Frank’s Case Book

“Great hearts, my dear master, should be patient in misfortune as well as joyful in prosperity.” — Sancho’s words of consolation to Don Quixote.

Ever since the extremely close presidential election in 2000, it had been clear that some Democrats and Liberals have collectively lost perspective, appearing to more concerned about threats they perceive from President George W. Bush than international terrorism. Now it would be an exaggeration to suggest that all Liberals ail from such a dysfunctional perspective, but the affliction is more common than one would ordinarily expect. Apparently, this “mania” is not a recent phenomenon, but appears to have be an ongoing problem among Liberals, at least as documented by William F. Buckley, Jr.

In 1959, Buckley wrote Up From Liberalism and his description of Liberalism seems almost prescient. He wrote, “that in most respects the Liberal ideologists are, like Don Quixote, wholly normal, with fully developed powers of thought, that they see things as they are, and live their lives according to the Word; but that, like Don Quixote, whenever anything touches upon their mania, they become irresponsible. Don Quixote’s mania was knight errantry. The Liberals’ mania is their ideology.”

The Liberals’ mania may still be their ideology, but the mania has certainly extended to President Bush. Agree with him or not, empirically George Bush is moderate both in tone and policy. He has instituted tax cuts, but so did Ronald Reagan and Reagan’s were more dramatic. He liberated Iraq and Afghanistan in response to perceived threats, but Bill Clinton attacked Bosnia even when all conceded that there was no threat to the United States. Some view the Patriot Act as a frontal assault on civil liberties, but it was passed by 3 to 1 in Congress and any civil liberties issues are trivial compared to the internment of Japanese Americans by Liberal icon Franklin D. Roosevelt or to the deliberate killing of 3000 people on September 11, 2001 by Al Qaeda terrorists. Disagreement on policy is not sufficient to explain the fury against Bush. It has something to do with continual frustration with the 2000 election and it has something to do with cultural animosity of America’s elites with the values of Middle America.

This Liberal “mania” is routed in cultural difference, the reaction of people who fancy themselves elites and are frustrated by apparent American backwardness in the hinterlands. Immediately, after the election, the Left was carping about the “moral issues” motivation of the Americas, but many simply subscribed to Michael Moore’s conviction that Americans, “are possibly the dumbest people on the planet … in thrall to conniving, thieving, smug pricks… We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.” Given the number of people who paid money to see Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, one supposes that he has a point. In any case, the persistent insults that the Left lavish on American will not particularly endear them and it may help insure future Republican victories. But the mania is too intoxicating for some and they cannot temper either their thoughts or speech.

If they are to survive all American political movements must marginalize their more shrill and extreme elements. In his era, William Buckley pushed avid anti-state and to some extent anti-American government John Birchers from the mainstream of Conservative politics. In the New Republic, Peter Beinart argues for a New Liberalism that can speak authentically about dealing with the threat of terrorism, while eschewing their more fanatical elements on the Left.

In the immediate aftermath of World War II, it was not clear if the US would take the necessary national posture and stand athwart Soviet expansionism. As Beinart recalls, “Former Vice President Henry Wallace, a hero to many Liberals, saw communists as allies in the fight for domestic and international progress.” Wallace eventually ran unsuccessfully for president under the Progressive banner breaking away from the Democratic Party, which Wallace believed was abandoning the legacy of Roosevelt. Wallace believed that unfettered capitalism led to the suffering of the Great Depression and allowed this fear of free markets to transform him into a reflexive Soviet apologist. He resisted the Marshall Plan that helped rebuild Europe for fear that such involvement by the US in Europe would threaten the Soviet Union. Wallace even opposed the Berlin airlift and blamed the US for the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia . Beinart’s critique of Wallace is particularly ironic since Wallace was served as an editor for The New Republic.

Unlike Wallace, Harry Truman accurately understood the nature of the Soviet Union and established what has come to known as the Truman Doctrine, the underpinning for American resistance to Soviet expansion during the Cold War. Truman believed, “that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures.” The doctrine was first applied to assist Turkey and Greece from being pulled unwillingly into the Soviet orbit. According to Beinart, the American for Democratic Action was first formed to insure that American Liberalism would combine a commitment to progressive ideals at home and support to keep free peoples from the yoke of Soviet Communism.Liberals and Democrats are at a similar position with respect to the current struggle against religiously inspired terrorism. The challenge for responsible Democrats is to isolate the irresponsible elements of their party, the Michael Moore and MoveOn.org wing. This may prove particularly difficult, given that MoveOn.org believes that it is the Democratic Party. Indeed, it proudly boasted of the Democratic Party, “We bought it, we own it, we’re going to take it back.”

