What would Broder have us do?

March 26, 2007

I noticed that Atrios had labeled David Broder yesterday’s “Wanker of the Day,” and went to see why. At first, I nearly missed it — Broder wrote a largely unremarkable column about the latest poll from the Pew Research Center, detailing the Republican Party’s problems. “Six years of Republican control in Washington have taken a toll on the country — and the GOP is paying the price politically,” Broder wrote. “Instead of the Bush administration ushering in a new era of GOP dominance, as Karl Rove hoped, it has set the stage for a Democratic resurgence.”

But after 13 inoffensive paragraphs, all of which detailed a Republican Party in decline, Broder apparently felt compelled to devote a few words to slapping the Democrats.

But a word of caution is in order. There is little here that suggests voters’ opinion of Democrats is much higher than it was when they lost Congress in 1994. It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves a great deal just by tearing down an already discredited Republican administration with more investigations such as the current attack on the Justice Department and White House over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.

I suspect this was probably gratuitous. Broder probably realized towards the end of writing his column that he’d criticized one side of the aisle, so he’d better squeeze in a few disparaging comments about Dems because, well, he’s David Broder.

But Broder’s “word of caution” is confusing. To hear him tell it, the prosecutor purge scandal isn’t worth investigating and unlikely to help Democrats politically. Broder apparently believes Dems should focus their attention elsewhere.

This is bizarre, for at least two reasons.

First, what, exactly, would Broder have Democrats do? Confronted with evidence of the Bush administration obstructing justice, selectively enforcing the law, and lying about it, what’s the “reasonable” course of action for Congress? Would Broder prefer that Dems just overlook the matter? Or would he recommend that Dems look into it, but only half-heartedly?

Second, Broder seems to believe Dems shouldn’t pursue the scandal seriously because it’s unlikely that the party’s lawmakers can “help themselves” by investigating wrongdoing. But isn’t that antithetical to a traditional Broder-eque approach to politics? As I recall, principles, not political concerns, are supposed to drive decision making. Is it Broder’s belief that Democrats should only pursue wrongdoing if there’s a political upside? Isn’t that the kind callous calculating that Broder usually rails against?

He concludes his column:

At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for. People already know what they’re against — the Republicans.

At this point, Broder seems several months behind the times. It’s criticism better suited for July 2006, not March 2007. Democrats already did give people something to vote for — an ambitious policy agenda unveiled last year and endorsed by voters. If Broder disagrees with that agenda, he should say so, but to deny its existence is silly.

What’s up with the Dean of the political media establishment?

If people are already voting against Republicans, why do we need to do a damn thing? Not that I’m suggesting we rest on our non-Republican laurels, but Broder seems entirely confused as to how any of this works at all. If people are already encouraged to buy your product, you’d be stupid to introduce a new marketing campaign. And without a doubt, Broder’s entire argument is about politics being more important than policy.

And the real truth is that all of this is a big game for the Beltway pundit crowd. It’s about two sides duking things out and it would be unseemly if one side got too much of an advantage. Superbowls are always more fun when they’re close, after all. And that seems to be the primary motivation of that entire circle of people: To ensure exciting fights. I suspect that’s the real reason why the Broders don’t want Dems to follow up on this latest scandal; because it gives us too much of an advantage and would be a trouncing. And while that might help the news cycle in the short term, it makes for boring elections. These people really need to get a different hobby.

  • He can’t seem to admit that his “boys” are a bunch of incompetent stupid misfits whose understanding of government, ethics, war and leadership is non existent. I think this article says more about him than it does about the Repubs. Maybe if he were a better person this collective blunder will make him rethink what he believes is strong leadership, but I doubt it.

    Just like Lady MacBeth, David can not wash away the stains.

  • Broder is simply living in a state of dementia. He thinks the GOP is the party it was 30 years ago. Remember, he claimed Bush’s poll numbers would start to bounce upwardly and significantly. He is an old fool who needs to go the way of the dodo bird aka William Safire, and into retirement.

