O Brotherhood, Where Art Thou? (Ezra Klein versus … Me (and Others))
Oh, dear. I like Ezra Klein. A lot. So I’ll leave out the sarcasm–a necessity anyway, since I’ve already exhausted this week’s supply.
But I do want to point out, because he’s so influential now, that Klein’s piece yesterday siding with those who thought Obama’s speech Monday should not have set forth liberal policy positions in so in-your-face a manner, and should not have called the Republicans on their conservative ones, seems, best as I can tell, to conflate two distinct points. More important, it fails to recognize that the events of the last week concerning the debt-ceiling issue prove one of those points wrong.
Klein argues, weirdly, in my opinion, that the presidential bully pulpit is not very effective, because most people don’t watch presidential speeches. And it’s certainly true that, in the current era, most people don’t watch presidential speeches. They may see short clips from it on the TV news, or see headlines about it in a newspaper or online, but even if they see the speech itself, it won’t change many people’s minds; almost everyone already has made up their mind about the subjects addressed in the speech. And, by making an ideological speech, Obama made it less likely that the congressional Republicans will cooperate with him at all–a presumption disproved by this morning’s headlines confirming what already had been reported yesterday as likely.
O, brotherhood, where art thou? Thou art back in the first nearly-four years of Obama’s first term, in which he failed even to publicly correct patent disinformation by the Republicans, such as about what the debt ceiling is and what “raising it means–and doesn’t mean.
Klein’s right that the speech itself probably didn’t change any minds. He’s wrong, though, that it was intended to do that. It was an inaugural speech, not, say, a highly publicized press conference at which he finally educates the public about such things as the debt ceiling statute and thus demonstrates to the Republicans that the success of that particular bit of their disinformation campaign is at an end.
I can’t understand why so many political pundits–and why Obama himself, for so long–have found it so hard to grasp the difference between political rhetoric and clear statements of actual fact and refutations of misrepresentations of fact.
And, if it’s true that the presidential (and presidential-candidate) bully pulpit has little effect in educating and persuading, then why have presidential campaigns, at all? In fact, this last one was quite effective in deconstructing critical disinformation by Romney, Ryan, and the “conservative movement,” wasn’t it?
Klein’s piece was titled, “Reminder: Big presidential speeches (mostly) don’t matter.” True, when the speech is just rhetoric rather than an invocation of actual fact. Or when the speech is not intended to throw down an ideological gauntlet, as this one was. And did.
If I remember correctly… and I well may not… Ezra Klein was one of those who called the Social Security “tax” a “jobs killing tax” and argued for the tax holiday.
If so, then he is an idiot.
As would also appear from his opinion that presidential speeches don’t matter. Probably they won’t matter very much if people get the idea that the President doesn’t mean what he is saying, but leadership has to start someplace.
Though, as I imagine, it won’t get very far with people who are lost in their own cleverness.
Hmm. My impression is that Klein is a liberal. But maybe he’s just another Professional Centrist.
Klein is a Villager first. Obama’s speech, if actually reported on (as Jon Stewart showed last night is a big if) factually presents the appearance of the removal the power the Villagers think they have as “neutral” observers. He said/she said.
Take away the he said/she said and the entire “centrist” interpretation is underminded for the Villagers.
Yes Villagers, this speech has removed the pretense you held regarding your neutrality.
In short, some Villagers like Klein are afraid to speak and report on the ideology represented in Obama’s speech for fear of loss of power. The fear being the result of bullying by those Villagers who are the opposite of liberal/progressive ideology. It could actually mean the loss of their job.
Apparently Klein has written about this before:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/19/120319fa_fact_klein?currentPage=all
it makes one wonder if political columnists are very effective.
and yet they keep at it.
the here cited article is not obviously idiotic, but it seems to be based on the idea that since presidential speeches do not cause the public and the opposition party to swoon and massively change their opinions overnight, they must therefore have no effect.
probably better the President keeps his mouth shut and then one morning we find that policy changes have been effected by the master computer run by non partisan expert centrist policy wonks without regard for all that tedious rhetoric and bothering about public opinion.
it’s for your own good i’m thinking.
That New Yorker article proves my point, though,Dale–which is that Klein doesn’t seem to get the distinction between, on the one hand, trying to persuade by making an ideological argument, and, on the other hand, correcting concerted misrepresentations of fact and providing additional relevant facts (e.g., what “raising the debt ceiling” actually means). The New Yorker article is entirely about the former, and is probably correct. But that’s not what’s at issue now, and has not been at any time during Obama’s presidency. The right wing is engaging in an aggressive disinformation campaign about one thing after another–including that they (the rightwing) are deficit hawks.
Beverly
you are correct about the Lies from the Right. my impression of O though is that he doesn’t care very much about them, and probably doesn’t know the “truth” himself.
Klein on the other hand is just filling up column inches. his essay on the non persuasiveness of Oratory is probably “correct” but he misses the point of speech.
It’s as if I were waiting at the bus stop and two busses pulled up, one marked “Downtown” and the other marked “Airport.” Since I wasn’t going to the airport anyway it is unlikely the buss’s advertising is going to change my mind. But it’s nice to know that the one I get on is at least claiming it will go downtown.
Similarly, a leader needs to let his people know where he is going and why and how he hopes to get there. and eventually if he seems to be going in the right direction and word gets around, he may attract new followers. the talking matters even if it does not persuade the unpersuaded in one massive display of blinding oratory.
.
Obama seems to have touched a conservative nerve with his speech, so maybe Bev is more right than Ezra on this. Specifically, conservative commentators don’t like Obama’s claim (of fact?) that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution support liberal/progressive, rather than conservative, policies. Ouch, that’s hitting them where it hurts. Not unlike a Karl Rove approach, turning a supposed strength into a weakness? I noticed that Obama also did this in his big speech on gun control, saying that the broadest interpretation of the 2nd Amendment jeopardizes other important constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms. And a third case: regarding the debt ceiling, Obama is putting the onus squarely on Congress’s constitutional duties–essentially, if the 14th Amendment is going to be violated, it’s the GOP House that will do it.