It is possible for Democrats and Liberals to maintain their commitment to ambitious domestic social welfare society, while aggressively pursuing the War on Terror. After all, Presidents Truman and John F. Kennedy were leading Cold War warriors. Or Democrats can allow their obsessive and compulsive distaste for Bush to blind them to the very real threats posed by vicious mass killers motivated by a deadly mix of religious fanaticism and a Fascist ideology. They can follow a Henry Wallace’s example of acquiescence to a very real threat or embrace the aggressive pro-American policy similar to the one promulgated by their erstwhile hero Truman. They can credibly recognize the seriousness of the threat despite the willingness of some Europeans to appease Islamic extremists, or they can isolate themselves further from the American mainstream, consumed by their mania, tilting aimlessly at windmills.

Now that he has reached the age of 70, let us hope that Bill Moyers enjoys his retirement and can spend his new free time dispersing millions of dollars on behalf of the Left-leaning charitable foundation that he heads.  And while released from the pressure of hosting NOW on PBS, he will have the opportunity to relax and reconsider some of his recent rash and reckless statements.  After quiet and thoughtful consideration, he will surely blush with embarrassment that he once hinted that George Bush might initiate a coup if not re-elected [1].  He will probably come to realize that arguing that Conservatives and particularly George Bush are engaged in the “…deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America” [2] was irresponsible, campaign-fever induced hyperbole.  Perhaps we can save him a little time in retirement, but offering up evidence that his most recent notions that thee “right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of the Republican National Committee” and that the mainstream press is insufficiently critical of the Bush Administration does not survive serious scrutiny.

Moyers suffers a common, sometimes calculated, confusion that mixes commentary and news and conflates the popularity of Conservative commentators with Conservative news bias.  Though many people may learn of current events by listening to Rush Limbaugh, David Letterman, or even John Stewart, these outlets are either commentary or entertainment or both.  They are not straight news.  It is a distinction that is as clear as the difference between the front page, the editorial page, and the comics of a well-run newspaper.  Moyers is not stupid.  By not distinguishing between news and commentary, he demonstrates the perpetual frustration on the Left with the popular resonance of Right-wing commentators.

The silly notion that the press has somehow not applied sufficient scrutiny to George Bush and Conservatives is refuted by rather clear evidence. The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University has just completed a review of the Bush-Kerry campaign news coverage.  They simply counted up the number of positive and negative characterization of Bush and Kerry on the broadcast news channels.  They found that Kerry’s press was 58% to 42% positive.  George Bush faired far worse.  He received only 36% positive coverage and 64% negative coverage.  “Until this year the record holder was Walter Mondale with 56% positive evaluations in 1984.”  It is amazing to realize now that Reagan won in a landslide, while he received a record low 9% positive news coverage.  Positive press coverage does not always correspond to electoral victory.  George Bush’s election victory is not an indication of the lack of sufficient scrutiny by the media.

And surely, if the mainstream press was so concerned by the bottom line as Moyers suggests they would not have been so credulous in allowing forged anti-Bush documents on the air, devastating CBS News’ credibility and depressing its already sinking ratings. Indeed, its seems that CBS News was too willing to risk the bottomline if it meant putting out questionable “news” critical of Bush

There have been many studys of members of the national media that demonstrate that they are overwhelming Liberal, particularly on social questions, and vote overwhelmingly Democratic.  However, this does not necessarily prove that coverage is Liberally biased.  It is possible to at least imagine that news coverage and editing could be sufficiently professional and introspective that the political inclinations of the reporter, broadcaster, or editor would not have an impact.  After all one can engage a plumber, electrician, or dentist without regard to any political affiliation.  There is no reason to believe that a Liberal dentist, moderate electrician or a Conservative plumber would mend your teeth, wires or pipes in a discernibly different way.

In attempting to assess media bias, there is the problem of finding a reasonably objective measure.  From a vantage point on the Right or the Left, a centrist perspective to coverage might appear biased.

It is also important to remember that the political spectrum shifts over time.  What may have at one time been an avant guarde position may now be mainstream.  The only objective way, it would seem to estimate the center of the political spectrum, from which we can measure deviations to the Left or Right, is by using the votes of the polity.  One may be the Left or to the Right of elected officials, but it seems fair to define the middle as the middle of the political spectrum as voted by the electorate.