    Broder seems to ingnore a couple things. 1. that 60+% of the public both immediately before the election and after the election wanted Dems to provide tough oversight of and to investigate an administration for which they were having collective buyers’ remorse and which they no longer trusted. The Dems are doing exactly what the public put them into office for. 2. Due to the Dems’ small majority, especially in the Senate with Lieberwank, and a GOP that just can’t get away from party over country mentalities, the Dems have little to no chance of passing any significant and helpful legislation like national health care or even real programs to help reduce global warming (an issue to which Dems and GOPs should come together on as there is huge room for a bipartisan plan).

    And how about George Will’s “Anger is the Rage” piece that same day. Will basically states that all the anger in politics is due to Clinton and Dean, ignoring the role of Gingrich, Armey, Delay et al from 1992 on. If I remember correctly, Time or Newsweek ran a cover of Gingrich in 1994 or so specifically noting his anger. Will, what a miserable tool of a hack.

  • I honestly can’t decide if I’d prefer these people eventually stumble upon a clue, or continue in their confirmed obliviousness to the point that everyone eventually realizes how terribly irrelevant they’ve become.

    It’s both redundant and gratuitious to call Broder a dinosaur, but his promotion of “evenhandedness” as a virtue in and of itself doesn’t really work when you’ve got a Republican Party that has the paramount goal of permanent power and destroying the Democrat enemy rather than successfully conducting the nation’s business.

  • Broder: “It seems doubtful that Democrats can help themselves a great deal just by tearing down an already discredited Republican administration with more investigations such as the current attack on the Justice Department and White House over the firings of eight U.S. attorneys.”

    Maybe it’s not about the Democrats helping themselves; maybe it’s about helping the country recover from the Bush administration. But if you’re cynical old David Broder, you can see why that idea would not register.

  • Glenn Greenwald: “Really, is it any wonder at all that our government is so fundamentally corrupt and broken when we have a press like this? Why wouldn’t top government officials lie continuously when our national press corps finds such lying to be such a source of merriment and humor, and can summon the energy only to attack, mock and condemn those who find the lying objectionable, rather than the liars themselves?”

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

    Glenn Greenwalds posts, both yesterday and today, are on this issue of appeasement by the media and they’re worth reading. The above link will work for todays post but you’ll have to go into the Salon Green Zone to read yesterdays.

  • It’s a grief to me that a reporter I revered for nearly 40 years — one whom I trusted as THE guide to Washington before, during, and long after Watergate — didn’t have the sense to retire several years ago, reputation intact, lest he become this embarrassing hack.

  • Brad DeLong says:
    As best as I can see, David Broder has no private defenders left inside the Washington Post newsroom. “Let’s talk about something else…” is what they say to me now.

  • The media is only following a well worn path of submission – that all our national politicians must travel. Bottom line, don’t threaten corporate big money by speaking the truth that our government now serves only the wealthy (with ruinous consequences for the rest of us). How can we expect a corporate press to connect the failure of Republicans with the failure of our democracy to protect itself from the influence of wealth?

  • Broder = Tool.

    burro pointed to a GREAT Greenwald column in #6. Here’s the conclusion:

    While our media stars continue to defend the administration, Americans have come to realize on their own just how profoundly inept and corrupt this President is. The President’s real “base” — his most loyal followers — are not red state Republicans, but instead, are Norah O’Donnell and Gloria Borger and the stable of media elite feeding at the Republican power trough, boundlessly worshipful of those who fill it, and eager to defend them at all costs.

  • One of the key elements in self-awareness is to know when time has passed us by and it’s time to quit. Broder, like many others, lacks this trait. Journalists of his ilk, i.e., imposing a tortured balance when in fact there is none, are useless if they won’t write the truth.

    There is no censorship like self-censorship, and the advent of a highly centralized corporatized media has taught journalists, real and otherwise, to put their brains on pause voluntarily and toe the corporate line if they value their careers. There certainly is plenty to criticize about the Democrats, but calling them to task for exercising their constiutional authority to provide oversight, where there has been none for six years, is not a worthy criticism from any member of the media, let alone the “Dean”.

    I stopped paying any attention to Broder long ago. If I want to read pablum I can always go to USA Today, Gannett, Time or Newsweek. It’s amazing how ancient Daniel Shorr has stayed with it and not lost his edge, but Broder, if he ever had an edge, has blunted it on the altar of inconsequential blather.

