The Spencerian

Don't Let the Door... The Corpse of the Failed Media Slowly Becomes Seen

A lot of people ask me what is wrong with politics in America today.

[Aside: How many people actually ask me that?  It comes up more often than you'd think, I guess because I worked in Washington, in politics, and write this sort of sub-par blog.  In my view, this is the rough equivalent of a fifteen year-old boy publishing a diary about his emotions and general feelings of confusion, and then having someone ask him to diagnose serious, complicated mental disorders in broad swatches of the population.  There's no doubt most every fifteen year-old boy experiences a complex roller-coaster of confusing emotions, but that doesn't make him a sociologist or a head shrinker.]

I usually give one of two answers, or both, depending on where I think the person is coming from.

One centers around money in politics and campaigns.  I have yet to meet a reasonable thinking person of any political persuasion who thinks the way we fund political campaigns in this country is just hunky-dory.  It is a profoundly broken system and at some point someone is going to have to get serious about fixing it.  It will be an ugly job, but nothing less than the future of our country is at stake.

The other answer centers around our flat-lining media apparatus.  In many ways, this is a worse -- and more complicated -- problem than the money in politics issue.  Most folks know what to do about money in politics: limit it or take it out altogether.  And by "most folks," I mean everyone but the United States Supreme Court.

The point is, the problem of money in campaigns can be addressed by talking about money.  The problem with the media collapse is that you have to talk about people.  Money is money wherever you go, but people are different.

The role of the media and journalism in American society is not insignificant -- in fact, it is a critical piece of our democracy.  Somewhere along the way, we corporatized media outlets.  I don't know when this happened, I'm not an expert -- remember, fifteen year-old pimply teenager with issues -- but it definitely happened.  And as it has happened, the institution of journalism has gotten weaker.

This means the chief role of journalism and journalists -- that of watchdog -- in America has weakened.  A great example, if you need the proof, is that of Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone.  Taibbi is the only actual journalist I know who has called for -- and continually calls for -- the heads of the Wall Street crooks who drove the global economy into a very deep ditch (remember, I'm talking journalists, not bloggers -- bloggers offer something different, are something different; more on that in a moment). 

Why?  Why is the voice of the American conscience on the financial meltdown a guy who writes for a maganize that more likely has Lady Ga Ga and scenes from Bonaroo on the cover than anyone else?

There should have been a cacophony of editorials and columns and in-depth, Pulitzer-level articles on who did what, exactly, and who engaged in what criminal behavior when.  There should be a hundred thousand Matt Taibbis.  There are not.  [Note: I do know that there has been other good journalistic work on the issue of the financial meltdown; there has been not nearly enough, which is my point.]

Not for nothing, but I assign blame to the media with respect to institutional failures and lies leading up to the War in Iraq.  Journalism should also feed our national conscience, which with respect to the Iraq War and the profound lies told at the highest levels of government, it is apparently bankrupt. 

So this critical piece of America is quite possibly DOA.  Yes, bloggers have provided an important voice, but I don't consider blogging journalism.  This isn't a knock on bloggers -- many of whom do practice real journalism.  It's just that blogging and journalism are two different things.  Journalism is based on research and facts and interviews and often a painstaking process of fact-gathering.  Bloggging is just different (see: fifteen year-old). 

All of that to say this: For all the writing and sharing with the public journalists and media organizations are supposed to do, they've been pretty good at hiding the ugly parts of their demise. 

Slate has a great piece today on journalists who were fired or quit and... well, what they had to say about it.  Click the link.  Read it.  Digest it.  See what you think.  Draw your own conclusions. 

Hey, just like in journalism.  Now, let me tell you about my emotions...

The Idiots are Coming, The Idiots are Coming

If you've read any of this blog, you already know that I fancy it as a Serious Political Blog about Serious Political Things and Serious Political People.  This is an absurd construct I maintain mostly to gently cradle my self-inflated yet egg-shell fragile ego as a (microscopically minor) political person of note.

