One of the greatest strengths of the “blogosphere” is also one of its signal liabilities: I mean its velocity, its ability to intervene in the public conversation almost instantly. That is the source of its power; but because today’s intervention is tomorrow old news, it is also one of its chief limitations. If today’s bulletin must regularly retire before tomorrow’s equally imperative headline, an awful homogeneity is the result. What emergency is sufficiently forward that it can survive a few rotations of the news cycle?
In one sense, I suppose, the phenomenon is as old as the very idea of “the news cycle,” maybe as old as the very idea of “news.” Hilton Kramer, my colleague at The New Criterion, was for many years the chief art critic of The New York Times. He tells the story of weekly meetings at which the managing editor would go around the table asking department heads: “What’s new?” One day, Hilton replied, “Nothing: there’s nothing new in the art world this week.” To which the editor shot back: “Is that a trend?”
You have to admire the editor’s wit. But if he were presiding over a comparable consortium today, that editor would have to hold his meetings not weekly but at least daily. The problem — one problem — with the acceleration of the news cycle is that tomorrow’s crisis can be counted upon to displace today’s grave conundrum, which people have only dimly got their minds around before it is shunted off stage for the next emergency. Nancy Pelosi’s decision to shut up about her allegations that the CIA lied to Congress about waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques, cleverly takes advantage of this metabolism: if only she can keep her head down for a day or two, the public’s attention will flicker onward to the next calculated bit of ephemera and the question of the Speaker’s candidness will dissipate like a nasty smell on a breezy afternoon. Wouldn’t it be nice to keep the spotlight of public scrutiny focused a bit longer on a given subject?
I thought of this again this morning when reading Peter Robinson’s fine — and sobering — meditation in Forbes on Clifford Asness’s open letter to friends and colleagues about the outrageous interventions by the Obama administration into Chrysler bankruptcy. Mr. Asness’s communication briefly attracted a lot of attention. I wrote about it myself twice: here and here. That was only a week or two ago, but already it seems ages ago: as Samuel Goldwyn is said to have remarked, “we’ve passed a lot of water under the bridge since then.” But Mr. Asness said things that we would do well to keep in the forefront of our attention. “The President,” Mr. Asness wrote, “has just harshly castigated hedge fund managers for being unwilling to take his administration’s bid for their Chrysler bonds.”
He called them “speculators” who were “refusing to sacrifice like everyone else” and who wanted “to hold out for the prospect of an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout.” . . . The responses of hedge fund managers have been, appropriately, outrage, but generally have been anonymous for fear of going on the record against a powerful President (an exception, though still in the form of a “group letter”, was the superb note from “The Committee of Chrysler Non-TARP Lenders” some of the points of which I echo here, and a relatively few firms, like Oppenheimer, that have publicly defended themselves). Furthermore, one by one the managers and banks are said to be caving to the President’s wishes out of justifiable fear. . . .
The President’s attempted diktat takes money from bondholders and gives it to a labor union that delivers money and votes for him. Why is he not calling on his party to “sacrifice” some campaign contributions, and votes, for the greater good? Shaking down lenders for the benefit of political donors is recycled corruption and abuse of power. . . .
[T]he President screaming that the hedge funds are looking for an unjustified taxpayer-funded bailout is the big lie writ large. Find me a hedge fund that has been bailed out. Find me a hedge fund, even a failed one, that has asked for one. In fact, it was only because hedge funds have not taken government funds that they could stand up to this bullying. The TARP recipients had no choice but to go along. The hedge funds were singled out only because they are unpopular, not because they behaved any differently from any other ethical manager of other people’s money. The President’s comments here are backwards and libelous. Yet, somehow I don’t think the hedge funds will be following ACORN’s lead and trucking in a bunch of paid professional protestors soon. Hedge funds really need a community organizer.
This is America. We have a free enterprise system that has worked spectacularly for us for two hundred plus years. When it fails it fixes itself. Most importantly, it is not an owned lackey of the oval office to be scolded for disobedience by the President.
“I addressed a group of businessmen, doctors, and ordinary concerned citizens in a suburb of Chicago.”
