The punditocracy’s ongoing detachment from reality

July 30, 2007

Digby flagged an interesting exchange from Stephanopoulos’ “This Week,” in which Cokie Roberts reportedly blasted the Dems for moving too far to the left on foreign policy. I looked up the transcript, and it was at least as bad as Digby said.

The context of the discussion was last week’s flap over between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on how best to engage with rivals through diplomacy. The roundtable — featuring panelists ranging from conservative to more conservative — agreed that Clinton’s answer to the question in the debate was the right one. Naturally, they used the point as a segue to bash the Democratic Party more generally.

COKIE ROBERTS: I think fundamentally the Democrats have a real problem here. If they keep this up, if they keep up trying to out dove each other in this primary season, I think they are really hurting themselves for the long run in the same way they did back in Vietnam, David.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re shaking your head.

DAVID GERGEN: That I agree with the second part of what she just said. There is a real danger that they’re starting to move over, way over to the left. And if they get themselves in a position of pull out of Iraq, for example, pull everybody out … if Mrs. Clinton and Barack Obama get themselves over into that far left, they’re going to really hurt themselves.

It’s stunning to consider just how clueless these people really are. It took Fareed Zakaria, himself a conservative, to offer viewers at least some semblance of reality. “[T]his is not 1975,” he interjected. “The country is not where, you know, the Democratic Party is not where it was. And to say that we should be having conversations with Iran and Syria, which is something Henry Kissinger argues we should be doing is not exactly the thin end of the dovish [approach].”

To which Roberts responded, “But we’re having conversations with Iran and – we’re having conversations with Iran and Syria. We’re having conversations with Iran and Iraq right now.”

Did it ever occur to Roberts how incoherent her analysis is? Obama is the far-left because he wants to talk to our enemies, Clinton is the far-left because she disagreed with the nuances of Obama’s position, and apparently Bush is the far-left because we’re already engaged in some diplomatic outreach to Iran and Syria.

How do these people manage to get booked on the morning shows in the first place?

The entire exchange was one of the more illustrative moments in recent memory of how detached the “serious” and “mainstream” punditocracy has become. Policy positions that are labeled “way over to the left” happen to enjoy majority support. Even Obama’s debate answer, which the “This Week” panel found wildly offensive, was strongly endorsed in national polls last week. Indeed, perhaps establishment players like Roberts and Gergen haven’t noticed, but congressional Democrats suffer in the polls when they don’t challenge Bush’s Iraq policy enough.

For that matter to argue that Dems are going to suffer the “way they did back in Vietnam” is also a dash of historical revisionism. Rick Perlstein reminded us of this analysis from Peter Beinart:

[Democrats] won the 1974 midterm elections in a landslide. Two years later, Jimmy Carter grabbed the White House. To be sure, Watergate played a major role in those victories. But if the party’s efforts to end the war weren’t the primary reason for its success, they certainly didn’t hurt.

It’s true that in 1972, antiwar crusader George McGovern suffered one of the biggest political wallopings in American history, losing 49 states to Richard Nixon. Surely then, Democrats suffered for opposing Vietnam? Actually, no. People forget that in 1972 Nixon ran on a peace platform too. In his convention speech, he boasted that he had ended the draft, withdrawn American troops from ground combat, pursued a negotiated settlement with North Vietnam and reduced U.S. casualties 98%. The fall was marked by feverish diplomacy between Washington and Hanoi, culminating in Henry Kissinger’s declaration, less than two weeks before the election, that “peace is at hand.”…

…George W. Bush isn’t winding the Iraq war down; he’s ratcheting it up, and the G.O.P. presidential front runners are following along. In 1972, polls showed that more Americans thought Nixon rather than McGovern would end the war. It’s virtually impossible to imagine voters saying something similar about a Clinton-McCain or Obama-Giuliani race in 2008.

The real danger for Democrats in the Iraq debate isn’t that they’ll oppose the war too aggressively; it’s that they won’t oppose it aggressively enough.

As for how Dems should deal with these ridiculous analyses from uninformed pundits who are embarrassingly confused about the national landscape, Digby has a suggestion.