One of the ways I do this is to try and avoid writing about people who I believe -- or who I know -- aren't really serious about politics.   Donald Trump, for example (an example, I would note, where I broke my own rule).

Another example, in my view, is Sarah Palin.  This is a person not serious about politics and public policy.  You are likely already familiar with the evidence as to why this is the case -- quit as Governor of Alaska, starred in a reality TV show, couldn't name one major news publication she reads daily, can see Russia, is the subject of a biographical film called "The Undefeated," even though she was, well, defeated as John McCain's running mate in 2008. 

Look, the reality TV gig was enough to convince me.

Still, here we are. 

I have to give her a bit of credit for figuring out how to string the, well, lamestream media (if she'll forgive me) along for so long, now. 

That's hard to do when you mangle something as treasured a piece of American history as the ride of Paul Revere.  And when you do it in Boston, that's hard to top.

"He who warned, uh, the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms uh by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free and we were going to be armed."

Look, it's one thing to make up a word.  It's another to mangle beyond recognition something so fundamentally American.  It's like saying that Zachary Taylor, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, and Millard Fillmore are on Mount Rushmore (they're not, just fyi).

Two things bother me about this.  First, it's a blatant pander to the constituency subscribed to the Dumbing Down of America.  History as it actually happened, of course, is for snotty liberals and elites.  Facts are for suckers.  Palin has managed to hook people who feel a kinship to her mis-steps and blunders.  I never went to any Ivy League school.  I don't care what Paul Revere really did.  She's like me!

The other is that her recklessness with the truth dismisses what really happened on the night of April 18, 1775, which is by far a much better story than a goofball attention-monger.    

Picture courtesy The Paul Revere House -- click it to read the story and learn more.

Also may I recommend We Hold These Truths... by Paul Aron, which recounts the real history -- along with lots of other great American stories -- of Paul Revere.

h/t to both Mustang Bobby and Digby for writing better posts on this than I did.

UPDATE:  You know, I really believed that Sarah would actually apologize for butchering American history the way she did. 

I should have known better.

"Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there that 'hey, you're not going to take American arms, you are not going to beat our own well-armed persons individual private militia that we have.'"

She blamed her previous answer on the media, saying it was a "gotcha question."

Wow, really?  Really? 

And if you're not going to apologize for getting the facts of history wrong, then go ahead and do your darndest to change history! 

Honestly, is there any shame left in Camp Palin?

Finally Friday You've Got to Pick Up Every Stitch Edition

As a two-time supporter of former Senator John Edwards, I get the occasional person asking me if I'm embarrassed or ashamed now that he's been indicted on federal charges.

Not really.

During the Democratic Primary of 2004, I really thought he'd have been a lot better nominee than John Kerry.  And when you add up all the Democratic primary votes, most people thought he'd have been a better nominee than even Howard Dean.  I voted for him in the primary when I was living in Virginia at the time, and maintain I cast a perfectly acceptable vote.

In 2008 primary, I nearly voted for him here in Florida.  I hadn't warmed up to Obama yet, and as much as I respected her, I didn't think Senator Clinton was the right person a the right time.  Of course, by the time it got around to be Florida's turn to vote, it was neck and neck between Obama and Clinton (and candidly, anyone with any sense knew that Obama had it locked up).  I voted for Obama.

I'm not ashamed of those votes.  We vote based on what we know at the time.

I think the guy is a liar and a cheater and pretty smarmy... and that's going easy on him.  People talk about what he put his family through, especially the late Elizabeth Edwards, his children, his love child.  That's all terrible. 

But I believed him when he talked about taking on poverty.  I was under the spell when he was talking about lifting poor people up.  Candidates haven't talked that way in a long time.  It found his words mesmerizing.  It was -- if the Obama people can forgive me -- the audacity of hope.z

I think his failure as a man, as a father, as a husband, as a leader has done as much to damage the cause of eliminating poverty and helping the poor of this country as anything else.  You're talking about poverty again?  Just like Edwards, huh?  What, you got a love child out there somewhere? 

