Simon Dumenco isn’t all that excited about the economic meltdown, and he points a finger at—who else?—the media for its hysterical trumpeting of the “crisis” now that it’s upon us and its failure over the years to report on the hazards of high finance and Wall Street.
Really, you could argue that Wall Street, during the subprime boom, was simply doing its job: getting away with what it could get away with. (Hey, if regulators were willing to turn a blind eye to the dubious profiteering and financial smoke-and-mirrors … well, if the government says it’s OK, it’s OK, right?) But you can’t say the same for much of the press, which spent a lot of time over the past few years celebrating the feats of financial “wizards” — and not enough time peeking behind the curtains and questioning the too-good-to-be-true magic.
Granted, there’s been increased sensitivity in the past couple weeks among some media in regard to, at least, semantics. For instance, in The New York Times last week in a piece titled, “Amid Market Turmoil, Some Journalists Try to Tone Down Emotion,” Richard Pérez-Peña noted that some reporters are steering clear of terms such as “meltdown” and “panic” to avoid further inflaming an already-twitchy market.
Don’t get me wrong: Politely tip-toeing through the apocalypse after the fact is a nice gesture! But it hardly makes up for the fact that few financial journalists really questioned the meaning and ramifications of toxic Wall Street voodoo such as “credit-default swaps” and such until it was way, way too late.
No one has been covered in glory since this meltdown began to show its ugly face—least of all our elected representatives, beginning with Bush, who is clearly out of his depth and “out of juice,” according to David Brooks, who is being way too kind.
I certainly agree with Dumenco that the MSM comes in for a lot of the blame, but irrational exuberance is a widely known human weakness.
In early January, as Obama was ascending, I wrote:
… mundus vult decipi. (You could look it up.)
People want to believe in magic, as P.T. Barnum, for one, knew.
Despite its prominence in Barnum lore, historians agree that he probably never said, “There’s a sucker born every minute.” What he said was less cynical and more astute: “The people like to be humbugged.”
The Times piece from which I took the quote above goes on to note:
Barnum humbugged the highbrow as well as the low. In 1850 he brought the opera diva Jenny Lind, “the Swedish Nightingale,” to Manhattan for the start of an American tour. Neither he nor anyone else in America had heard her sing a note.
“Jenny Lind’s story is perhaps Barnum’s single most extraordinary accomplishment,” Ms. Maher said, “because he took something that was absolutely nothing in American society and created a frenzy, a mania, very much equivalent to today’s rock stars.” [e.a.]
People with their feet on the ground should always know how to protect their interests, even in times of irrational exuberance. Maybe that’s what we have to teach both our children and the nation’s “journalists”—how to reason. Now that we’re enmeshed in a world of 24/7 deceptive and/or ignorant “news” and marketing and advertising, this seems more important than ever
Yesterday I explored the idea that Iraq is at the point of “Tet redux“—a propaganda victory for the enemy, because whatever the situation on the ground—and there are relatively positive views, especially from the soldiers—the war has relentlessly been declared a failure (and a misadventure) by the media; the people spoke during the election (though it’s unclear exactly what they said); and, at the same time, our president lopped off the head of his war manager and decided to look at Iraq with “fresh eyes” (if you consider his father’s aging-and-struggling-to-remain-relevant pals “fresh.” I consider them impudent, arrogant, and self-interested: particularly about their legacy, which has taken a beating at the hands of the neocons). Behind the scenes, this has the makings of a Shakespearean drama. (Too bad Bob Woodward alienated himself from the administration; this story will one day make for really juicy reading.)
Meanwhile, the rest of us are left dealing with reality. And any way you slice that, whether it was handed to them or they grabbed it—this looks like a propaganda victory for al Qaeda (about which it is gloating, with relish).
I accept the notion of PR and propaganda victories—(in a democracy with a free press and freedom of speech, PR and propaganda are the same thing). To simplify things, I will call them PRopaganda (TM) victories: they’re real, and they do damage (but not by themselves: the most damaging ones are those that fall on fertile ground—when perceptions are already shaky, a propaganda victory for one side can tip the scales, for a while).
Yesterday I reached the conclusion that the American people hadn’t yet bought into the PRopaganda victory idea that al Qaeda has defeated us in Iraq. Now, Bill Roggio asks the question we need to address: will the PRopaganda victory be turned into a military defeat for the United States and thus a military victory for al Qaeda?
Over the summer, U.S. intelligence uncovered a 66 page document that explained al-Qaeda strategy to manipulate Western elections. The document, which was published on the web in a private al-Qaeda forum, has yet to be declassified.
To influence the American elections, the U.S. mainland didn’t need to be hit. The schwerpunkt of American public opinion was in Iraq. The terror attacks and sectarian killings were ratcheted up to achieve the desired effect: weaken the resolve of the American public, create a sense of hopelessness and despair in the mission. Now, the question is: will the Bush administration and the Democratic Congress hand al-Qaeda a real military victory to accompany the propaganda victory by prematurely withdrawing from Iraq before the security has stabilized?
Those seem to be the stakes.
John Hinderaker, for one, expects the worst from Poppy’s Pals.
As far as I can see, the “realists” haven’t had a new idea in thirty years. What does Israel have to do with the fact that Shia and Sunni Muslims want to tear each other to pieces? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I’ll say it again: the idea that pressuring Israel to compromise its security will somehow, magically, solve the Iraqis’ problems is delusional. Maybe Baker et al., know something I don’t, but the idea that Iran and Syria will cooperate to bring peace to that region appears equally far-fetched.
So, under the Baker Commission’s recommendations, what will become of the 12 million Iraqis who voted for freedom and for a normal life? President Bush has said more times than I can count, in speeches spanning the last four years, that all people want to be free, and that freedom is God’s gift to all mankind. If he doesn’t believe that, then what does he believe?
If the Iraqis are to be sold out, at least let them be sold out by the Democrats. No one expected anything better from them.
PAUL adds: If the reported contours of this deal (and President Bush’s receptiveness to it) are correct, at least I now understand why the administration waited until after the election to embrace it. If he had changed course in this fashion earlier, no one would (with the possible exception of Baker himeself) have voted for Republicans.