Tim Groesecose of both UCLA and Stanford University and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago have made an attempt to arrive at such measure.   The researchers began with two assumptions.  The first is that the votes of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate represent the political spectrum of the United States.  Second, there are a number of “think tanks” leaning Left and Right whose research and policy recommendations are used to buttress the arguments of the Left and Right.  For example, those who are on the Right are more likely to positively cite the Heritage Foundation than they are the Brookings Institute.

The Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) regularly rank Congressmen and Senators by their voting record.  A perfect 100 in ADA’s eye is a perfect Liberal “hero” and 0 is a perfect Conservative “zero.”  For example, in 2003, ADA ranked Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) a perfect 100, while Jeff Sessions (R-AL) was tagged with a perfect zero.  The mean score of the House of Representatives is 44.5 and 40.0 for the Senate.  According the ADA, the House and the Senate are shifted Conservative.  Hence, it can be asserted that the mean position of the country is somewhere in the lower 40’s on an ADA scale of Liberalism.

Groesecose and Milyo then correlated the ADA rankings of the Representatives and Senators how often they positively cited various think thanks for support from the floor of either the House or the Senate.  News programs also cite these think tanks in their reports.  The thesis of Groesecose and Milyo is that the more Liberal or Conservative the perspective of a news program, the more likely they are to cite positively those think tanks cited by Liberal and Conservative representative and senators.  In this way, they could devise an imputed ADA score for major new outlets.

Fox News’ Special Report had a score of 36, slightly more Conservative than US Senate but still floating comfortably down the US political mainstream.  The Drudge Report ranked a 55, pretty much in the middle as estimated by the imputed ADA score, but to the Left of both the Senate and the House and presumably the people who elected them.  The major network news programs, ABC, NBC, and CBS News, scored 58, 58, and 70, respectively.  This places broadcast news somewhat to the Left of the American mainstream and CBS far to the Left.  CBS’s score was almost identical to that of the New York Times.

By the empirical measures of Groseclose and Miylo as well as the Center for Media and Public Affairs, Moyers really has little to complain about in terms of media coverage.  His real complaint is that the country has moved to the Right, and he is now far out of the American mainstream.  One supposes that one should be sympathetic towards Moyers, lonely as he is on the sparsely-populated Left bank of American politics, abandoned as yesterday’s news.

References

1. Charlie Rose Show, November 2, 2004.
2. Cited by Johns Nichols, The Nation, June 9, 2003.

“And I have a feeling that it [the bin Laden tape] could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” — Walter Cronkite on Larry King Live, October 29, 2004.

Bill Moyers: …I think if Kerry were to win this in a — in a tight race, I think there would be an effort to mount a coup, quite frankly. I mean just like…
Bill Moyers: I — I mean that the — the right wing is not going to accept it.
Joe Klein: Except for the fact that they don’t control – they don’t control the military, they don’t control the intelligence community. What they control is Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, and, you know, one side of the table on Crossfire.
— Exchange on the Charlie Rose Show, November 2, 2004.

“But the big problem the country now has, which is going to produce a serious discussion of secession over the next 20 years, is that the segment of the country that pays for the federal government is now being governed by the people who don’t pay for the federal government… Ninety percent of the red states are welfare client states of the federal government.” — Lawrence O’Donnell on the McLaughlin Group, November 5, 2004.

Despite a thrilling World Series where the Boston Red Sox managed to become the champions of baseball after an 86-year hiatus, baseball has garnered a decreasing share of the national attention.  Though attendance has grown steadily over the years, there is now so much more competition for spectator and fan devotion.  Not only are football and baseball at both the collegiate and professional levels popular, but NASCAR racing draws more fans each year than professional baseball, football, and basketball combined.  With all due respect to these other diversions, it is a shame that the ethos of baseball has receded in the national psyche.  The loss has made it more difficult the pass on the civic virtues necessary in a democratic society based on liberty constrained by personal discipline.