The sad thing is that most of them were likely white. We are seeing disturbing polls showing that blacks are still optimistic about Barack Obama’s presidency. Whites are increasingly becoming more pessimistic. The first man of color president should have been a center-right politician. Obama is instead a non-violent leftist—and this is leading to a disaster. He is perhaps even tragically inept and out of his depth. The majority of blacks, however, perceive our opposition as a sure sign of racism. We are supposedly crapping on a brother. The election of Obama is setting back race relations in the United States by a good twenty years.
Several thoughts come to mind on this post. First, it is true that two plus centuries ago a group of businessmen played a significant role in our nascent battle for freedom from the British crown. That led to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Second, it is also true that 70 odd years ago a group of businessmen and financiers decided to support another man promising “change and hope.” He, too, wanted to “reform” business, transportation, industry, telecommunications, and, eventually, the government itself. The German people still spit on his name. Oh, and did I mention, he was a totally committed leftist/socialist, different from the communists of the day by only a couple of degrees. Third, if the only reason I cannot criticize Obama is because he is half black then the black community better prepare for quite a fall. Pride is, frequently, a deadly weapon. Finally, David says that Obama is a “non-violent leftist.” That may be true today, but, given the Americare Act, one shouldn’t take that as a matter of faith.
What is happening with Obama is truly scary, but straight out of Saul Alinsky’s liberal teachings.
3) In war, the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky 1972: 29-30).
10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments (Alinsky 1972: 36-45).
And Rahm Emanual
You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. Rahm Emanuel
Just as pelosi is being called to task for her accusations of the CIA boob-ama needs to be called to task for his lies about the chrysler deal. He should also have been called to task about the AIG bonus attacks “we are the only thing between you and the pitchforks”
“Finally, David says that Obama is a “non-violent leftist.”
Barack Oabama is the intellectual progeny of Saul Alinsky and other radicals who worked peacefully to achieve their dubious aims. But these people also felt they had no other choice! They were too outnumbered to opt for violence. Peace may have been merely a tactic—and not a moral conviction.
Small businessmen are innately inclined toward freedom and governmental non-interference. It is the bigger corporate leaders that tend toward fascist economics. These individuals often attended the same schools as the government elites and know full well the state can effectively damage their smaller competitors. A managed economy inherently benefits large corporations like General Electric. Jeffrey Immelt and his ilk know which side their bread is buttered. We conservatives should make sure that the CEO of GE becomes the poster boy of economic fascism. Immelt openly acknowledges his willingness to cooperate closely with the Obama administration—and how this relationship will lead to greater profits.
David Thomson, I’ll reiterate once more that I predicted last summer that whether or not he’s elected (or even nominated), the 0bama phenomenon would set race relations in America back 50 years. I stand by that prediction. The hope bubble will burst, and the black anger will be directed at all of us “privileged” whites. Many whites, particularly the poorer ones, will react to this intemperately.
I wasn’t the only one to see this:
http://www.esquire.com/the-side/feature/racists-support-obama-061308
Obama could murder Michellle and the girls in their beds and set fire to the Whitehouse and 90% of blacks would still vote for him. That is the sad and sorry truth of race relations in the US. Most whites who dislike Obama would dislike him just as much if he were white. When I look at him I don’t even see his color just heartache and misery for our country
Unfortunately, this fear in capitialist America has been around for sometime. Shakedowns by various special interest groups with their thieving leaders posing as activists out to right a wrong is nothing new. With all the creativity and brains in our capitalist system where is the courage to set the record straight? Caving to these crooks garners you no respect from the public and emboldens more to try their hand. Stand together and refute Obama’s labeling of you. There are millions of Americans who will stand with you if you just stop caving to this garbage. Most Americans don’t like bullies or tyrants. Factually and politely show Obama for what he is. Certainly there is some PR company that can help you with that.
Our foreign policy or falacy worries me much more than his domestic agenda.
“The sad thing is that most of them were likely white. We are seeing disturbing polls showing that blacks are still optimistic about Barack Obama’s presidency. Whites are increasingly becoming more pessimistic. The first man of color president should have been a center-right politician. Obama is instead a non-violent leftist—and this is leading to a disaster. He is perhaps even tragically inept and out of his depth. The majority of blacks, however, perceive our opposition as a sure sign of racism. We are supposedly crapping on a brother. The election of Obama is setting back race relations in the United States by a good twenty years.”
Even sadder: you pulled this all out of your ass. Obama’s approval rating is above 65 to 70%. African Americans make up only 12% of the population. Do the math.
