When I pointed out that his column was still grossly inaccurate because it continued to conflate grants to non-partisan charities with all the partisan-focused spending by the Kochs, which actually totaled close to $400 million in 2012, he continued to obtusely lump them all together as “political spending.”
His resistance to ceding the point is, in a way, understandable. To take away the idea that liberal groups like Tides and individuals like Bloomberg are vastly outspending conservatives like the Koch brothers undermines his caviling about Democratic hypocrisy. Likewise, if the right-wing’s deluge of election campaigns with hundreds of millions in cash really is unmatched by the left than his column’s whole argument falls apart. Most telling to me was his response to my last question, where I asked him if he thought liberals, though vastly out-gunned in the post-Citizens United world of no-holds barred political spending, should nonetheless be forced to unilaterally disarm to prove their belief in campaign finance reform. His answer—silence.
Truth be told, I suspect that whatever Rothman’s flawed arguments about liberal hypocrisy on campaign spending are, they will quickly dissipate in the discourse. His contribution to furthering a right-wing propaganda point, however, has the potential to last for years. I guess we’ll know his column really succeeded when we tune in on Sunday morning to hear someone talking all about how the Tides Foundation outspends the Koch brothers on “Meet the Press.”
Contact me directly at reedfrichardson (at) gmail dot com.
Also, I’m on Twitter here—(at)reedfrich.
Editor's note: To contact Eric Alterman, use this form.
Read Reed Richardson on the press coverage of the lead-up to the Iraq War ten years ago.