  • We need to add this sentence to Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution:

    “Members of Republican administrations, since they serve by Divine Right, are above the law and not subject to impeachment.”

    This will remove at least one aspect of hypocrisy in modern living.

  • At some point, Democrats have to give people something to vote for.

    oh, I don’t know – how bout a party that respects constitutional norms, that respects the separation of church and state, that doesn’t avocate and defend the use of torture, that doesn’t stand for bulding a historic deficit built on tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% of the population and that believes that government exists to go good for the people and isn’t something to be drowned in the bathtub. There’s plenty there for people to vote for.

  • Wait for it…

    After months of trying to pass an ambitious domestic agenda, trying to end the Iraq war and trying to hold the administration accountable for its “style” of governance, the public will then be told by the Washington Establishment that the Democrats cannot focus on a single core of issues and aren’t governing as effectively as Republicans did.

    Oh yes, it will happen, they will say it.

    Egads.

  • Here’s a psychological theory for Broder’s present appeasement mentality: He essentially sided with the Gingrich claque against Clinton during Monicagate, trashing the president for “trashing our town.” Then he saw the electorate repudiate the lynch mob, returning more Dems to Congress in 1998 as Clinton’s poll numbers soared into the 60s. Oh, my goodness, the unruly populace didn’t buy the moral scourge of All Proper Washington Society! Must have left a deep impression on him. Now he’s ethically unmoored, apparently convinced that people who didn’t punish some Oval Office hanky-panky won’t see fit to punish a wholesale assault on constitutional government by Republican Bolsheviks. Let’s hope he’s wrong again!

  • The job of any journalist is to search for the facts, the truth, and report it without undue deference to any side. For Broder to malign the Democrats for seeking the truth and wanting to put it in the public record is absolute proof that Broder cannot be considered a journalist anymore.

    I’ve read that Broder despised the Clinton White House because they came into Washington after 12 years of Republican rule and shook up the power structure, including insider access that guys like Broder get their credibility from. Broder appears to be fretting the coming regime change in ’08, when after 8 years of Broder being one of the chosen few with access in a secretive Bush White House environment, David will once again have to contend with another gauntlet of outsiders to deal with. I don’t hink Broder is looking out for the Bushies or the Republicans so much as he is looking out for hie own comfortable existence where he doesn’t have to work so hard for his pay.

    Kudos to Rich #12. Daniel Schorr still has every ounce of integrity and wisdom that he had during the Pentagon Papers era. Schorr may not be referred to as “the Dean” but he has the respect of his readers and listeners and will be able to walk to the pearly gates knowing his honor is fully intact.

  • I suspect this was probably gratuitous. Broder probably realized towards the end of writing his column that he’d criticized one side of the aisle, so he’d better squeeze in a few disparaging comments about Dems — CB

    Erm… No, I don’t think that’s it. It’s not the first time he’s called for “enough with the past, look forward” (ie, stop the investigations and concentrate on legislating). Nor is he the first crypto-publican to want to sweep the dirt under the rug and have the populace suffer from collective amnesia.

    The call for legislating is disingeneous too — he can be sure that his brother ‘pubs will throw in a monkey wrench into anything worthwhile.

    Re bubba, 23 (And how about George Will’s “Anger is the Rage” piece that same day. Will basically states that all the anger in politics is due to Clinton and Dean, ignoring the role of Gingrich, Armey, Delay et al from 1992 on.):

    He also compared (in the bipartisan spirit, I’m sure) Paul Krugman to Ann Coulter. I could barely believe my eyes…

  • There is little here that suggests voters’ opinion of Democrats is much higher than it was when they lost Congress in 1994

    Little?? Did the election of ’06 not happen? Did the Democratic Party not win nearly all of the races in which it fielded candidates? In 1994 the Democratic Party lost seats. In 2006 the same party gained seats in local, state, and federal races and yet there’s “little” to suggest that Democrats are any more popular today than in 1994???

    This guy, Broder, is a fucking asshole. Excuse me, he’s a stupid fucking asshole.

    • Comments are closed.