Join the Patriotic Resistance.
http://www.resistnet.com
I resist the Liberal big spending, Tax Increasing, Anti Business, Liberty Destroying, Big Government, Socialistic, Unconstitutional Agenda.
I’ve been wondering about the problem with newscycles myself, and am frustrated that so many problems just dissapear from the radar after a couple of days with no resolution, or even explanation.
It seems that shrill harping on an issue only helps accelerate the cycle, especially when the focus does a duck-and-cover to wait it out. Monomaniacle focus on one issue trying to keep it on the front page when nothing new is happening, especially when something else of note is happening, makes you look derranged. Dems have figured this out and exploit it.
Maybe the answer is to overlay a longer news cycle onto the shorter one. A weekly or monthly (or both) cycle devoted to “on-going” issues. Let the 24-hour newscycle be the thing that seeds the longer cycle with new stories. The key is how to do this, how to accustom people to expecting answers eventually instead of immediately.
Perhaps these Freedom brigades could help with that.
Yes, many, many Americans stand with Clifford Asness and Roger Kimball’s stunned take on the current administration’s rapid convolution of core American principles. While not erudite sounding, that is exactly what the “Tea Parties” were about on April 15. Americans feel out of their depth as uncertain agendas are being pushed on them with rapid speed, abetted by an adoring crowd in the media from the AP on down. While these protests seemed feckless and inchoate to some brilliant conservatives, Charles Krauthammer among them, they should be looked at as the nascient awakening of the masses. Protesters are wondering what the country will look like in 5 years if the President is successful in enacting his agenda, and they see no one in Congress reflecting in this way. The hand-made signs patriotically criticized reckless spending and the growth of government. They extolled the virtue of private enterprise and personal freedom. They expressed utter frustration at not being heard. Mr. Kimball, millions of Americans share your views and are already standing by you. The attempts of the media to minimize and negate this movement will not stand. Americans will not tolerate this much longer.
We need to take out the trash at our White House. It’s not RACE, it’s BEHAVIOR. This black/white middle aged bastard hasn’t got a clue how to run our Nation and is allowing the communists who pull his strings to ruin the USA. I just pray he is stupid enough to debate Ameedjabad at the UN
“Even sadder: you pulled this all out of your ass. Obama’s approval rating is above 65 to 70%. African Americans make up only 12% of the population. Do the math.”
Somebody else has already done the math:
“For example, according to the Times, 34 percent of white Americans believe the country is on the right track, while 70 percent of black Americans believe the country is on the right track.”
—Byron York
http://tinyurl.com/dmvuof
The race argument as polarizing America is good in the hands of demagogues only. Mr. Obama is a “mutt”(his words) – not black. His choice to identify with the Black community is a matter of political expediency. Watch him use the race card when the going gets rough.
With regard to “means and ends,” it is strictly Marxist thought that ignores the consequences of “means” when working toward “ends.” However, epistemologically there is ZERO difference between “means and ends,” since things go on no matter what “end” seems to have been reached. Things keep changing. That is why reasonable people balance goals against the means necessary to attain them. Failure to measure the effects of means when striving toward goals is the single most important criterion that differentiates totalitarian regimes (left or right) from more altruistic systems.
With regard to Mr. Obama’s goals, unless his main goal is revolution of the proletariat, he will fail. He will do much damage along the way, but nothing that cannot be “righted.” I predict failure not from prescience or prophetic inclinations. I predict it because he has shown meager ability to be flexible in his judgments and has indeed removed flexibility from the American system by centralizing power in a stogy bureacracy. From the prospective of “systems” and their operation, the inability to fail is very similar to the inability to succeed. Thus, he will fail because of constipation.
Poverty will result from Mr. Obama’s policies for the entire society and the poor will live less well than was anticipated by Obama’s redistribution theory. Even the poor will ultimately abandon failed theories of national organization, but it will take time and pain. Remember, please, that poverty does not create unhappiness, but the loss of wealth, the moving downward of expectations and dwelling upon memories of better times does indeed produce depression. All “classes” will seek change when redistribution of wealth will buy less than the system that preceded the redistribution.
Meanwhile, buy some gold and work for the next change of government. I am supporting Sheila Bair, head of the FDIC, who seems to have her head screwed on better than most people at the top of the government game.