In baseball, even the best teams loose a third of their games, while the worst teams win a third.  As the baseball player, manager, and philosopher, Casey Stengel observed, “…that’s baseball.  Rags to riches one day and riches to rags the next.”  Baseball teaches a patience that would be salutary if it returned to American politics — a patience to think of the long-term, for there will be many wins and losses on the way.  In a power-balanced republic like the United States that oscillates fairly regularly between moderately Conservative and Liberal parties, there is little reason to be excessively morose and down-heartened at an election loss. There is, therefore, little reason for angry the recriminations and vitriol that seems to have spewed from supposedly responsible people on the Left after loosing the recent presidential election.  Sure, Democrats seems to have lost a little footing, but their political ailments are not terminal.  It is a time for regrouping, re-examination, and retrenchment.  It ought not to be an excuse to lash indiscriminately out in uncontrolled fury.

Examples of this frenzied behavior include remarkable assertions by ostensibly responsible spokesmen on the Left.  PBS’s Bill Moyers seems to believe that a coup by the Right was a serious possibility and Walter Cronkite, at one time perhaps the most trusted man in America, irresponsibly suggested that Presidential political advisor Karl Rove may be conspiring with terrorist Osama bin Laden to influence US elections. If perhaps these people had a little more baseball-like political patience and maturity, they would be less likely to explode like marauding football linebacker irrationally into the breach.

Perhaps the most disappointing example of the loss of all proportion is the tongue-in-cheek, but perhaps purposely divisive, suggestion that there are two radically different “red” and “blue” Americas. These colors correspond to the conventional coloring of states by their electoral votes for president. The Democrats seems to have a lock on the northeast and the west coasts, while Republicans control much of Middle America.  The suggestion is further made that perhaps these two Americas should go their separate ways.  Apparently, some in the blue states are so angry they want to take their ball and leave.

Now it is one thing to note differences among regions of the country and quite another to grumble like Lawrence O’Donnell that the “red” states are somehow wrongly dictating to the “blue” states, who O’Donnell claims, are disproportionately paying federal taxes.  The “red” states appear, in O’Donnell’s view, to be the pushy freeloaders. O’Donnell claims, “…the federal government is now being governed by the people who don’t pay for the federal government.”

It is impossible to believe that even O’Donnell really accepts the implications of the line of reasoning he is so casually and thoughtlessly pursuing.  It is not the blue states, but rather the affluent in both red and blue states who pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.  Is O’Donnell really trying to make the ethical case that in a democratic society those that contribute less financially ought to have less say in the election outcomes?  Should the rich be given more votes, since they pay more taxes?  This latter possibility would not bode well for Democrats.   According to the much maligned exit polls (now fully tabulated), Bush won a majority of votes from people having incomes over $50,000 per year, and almost half (49%) of voters with incomes between $30,000 and $50,000 voted for Bush.  It is only among people with incomes below $30,000 that Kerry won a clear majority.

Do those who are a drain on the federal treasury deserve less of a vote?  Should the retired on social security or the poor claiming some federal assistance be less enfranchised by virtue of the fact that at the moment they may be received more benefits than the taxes they pay?  Should families with school age children who consume government education dollars be give less of a vote than childless couples who are subsidizing neighboring families?

O’Donnell would reject these notions and that is what makes his exacerbation of divisions between red and blue states so reckless.  O’Donnell really knows better, but appears to be allowing his political disappointment to triumph over his reason.

It would be pleasant to indulge ourselves in the amiable view that the angry response to Bush’s election is just the temporary cry of the deeply wounded Left, and that this wound will soon heal or at least scar over and cease oozing ugly rhetoric.  Instead, it may be the case that the Left feels itself so out of touch with the rest of society that it has lost all hope of an electoral victories in the future.  Their current over reaction to the election and their willingness to insult the intelligence and motivations of the voters they may wish to solicit a few years hence may go a long way insuring that this assessment by the Left becomes true.

The Boston Red Sox waited through 86 agonizing years to finally win a World Series.  Democrats have only to wait four more years for an opportunity for a possible presidential victory.  Those on the Left will need to remember that there is always be another election season and the sooner they use the off season to re-tool their political teams rather than whining about the past, the sooner they will achieve electoral success.

The exit polls made election night excessively cruel and especially so for supporters of presidential candidate Senator John Kerry.  Early in the afternoon, exit polls suggested that Kerry would be a big winner. The stock market plummeted on the news and Kerry supporters were giddy in anticipation.  Some were already planning strategies for running against Senator John McCain in 2008. Bush supporters were gloomy, until about 7:00 p.m. when the actual election returns started to trickle in.  When the exit polls were finally tabulated using data for the entire day, they began to approach the actual election returns, but the damage was already done.  Kerry supporters were forced to suffer an even more frustrating loss than they would have endured had the exit polls not been so initially misleading.