If we do nothing else, we should ensure that the Democratic candidates pay no attention to these gasbags. That’s not to say they shouldn’t pay attention to the actual press narratives and the stereotypes that will inevitably emerge. But the punditocrisy should be shunned and ignored. They are promoting their own interests and those interests are always hostile to Democrats, who by dint of their more diverse coalition of Americans, are simply not as willing to bow down to the establishment. They are effectively agents of the Republican party simply because that is the party of authoritarian followers who will put their trust in the elite village elders. Democrats will never win by catering to them.

Good advice.

[sigh]…..and it’s much of the same from David Broder this morning on Bob Edwards show about democrats in Congress. Democrats are “picking fights” and nitpicking regarding subpoenaes and investigations and “the American people don’t want that.” Oh no?

The best analogy I can think of would be to criticize the Federal Prosecutor’s office (or some other investigatory agency) for bumming us out with these various indictments of criminals. This is their job – this is what the American people said to politicians to do in Nov. ’06. This is what polls are saying to Congress.

This is even what Karl Rove said to his own party – it’s scandals that are hurting the GOP, not Iraq. While that is a simplification, political scandals aren’t helping.

  • They’re just trying to create their own reality (by making people feel like they have to jump into line- say ‘it’s really going to hurt them’ but give no substantiation for that statement, and any ignorant viewers are supposed to then think, ‘gee, this guy is an expert, he must know what he’s talking about!’- it’s unfortunate we have to be subjected to them.

  • How do we remove these vermin? I dislike calling them names, but they appear to be more like parasites than helping the necessary discourse our country needs, I got yet another dose of Cokie (the ultimate village resident) this morning. Seem like no matter what happens (or what the polls say) it’s bad for the Democrats. This morning she conflated bad polls for Congress with bad polls for Democrats. Not the same, Cokie.

  • Week after week, I am appalled at some of the stuff that passes for analysis on these shows, how easily they revise history, as if no one listening will know any different, and how completely ignorant they are of what is going on out here in the real world. What’s worse is that there is no excuse for it. No one with the kind of resources that are available to them, and for whom this is presumably their job, should be allowed to be that sloppy with the facts. If they want to do that while sitting around Cokie’s dining room table, fine – but when you are being paid to speak to a nationwide audience, you owe them more than what these people serve up every week.

    Does Cokie not know that almost 3/4 of the country wants out of Iraq? In order not to know that, she would have to not have read a newspaper, listened to the radio, watched even a network news broadcast or had a conversation with pretty much anyone. Given the unlikelihood that this is the case, that means she does know, and she’s refusing to acknowledge it, because to do so means she might have to admit that the Democratic candidates are, finally, in tune not only with members of their own party, but with a significant number of independents and even moderate Republicans. Oh, the horror! What to do? What to do? Of course…just say something so totally stupid that some poor sap who desperately wants to believe that the GOP might stand a chance will actually catch what he or she thinks is a glimmer of hope, because Cokie said so.

    The realization that the stupidity factor is only going to increase as the weeks go by is enough to make me scream. Or turn off the TV.

  • Cokie (BTW, who the fuck would name their daughter Cokie or could take seriously for that matter?–I wouldn’t even name a pet fish, Cokie) Roberts is a member of the “court.” Her primary job is to protect the interests of the “court” from us and reality.

    What do you expect from a bunch of self absorbed narcissistic twit assholes? It has become more clear over the past five years that the MSM’s pundidiot class has only been concerned with one thing, the interests of the pundidiot class. With the rise of the news blogs, they can’t get away with being instant experts anymore like the “good” old days of the 1990s.

    I suspect on a personal level, she vaguely realizes that if the Dems win in 08 then her tax cuts are finito (and she’s in a tax bracket most of us will probably never be in.)

    Part her rant against the “far” left is the rise of the netroots (which is viewed by them as “far” left) which is starting to intrude in areas which were province of the MSM pundits and hence a major threat to their multimillion dollar meal tickets. Both Obama and Hils have large net presence unlike most of the other Candidates (Dem or GOP.) I’m rather surprised that she didn’t do a Loofa O’Reilly and blame Kos as well.

