I was talking with my mother, a regular Washington Post reader, a couple of months ago and she was impressed with something David Broder said. It appears that Broder decided that maybe Bush wasn't always right and maybe the Dems were right occasionally. To my mom, this had the air of Walter Cronkite turning against the Vietnam War. Cronkite's public declaration that Vietnam was unwinnable had a major impact and was an act of some courage. In response, I said that Broder was a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. It is important to know the difference.
From Wikipedia:
Leading indicators are economic indicators which tend to change before the general economic activity.
A lagging (or trailing) indicator is an economic indicator that reacts slowly to economic changes, and therefore has little predictive value. Generally these types of indicators follow an event; they are historical in nature.
Politically speaking, Cindy Sheehan and Russ Feingold were leading indicators. Cindy Sheehan changed from a mom to an antiwar protestor. While most military families continued to support the president, many joined her, either in person at Camp Casey or through donations or letters of support. The peace movement grew from such leading indicators. Feingold, whom I am proud to have as my senator, was against the war and the fearful laws passed in defense of freedom. He proved to be a leading indicator, as many of his criticisms are on the verge of becoming common wisdom. In neither case was the future course of events clear at the time, but they had the courage of their convictions and helped drive events by their actions.
Alternatively, Wisconsin's other senator, Herb Kohl, is clearly a trailing indicator. After two of my sons were deployed with the Wisconsin National Guard, I contacted his area rep concerning Kohl's lack of support for Feingold. She was sympathetic, but wasn't sure what the senator could do. "Isn't it terrible, too bad there's nothing we can do." I wanted to throw something at her. Kohl managed to win re-election with a nearly silent campaign. Yes, I voted for him, though he is a trailing indicator. Now in the majority, he will no doubt vote for the reforms that leaders bring forward, though any he brings forward will be limited and careful.
Rep. Murtha was an early supporter of the war. But in 2005 when he went back to his district, he found that many of his most dependable constituents had turned against the war. The same was true of many of his contacts in the military. He was a trailing indicator, in that he was behind his constituents and military contacts. He chose to become a leading indicator, in being one of the first to call for a redeployment of troops out of Iraq. This act of courage came with real costs, as the swift boating started at once, but was worth undertaking because he knew he had some catching up to do.
Most of the media are trailing indicators, with little predictive value. They are lucky to be able to correctly analyze events after the fact, much less while they are occurring. Countdown with Keith Olbermann is the only news I can stand to watch, since he is willing to approach issues before the conventional wisdom emerges.
Most members of Congress are also trailing indicators. It is safer for them and their careers. For example, Hillary would have been taking a major risk by supporting Feingold and trying to stake out a position as a leading indicator. Instead she settled for being a trailing indicator. This career-first, managerial approach is safer than being a leader, but much less powerful and harder to maintain if you have a conscience.
I want to make sure I appreciate leading indicators, including Kos and the other netroot pioneers. As for the trailing indicators - I can forgive them but will not forget. They are unreliable and unsuited for leadership positions.