For whatever it's worth, I tend to agree with Richard L. Hasen at Slate: this is about bad behavior, but it's going to be tough going to prove he broke the law.  And although there has been profound tragedy in his life, I'm not so sure I'm ready to feel sorry for him yet. 

I'll save my pity for the poor, who lost a needed champion a long time ago.

# # # #   

Is Michael Hussey picking a fight with Peter Schorsch? 

Can anyone remember Peter Schorsch of Saint Petersblog writing a negative post on the Florida Chamber of Commerce? Going through Saint Petersblog's archives finds many posts that read like free presses for the Florida Chamber.

Boy, Michael, you sure know how to pick 'em.  Not only are you going to knock Peter around, you're going to take a whack at the Chamber, too.

Hey, Michael: Good. For. You.  I'd be too scared to piss off the Chamber goons.  Those people are pure evil.

Anyway, it was this last paragraph that forced my hand with respect to my need to comment:

Schorsch works with numerous organizations with his political consulting and his blog's advertising sales. I have no idea if Schorsch has a business relationship with the Florida Chamber of Commerce. I do know the Florida Chamber doesn't send me press releases. I do know Schorsch is capable of better cover of the Florida Chamber. He is too good of a blogger to be giving the Florida Chamber a free pass.

Michael, you're a class act.  I'll be curious to see what Peter has to say about this. 

# # # #

Alright, I'm tired.  I'm packin' it in.  Check in with you again soon.

And it's finally Friday.  It's strange, sure is strange.

The Bureaucrats and the Hacks

Professionally coming of age in the Clinton Administration afforded me many opportunities, most of which I took for granted at the time.  As a young Schedule C political appointee serving mostly in staff-level capacities, I was lucky in a number of ways, chief among them being my access to people of wildly diverse backgrounds, and willing mentors. 

Interestingly, most of the folks who took me under their wing were the career folks -- people who had been in government a long time, and would continue to serve in government long after I left.  In the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, I had a lot of good people take an interest in my professional future.  There was the state and local policy expert, a former New York City police officer, who would buy me lunch and map out the interpersonal workings within the office, explaining who had done what to whom and why.  

It took her a bit of time, but the Director's Executive Assistant finally warmed up to me and with the two of us in the front office, we made a formidable team. 

When General McCaffrey took over, several of his active-duty military aides provided me with advice, guidance, and insight.  When I served in Public Affairs at the U.S. Parole Commission, the Board Chairman -- a political appointee -- was very kind to me, but I also learned a great deal about the law and sentencing and prison issues from the career folks there.

If the Federal government was my classroom, I had some of the best professors you could ask for.

Anyway, in my experience, the Federal workforce is one of the finest we could ask for.  It's not just me who's lucky.  We all are.

Now, I was lucky on top of that because I was a political appointee, and that carried a certain cache, along with plenty of other benefits.  I attended several White House events, I have a ton of pictures with the President and First Lady, I was connected -- at a very, very low level; maybe the lowest possible level you can imagine -- to that circle of political folks. 

So you can imagine my surprise when I saw a tweet from Michael Hussey at Pushing Rope (@pushingrope) which looked a little something like this: 

@bkirby816Should find it interesting career fed managers give Obama's appointees lower marks than BC appointees. http://tinyurl.com/3h8o27h

Well, I do find it interesting, Michael.

And to tell you the truth, I have a lot of questions.

I followed along and ended up at the Government Executive article (which is the same as the National Journal piece linked in Michael's tweet).

A new survey shows strained relationships between senior career federal managers and executives and the political appointees they work with.

In the survey, respondents rated Obama appointees lower than those in previous administrations. Obama appointees earned a C average, or 2.0, compared with a 2.3 for those in the George W. Bush and Clinton administrations. More than 30 percent gave Obama appointees a D or an F for overall job performance, while only 20 percent awarded past appointees such low marks.

Okay, that's a pretty big flag for me right there.  You're here to tell me that Obama's appointees are worse than the George W. Bush appointees?  Really?  Really?

