"This was the voice of moderation until 13 Sept, 2025"
by hilzoy One of the things that has annoyed me during this campaign is how easy it has been for candidates to simply make things up about one another’s records, even when they are talking about topics that are relatively easy to check. Last spring, people kept saying that Obama had no real accomplishments in … Read more
by Eric Martin Donna Brazile catches fire: Sadly, despite the remarkable progress, in some ways what’s old is new again. As for the McCain campaign their position seems to be: everybody move to the back of the bus.
by hilzoy The crowd at The Corner seems to have gone well and truly insane. It all starts when David Frum asks: “Does anybody really seriously believe that Barack Obama is a secret left-wing radical? And if not, then what is this fuss and fury supposed to show?” There follow a series of posts at … Read more
by Eric Martin A couple of weeks back, conservative columnist Kathleen Parker wrote a column calling for Sarah Palin to drop out of the race. Parker advanced the argument that Palin is unprepared for the job of vice president and, generally, out of her league. In light of the Couric and Gibson interviews, this was … Read more
by Eric Martin One of the more curious reactions to last night’s debate comes courtesty of Andrew McCarthy in a post at The Corner. McCarthy, in a fit of rage, calls his fellow Cornerites "nuts" for not properly labeling McCain’s performance a "disaster." But McCarthy does not feel that McCain’s poor performance was the result … Read more
by hilzoy I thought Obama won this one — he was more fluid and fluent and confident, and McCain sounded tired to me. That said, I didn’t think it was a blowout. But it didn’t need to be. McCain is the one who needs to shake up the race; Obama just needs to solidify is … Read more
by Eric Martin Josh Marshall compiles the dossier for your viewing displeasure: I love the bit where Cindy McCain proudly proclaims that her husband won’t go negative, and would rather lose the election than go negative. How quaint in retrospect. After watching this, I’m pretty comfortable with the level of outrage I showed in a … Read more
by Eric Martin At some point in tonight’s debate, John McCain will falsely accuse Barack Obama of planning to raise taxes on most, if not all, Americans (I expect a rehash of the debunked tax raise on families earning over $42,000 claim – McCain’s not one to let fact checkers interrupt his flow). McCain will … Read more
by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “A federal judge today ordered that 17 Chinese Muslims held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison be released into the United States by Friday, agreeing with the detainees’ attorneys that the Constitution bars holding the men indefinitely without cause. It was the first time that a U.S. court has … Read more
by Eric Martin Our distinguished conservative punditry give us two ways to explain the recent economic crisis. First, Dr. Helen unearths a conspiracy that, ostensibly, includes such disparate figures as Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke, John Boehner, the Wall St. Journal and the MSM: Is your head spinning … Read more
by Eric Martin I’m trying not to veer too far in the direction of hyperbole, but at a certain point the hateful rhetoric being disseminated by the McCain camp (especially Sarah Palin, doggone it!) crosses a threshold and becomes incitement to violence; a poison recklessly injected into the bloodstream of our body politic by a … Read more
by hilzoy James Fallows: “In the short term, a worldwide financial panic and crisis. Just beyond that, the real economic and social problems that come when large numbers of people lose their jobs, their businesses, their investments, their homes, and even larger numbers become fearful about what might happen to them. And then, when we … Read more
by Eric Martin
The Washington Post reported on a disturbing new development on Friday of last week, but due to the poor timing of the story’s release it has received less attention than it deserves (not only was it released on a Friday, but the day after the highly anticipated vice presidential debate). The WaPo article tells of a massive new propaganda effort undertaken by the Pentagon in Iraq and elsewhere, including, possibly, the United States itself:
The Defense Department will pay private U.S. contractors in Iraq up to $300 million over the next three years to produce news stories, entertainment programs and public service advertisements for the Iraqi media in an effort to "engage and inspire" the local population to support U.S. objectives and the Iraqi government.
…a lengthy list of "deliverables" under the new contract proposal includes "print columns, press statements, press releases, response-to-query, speeches and . . . opinion editorials"; radio broadcasts "in excess of 300 news stories" monthly and 150 each on sports and economic themes; and 30- and 60-minute broadcast documentary and entertainment series.
While the Bush administration has engaged in generating propaganda-masquerading-as-news in the Iraq theater previously, as Marc Lynch notes, this latest initiative contains a distinction:
In contrast to earlier efforts, where there was supposedly always a "produced by MNF-I" label, these efforts explicitly will not have such attribution. As one official explains, "They don’t know that the originator of the content is the U.S. government. If they did, they would never run anything."
