"These people guide the way citizens perceive politics even if the citizens don't know it. It's hard for me to see how anything can truly change until this is dealt with."
Digby 2/27/08
As Digby makes clear the problem goes beyond Russert's noxious debate (ho-ho) moderator performance on Tuesday. Along with Russert, I'd add Time's Mark Halperin as prominent among "these people" who guide the way citizens perceive politics. They both have inordinate influence with their peers in the media. While Russert is being duly castigated on the blogs, I want to go into the Way-back machine to Halperin's Page post on Monday.
In case you missed it, it was titled Things McCain Can Do to Try to Beat Obama That Clinton Cannot," and here are three of Halperin's helpful suggestions:
- Allow some supporters to risk being accused of using the race card when criticizing Obama.
- Exploit Michelle Obama’s mistakes and address her controversial remarks with unrestricted censure.
- Play dirty without alienating his party.
In an obvious attempt to keep his hands clean, Halperin pins a note to the bottom of his post that reads (in red, no less):
"Note: This is analysis, not advice."
But of course, it is not analysis.
Anyone with a passing acquaintance with Izzy Stone, David Halberstam, and Sy Hersh would know that analysis would read something like this:
McCain could play dirty, but having already been victimized by Rovian dirty tactics in his South Carolina primary run against George W. Bush in 2000, he may be a bit squeamish to do so. On the other hand, playing dirty has been one of his party's most effective electoral weapons in recent years, as witnessed by the swift-boating of John Kerry and the portrayal of Al Gore as a liar.
No, what Halperin produced was not "analysis." What Halperin produced was a list. Here's a list from my wife:
What you can bring home from the grocery store that I cannot
Eggs
Milk
Soyrizo
Endive
Here's a list that a major Chinese "journalist" might create for the Chinese trade authority:
Things we can do to boost our balance of trade that the US cannot
Use lead-based paints in export toys
Use melamine in export pet food
Use child labor
Here's another list:
Ronald Dellums
Daniel Schorr
Paul Newman
Mary McGrory
John Conyers
Morton Halperin
That would be Richard Nixon's infamous enemies list (partial). And that last name on the list would be Halperin's dad. Maybe next time Maureen Dowd decides to put some public figure on the couch to see how his Oedipal struggle is affecting the overall culture, she might choose Mark Halperin as subject. Could it be that father Mort's high standing among the American Left drives young Mark to curry favor with the Right? Surely only some deeply unresolved psychological issues can account for the spectacular display of groveling Halperin did at Hugh Hewitt's altar about a year ago. (No link, but if you visit Townhall.com you will find Halperin's donkey ears prominently displayed in the archives). On-the--air Hewitt mercilessly dismissed Halperin's plea to be accepted by the Right. But Halperin re-petitioned Hewitt days later in emails reeking of servility. Hewitt took Halperin's lunch money before his entire radio audience. (Having Hewitt take your lunch money is like having your lunch money taken by the pasty-faced, dough boy with bottle cap glasses--like I say, Hugh Hewitt took his lunch money.)
But where will insults get us? Atrios at Eschaton called Halperin a wanker for the column (surprise). And hilzoy at obsidianwings called him a douche bag. Neither of them are likely to get an audience with Charlie Rose or invited to the ABC roundtable. Those venues are for polite conversation only. And when Mark Halperin shows up, he can legitimize any topic. They can then talk about the use of dirt in politics with the same sense of glee and wonder as a bunch of 10-year olds gathered around an ant farm. "Hey, Timmy, what do you think would happen if we dropped a scorpion in there?" "Hey, George, what do you think would happen if we ran the garden hose in there?" "Hey, wouldn't it be great to dump it all on Cokie's head?" They want to create mischief, but they don't have the balls to do it themselves, so they egg on others: "Let's get Karl to do it. He'll do anything."
Of this particular Halperin piece, hilzoy asks: "Why publish it? What, exactly, is the point?"
Let me dare an answer. They love the mischief. All their lamenting about the decline in the national discourse is so very much crocodile tears. They thrive on the mischief. They love Rove because they know that he will take out a magnifying glass and burn ants right before their semi-glazed eyes. This kind of drama fills their lives in a way that reasoned, civil discourse cannot.