    My own view is that most of these pundidiots will be heaved over the side within a decade or so because the cost of having an overpaid jester/tool/organ of irrelevance will be even too much to bear even for the bottom line conscious corporate hacks of the MSM. You can scream and cry all you want, Cokie, but the end is near for instant “expert” pundits.

  • While this talkinghead crowd went out for a pack of cigarettes, the labels they’d been using have changed. Their minds are merely suffering from a bit of intellect-lag. -Kevo

  • Cokie Roberts adored Ronald Reagan when he was president and uses the Republican (Bush) talking points today. Why? The easy answer is that something from the RNC (or its friends) is directly deposited in her bank account each month. The more insidious (but true) answer is that Cokie Roberts respects the use of power–and the unflinching and unabashed wielding of power. Never mind the Constitution, public opinion, morality, or the bounds of good taste, Cokie worships POWER. That explains it all. When a Carter or Clinton shows some restraint and respect for a broad segment of the American public, they are weak and ineffectual leaders.

    For years now, Cokie Roberts has been one of the most offense members of the punditocracy. I have prayed at night that George Soros would come along and write a very large check to rid NPR of her twisted view of democracy and her self-serving and slanted analysis of American politics. Is she a whore? I don’t know. There’s got to be a better (more precise) word for a person who condones and promotes the cancerous evil that she does.

  • This is what happens with network monopolies – these pundits are simply the mouthpieces of the Establishment Media. And the Establishment Media ensures that such ‘serious’ pundits are all over the airwaves, with nary a ‘reality-based’ Dem to contest what is said.

  • What do you expect? Our pundits are people who used to work in media or politics, but have moved on to gardening, baseball, or home makeover as their principle interests. Meanwhile, their perceptions are rooted in the realities of 20 years ago, when they actually worked for a living.

    So between choosing the new drapes, directing the landscapers where plant the azaleas, scanning the trade rumors and a busy schedule of boffo DC soirees, they’ll glance at the polls and headlines and then assure us of what it all means. Sometimes it feels like we’re getting ‘insight’ on fish and game policy from inner city street gangs.

    I don’t think our A-list pundits are particularly stupid. I think they are lazy and disconnected from the realities of the day. They stay marginally informed enough to sound serious to the vast majority who don’t pay a lot of attention. As such, they strongly favor status quo. Change means the old dogs must learn new tricks.

  • Cokie Roberts and all the others are the symptom of a disease — the chattering classes’ belief that they, and they alone, are the ultimate arbiters of political fashion. They all know each other, have each other’s cell phones, meet each other at cocktail parties, read each other’s articles and praise each other. This is a class that thrives on contacts. This is a class where one politician’s son serves as an intern for another politician. Favors get done in exchange for more favors. It’s a mutual masturbatory session by Washington types and it’s gotten progressively worse every year. This is far away from the kind of democracy that our founding fathers envisioned — these folk actually presume to know better than the voters what this country needs and never actually make sacrifices, but are quick to demand sacrifices of others.

  • How do these people manage to get booked on the morning shows in the first place?

    Answer: That surely is a ongoing mystery of the first rank. It is very much a puzzle based on what these pundits say or how they tend to view a wide range of domestic and foreign American issues and policy formula from peculiarly far too often right of center or far right slanted perspectives.

    The “center” then becoming the “left” very often in terms of how these pundits “frame” their “serious and important” views/points.

    Left of center,just plain left or far left views/points/scans? Can’t find them. Not there. Missing. Maybe briefly set up as the “punchline” for the pundits “serious and important” ridicule or some “those crazy leftists” smirks.

    The Sunday AM tee vee “important news and views shows” have become superfluous. The real sad thing about that is the “Sunday Am news/views shows” don’t or can’t even see their own superfluity.

    If one interprets WashDC,the GOPers and the DEMS based on what is said or more importantly not said on Sunday AM news/views shows one is at a disadvantage trying to decipher anything coming out of WashDC in ways that matter or may prove useful/worthwhile.

    These shows are so “inside the beltway” they have little or no relevance anymore.

  • I got an e-mail the other day from The New Republic saying:

    “How did Fred Thomspon become the front-runner for the Republican nomination–before he has even declared his intention to run? In our latest issue, Michelle Cottle offers masculinity that holds particular appeal for Republican voters. Subscribe today for only $9.97 to read the issue with this cover story.”