While exit polls may not be the best real-time predictor of election outcomes, they did offer an interesting post-election insight into the motivation and demographics of voters.  Exit polls clearly showed an increase in voting by Evangelical Christians and that the issue of “moral values” played a more important role in voters’ minds than most observers had anticipated before the election.  However, to many the term “moral values” is code-language for only a pro-life position or for the notion that the definition of marriage ought not to be extended to same sex partners.  While it is true that these issues are important, the thesis here is the moral values that defined this election were substantially broader.  Many of those who were citing “moral values” as an issue were also reacting to vitriolic rhetoric and mean-spirited campaign of the Democrats and others on the Left.  The thesis here is that Americans were also rejecting the tone and tenor of the campaign.

Consider the following incendiary rhetoric by major players in the Democratic Party:

• Senator Edward Kennedy claimed that the War in Iraq was a “fraud” that was “made up in Texas.”
• Governor Howard Dean said,  “John Ashcroft is not a patriot” and  lent credence to the notion Bush may have know about the 9/11 attacks in advance.
• General Wesley Clark ran for the Democratic nomination suggesting that as far as Christianity goes “there’s only one party that lives that faith in America, and that’s our party, the Democratic Party.”
• Vice-President Al Gore shouted to a partisan crowd that Bush “betrayed us.”
• Democratic Party Chairman Terry McAuliffe asserted that President Bush went AWOL while in the Texas National Guard.

At the same time, propagandist Michael Moore produced the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 about which the Left-leaning Christopher Hitchens colorfully averred that “to describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental.”  While there is always extreme rhetoric by partisans on both sides, the fact that Michael Moore’s movie was embraced and even believed by otherwise reasonable human beings is a measure of the deep irrational antipathy on the Left for Bush.  In this election, America rejected this antipathy in voting for Bush, much like they rejected Republican antipathy for former President Bill Clinton.

Now many of my Liberal friends will reject the notion that the electorate was reacting against the spiteful anti-Bush rhetoric.  After all, they will assert, one could point out intemperate statements made by some on the Right.   However, you do not generally find such statements made by Republican Party leadership, nor did Republicans never come close to matching the same enormous investment or negative advertising by “527” groups.  The fact that most people who voted for Bush voted positively for Bush, while about half of the Kerry supporters were simply voting against Bush is an empirical reflection of the pervasive negativity in the Democratic presidential campaign.  It is hard to find Republicans who hate Kerry, while it is unfortunately much too easy to find Democrats who hate Bush.

Apparently, the election did little to smooth over differences and this anti-Bush antipathy on the Left will likely continue to encumber their political agenda.  Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, vomited up his angry bile the day after the election charging that Bush is “a radical — the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America.” However, fellow travelers on the Left reveal those who are really angry with Americans.  Normally thoughtful and polite columnist E. J. Dionne in the Washington Post could not help but write, “We are alarmed that so many of our fellow citizens could look the other way and not hold Bush accountable…”  Jane Smiley in Slate worries that Americans may not really be up to this Democracy thing. For Smiley, “The election results reflect the decision of the right wing to cultivate and exploit ignorance in the citizenry.”  One is not likely to garner votes in the future, if you do not respect voters.

Even if they are able to tone done their angry rhetoric, it will be difficult for those on the Left to deal with their deficiency on the issue of “moral values.”  Some of the Left mistakenly believe that “moral values” is only a phrase used to hide bigotry and intolerance. When seriously confronted with the “moral values” issue, others on the Left defensively argue that the minimum wage or health care and other “social justice” issues represent moral values. They are correct that there is a moral component to these issues. However, the Left has lost the vocabulary and the temperament to deal with moral values.  Values imply judgments about right and wrong, and many on the Left have given up the notion that any ideas of right and wrong can be imposed by government.  After throwing the armaments of moral authority and the ability to speak of moral obligations into the bushes, it is not difficult to retrieve them in service of traditional Liberal causes.

Ever attuned to the public mood, former President Bill Clinton did not rush off to blame the American people or to insult their intelligence.  Instead, he is trying to push the Democratic Party back towards the middle of the political spectrum.  He astutely observed that “If we let people believe that our party doesn’t believe in faith and family, that’s our fault.” Unfortunately, for the Democrats too many in their constituency long ago grew ambivalent about both faith and family and during this election cycle added mean-spiritedness to their public character.