Really? 

You're here to tell me that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is worse than Attorney General Holder?  Gonzales lied, and then said he was too stupid to lie, all the while politicizing the Justice Department (where I worked for a year and a half) nearly beyond repair. 

And speaking of the Justice Department, how about Attorney General John Ashcroft, who only just got by with his misdeeds while overseeing DOJ?  What about Monica Goodling, who screened career candidates at DOJ for "abortion, homosexuality, Iraq and WMD"?  What about John Yoo, the torture memo dude?  What about Hans Von Spakovsky? What about Bradley Sholzman, the guy who seemed to have politicizing the Justice Department in his job description?

Of course, crummy appointees weren't limited to the Justice Department.

HUD Secretary Alphoso Jackson awarded a contract to a golfing buddy.  Gale Norton, the Secretary of the Interior -- she works for Shell Oil now, by the way -- got caught up in the Abramoff scandal... the fricking Abramoff scandal.  She was caught up in one of the worst political money scandals in a generation, and Obama's appointees are getting a lower grade then these guys?

And it's not like Norton was alone.  The number two guy there, J. Steven Griles, lied to Congress about Abramoff.  He works for ConocoPhillips now.

Stephen Johnson, the head of the EPA, was actually called "the Alberto Gonzales of the EPA" -- what does that tell you about Alberto Gonzales?  What does that tell you about Stephen Johnson?  What does that tell you about what he did to the EPA?

Bush's head of the GSA had to resign after doling out no-bid contracts and politicizing the agency.

Philip Cooney of the Council on Environmental Quality doctored reports on greenhouse gasses.

Elaine Chao, the Labor Secretary, was so bad, they threw her a "good riddance party" when she left after eight years of ineptitude.

Douglas Feith helped craft the lie about WMD in Iraq and costs thousands of people their lives.

And then, of course, there was the guy who just about embodied Bush-era incompetence: FEMA Director Michael "Heck-of-a-Job" Brown.     

All of that to ask this: Obama's people are worse?  

Here's another piece of this I have a few questions about:

The study, conducted in April by Government Executive's research division, the Government Business Council, involved surveying 148 Senior Executive Service members and GS-15s about their attitudes toward current challenges and Obama administration initiatives.

One, why only 148?  There must be many more Senior Executive Service folks than that -- in fact, I'm sure there are.  Is 148 a representative sample?  And why GS-15?  GS-15, step 1 is just under $100,000 in the D.C. area today.  That's not all the way up the food chain, but it's pretty high up. 

Why didn't they survey people across the pay grade spectrum?  I'm not asking out of bitterness or snarkiness -- I'd really like to know.  Maybe there's a legit reason, but I can't see it right now.  It seems they surveyed a very limited sample of folks.

Here's my last issue with this:

Obama officials lack functional and agency-specific knowledge, according to survey respondents. Nearly 60 percent of respondents gave Obama appointees a grade of C or lower for their functional expertise, with less than 37 percent giving them A or B grades. Many believe appointees don't understand human resources and procurement rules, saying they presume the "institution is there as an obstruction" and attempt to "break organizations."

Wait a minute.

"Obama officials lack functional and agency-specific knowledge..."  Um.  Yeah.  Because they're coming from somewhere else.  That's the whole point of the appointment process.  People get appointed by the president and bring in their world-view and outside expertise (or their completely wrong-headed ideas and eye towards destruction, in the case of the Bush people).  The people in the agency are there to provide that "agency-specific knowledge," they're there to help new folks understand human resources and procurement rules.  

I worked with a lot of great political appointees, too (and yes, some bad ones as well).  The thing about political appointees is that they know their time is short.  Even if you stick it through the whole four years or eight if you're lucky like me, you have less than a decade to make an impact, to affect change. 

Well, I hope maybe the survey is wrong.  I hope maybe it was poorly designed, or that something is missing.  We need our political appointees and our civil servants to work well together, now more than ever.