    I was so annoyed I sent back a note saying, “I’m supposed to pay $9.97 for political analysis from someone who can’t read a poll?”

  • The pundits, like the Republican party, are still living in the late ’60s/early ’70s – the hayday of journalism – in their political analysis. This is why MSM is so spectacularly wrong and blind so consistently. Issues and people have changed. And this is why bloggers are the new sources of information.

  • Former Dan @6
    Nobody named her “Cokie”. She actually thought it was a good name! She CHOSE it.

    I’d certainly Heard of Ms. Roberts but knew precious little of what she did to have her notoriety. Her wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cokie_Roberts) was so thin, I still know little about her. She seems to be like Paris Hilton, famous for being famous.

    Here real name was Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs. Her parents appear to have been indecisive, but not flaky.

    Why does she get booked? Because she’s booked on “This Week”. Why is she booked on “This Week”, because she used to host it 5 years ago. (Call it a “sympathy book”) Why was she picked for “This Week” back in ’96?

    Welp, I’m out…anyone know?

  • On the plus side, now that I no longer pay attetinon to these bubble-living, self-absorbed nattering nabobs, I can get so much more chores done around the house on Sunday mornings.

  • All I can say is: Thank goodness for the internet and for wonderful blogs such as CB. These pundits are running out of time. Last gasp, folks.

  • Cokie Roberts is the daughter of the late Hale Boggs, once a very powerful member of Congress from Louisiana, who was succeeded by his wife when he died in office. Cokie has been in Washington and part of the elite all her life. Boggs was your standard-issue conservative Southern Democrat who never had any trouble cooperating with conservative Republians, so it’s no surprise Cokie never did either.

    As to how these people get invited in these shows, it probably happens because they all get drunk with each other at the same parties.

  • #18: In case I wasn’t clear, “pundits” in my post above of course refers to Roberts, et al., not our wonderful CB, and other bloggers.

    #19 Tom. Thanks for the info. Another insider… explains a lot. These folks really need to get out into the real world instead of listening only to each other (and their corporate master$) all the time.

  • “Far left”? It all depends on where you place the centre. The pundicks are now so far right, it probably looks to them like the centre is miles away. I like to imagine them on one end of a see- saw, trying to bring it down. But, there’re so many people on the other side of the fulcrum — all the way from the centre to the far left — that, when they bring their end down, it’ll be with a thump big enough to catapult all the pundicks into outer space.

  • Actually, I was under the impression that Cokie’s mom, Lindy, was a pretty reliable liberal. Also, while Hale was a typical southern segregationist in the 50s, he came around in the 60s, supporting both the Voting Rights and Fair Housing Acts. In addition, he’s been credited with with being crucial to getting the Great Society through congress.

    Anyway, this is just to say there must have been a stiff wind blowing when the apple fell from that tree. I can remember thinking in ’92 that her punditry should have counted as paid advertising for George HW.

  • These people aren’t idiots. They are suffering from what might be called the ‘McCain Meltdown Malaise’ or ‘Pundit Palsy’. While trying to appear rational, democratic, and compassionate, on they masters orders, they must juggle a group right wing lead balloons: Iraq could still work, the Bush administration is not a criminal, treasonous organization devoted to the aggrandizement of an already extremely privileged few, that virtually everything the Bush adminstration says is not a lie,obfuscation, or nonsense, that the Bush administration is not the outcome of decades of radical conservatism, that the Bush administration does not mock the spirit, if not the letter, of the constitution every day, that the Democratic party is not, relatively speaking, the party of fiscal responsibilty, that american health care is the best,
    that the American government is not for sale, that American ME policies have for decades benefitted Israel far more than the US, that unregulated free enterprise does not lead to virtual slavery for the masses,…..

    Think that’s easy? You try it.

  • It is exactly why the blogosphere has erupted to such an enormous scale and why people are willing to come back day after day and read blogs because the “punditocracy” does not speak for the people! Maybe after the 08 election the talking heads will believe we are for real and realize they had better give up their personal agendas and do their jobs or we may have to tune them out forever.

    • Comments are closed.