Affirmative Action President – just black enough to get the scholarship but not really qualified for the spot.
Oscar Wao,
You seem to not understand math nor know the poll ratings. I’m not sure what polls you’re referring to, but Obama’s approval ratings are only at 56% (Gallup Poll), the second lowest for any president of the last 40 years (Clinton was lower) after their first 100 days. Ref:
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-near-record-low-approval-rating
From what I understand, black approval ratings are above 80%, the assuming the lowest approval ratings for blacks at 80% we get the following:
.56=.80*.12 + x*.88 -> x = .52 (where x is the Obama approval rating for non-blacks)
So non-black approval ratings stand at only 52%. A 28 point gap. Do you honestly believe a 28 point gap between blacks and non-blacks is not, nor will not, be a point of contention in race relations?
If you don’t believe this, then what was the point of your comment? You seem to think that your comment speaks for itself, but has very little content and a distinct lack of understanding of statistics.
Regards,
Ken
The people who say that Obama is out of his depth or that he doesn’t have a clue how to run the country are missing the point. Obama doesn’t want to fix the economy. He is agnostic. I think he probably believes that there are pros and cons to both recovery or depression.
His goal is to increase the power of government to the point that it can never be reined back in. He will then go off to be a citizen of the world and his public speaking fees will make him a billionaire in short order. Mark my words, he will make Bill Clinton’s $100,000,000 earnings over the last eight years look like chump change. Obama wants to give speeches and receive the hossannas of the America hating world. He is accomplishing everything that he inends to accomplish. The mess he makes will be someone else’s problem. Even if the idiots who give him his high approval ratings wise up, the media will never abandon him. Bush will be blamed for every one of our problems for decades.
David Thompson…
This is what what I responded to:
The sad thing is that most of them were likely white. We are seeing disturbing polls showing that blacks are still optimistic about Barack Obama’s presidency. Whites are increasingly becoming more pessimistic.
For example, according to the Times, 34 percent of white Americans believe the country is on the right track, while 70 percent of black Americans believe the country is on the right track.
The right track, wrong track question is very different than the support for Obama question. Especially, since Obama has only been in office for 3 months. Strawman much?
The 912ers and the TEA Party organizers prod along but seem to not like the idea of direct action such as the picketing I plan to do at my tax and spend senators regional office. Having lived through the MLK civil rights movement, his tactics seem appropriate for recovering our civil liberties and economic freedom that is slipping away ever faster. I’m probably already on the DHS enemy’s list on many counts, so why not take peaceful, direct actions against those who would destroy our American dream; a civil grass roots war
I’m confused now. Do citizens tell the government what to do, or does the government tell citizens what to do?
Especially, since Obama has only been in office for 3 months. Strawman much?
Try 4 1/2. Calendar much?
“Approval ratings” are tricky things to read – the president has a lot on his plate and I will give him an “E” for effort. I disagree profoundly with what he wants to do, though.
That’s our big advantage on our side of the fence – the political ain’t personal over here. We need to take that ball and run with it, IMHO. We can – and should – like the president personally and give him credit for trying hard; we also are duty-bound to oppose his agenda, because it is a massive mistake.
Three months do not 100 days make.
I strongly encourage moderating the “set back race relations” talk lest we see a self-fulfilling prophesy. I can easilly see many black Americans remaining “pro-Obama” while simultaneously souring on his policies. And despite any self-talk about being a “mutt,” Pres. Obama obviously is physically more identifiable as “black” than “white” or anything else. His appearance is what would matter most to any biggot and so, too, does it matter most in the identification and kinship that many black Americans feel to/with him.
There are more than enough professional ajitators waiting to cry “racist” without those of us opposed to statist policies waiting for it. As Trouble said, keep the discussion focused on policy problems, relate their ill effects to the individual and there will be no problem later calling BS on any “evil white people” talk that may or may not come up.
I’m Spartacus!
When visiting with friends this weekend, one lady in education mentioned how sad it was for Nucor while reading they were 40% down in sales. when I told her my business was 90% off in construction related manufacturing, she was shocked. Most people have no idea what is going on.
I work with some government funded non profits on affordable housing projects. they have many loans already approved but won’t release them, no answer as to why. As long as government is involved, it is doomed to fail.
I’m Spartacus.