Maintaining such secrecy is nearly impossible, though, and the damage that inevitably results from the exposure of the scheme is as widespread and significant as it is enduring:
When the payments are exposed, as they inevitably are in today’s global media environment (for example, with page one stories in the Washington Post), they then discredit not only the specific messages but also every other pro-U.S. message which will quite reasonably then be dismissed as "paid for by the United States." At our panel this week, [Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy] Mike Doran and others suggested that the key to success in the "war of ideas" is building up credible third party messengers. Nothing could be more devastating to the credibility of third party messengers than this kind of program.
At a deeper level, these efforts fatally compromise the long-term objective of building free, credible and independent media as the foundation of a democratic system. I’ve argued many times that support for free and independent media should be at the center of all efforts to promote reform in the region. Only a free and independent media can provide the flow of information, the transparency and demands for accountability, and the open contestation of political ideas necessary for real political pluralism and democracy. Turning the media into a tool for spreading propaganda compromises not only the very media which we should be promoting but also our own credibility in arguing for a free and independent media.
The other obvious point is that current "war of ideas" and COIN thinking explicity considers U.S. public opinion an important domain of information warfare. The Post quotes from the contract solicitation this passage which should be deeply disturbing: one goal is to "communicate effectively with our strategic audiences (i.e. Iraqi, pan-Arabic, International, and U.S. audiences) to gain widespread acceptance of [U.S. and Iraqi government] core themes and messages." Presenting American audiences as a key target for manipulation through the covert dissemination of propaganda messages should be seen as scandalous, subversive of democracy, and illegal.
Lynch is right that such US-directed propaganda is illegal, but it is not unprecedented – neither for the Bush administration, nor its predecessors. While the Bush administration famously hired journalists such as Armstrong Williams to shill, surreptitiously, for various domestic policies, some of the CIA’s efforts during the Cold War make the Bush administration’s malfeasance look tame by comparison (both in the CIA’s creation of fake media outlets to launder propaganda, and in influencing/coopting decision makers in charge of other major media organs in order to persuade them to disemmanate government dictated talking points). But those were simpler times [sigh].
Even if government-paid propagandists refrain from deliberately targeting US audiences, there is no real barrier between foreign news and domestic news. In an increasingly globalized world, stories planted in the foreign press inevitably "blow back" on domestic audiences. A bombshell, or simply a significant story, reported in the Iraqi press, for example, would be picked up by US media outlets reflexively and as a matter of course. So the distinction enunciated above might not matter in the end. Such propaganda will infiltrate our discourse regardless.
What is more troubling, however, is what this reliance on propaganda reveals about the so-called democracy promotion agenda of the Bush administration and the Bush team’s outlook regarding our public image in the region. Subverting a free and fair press greatly undermines the foundation of democracy in myriad ways. Further, in seeking to control the flow of information by corrupting the media and other opinion makers, the Bush administration casts a shroud of doubt over any outlet that takes a positive view of US actions. Ultimately, in a modern setting where revelations regarding this arrangment are bound to find the light of day, the program has the opposite from intended effect.
Even if undetected, however, it is dubious to what extent programs such as these would be effective in shifting public opinion on key issues. But then, this is an administration that views public diplomacy as an exercise in convincing foreign audiences that policies which are unpopular for tangible reasons are actually just fine – based solely on the magic of slick marketing.
Back in May, I wrote a post discussing some of these themes while reacting to a claim by Paul Bremer that the use of the word "occupation" to describe the presence of coalition forces in the aftermath of the invasion was "in many ways more important" in generating anti-coalition attitudes in the Iraqi population than the physical presence, and associated, actions of the troops themselves. A relevant excerpt from that post below the fold:
by publius Atrios makes a good point here: Since the point isn’t made clearly [] very often, the point of congestion pricing is that congestion is an unpriced negative externality. It isn’t simply that roads shouldn’t be free, . . . [t]he point is that when you get on a highway or enter a crowded … Read more
by hilzoy Politico: “Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Monday will launch a multimedia campaign to draw attention to the involvement of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in the “Keating Five” savings-and-loan scandal of 1989-91, which blemished McCain’s public image and set him on his course as a self-styled reformer. Pushing back against what it calls McCain’s … Read more
by publius McCain is apparently set to launch one last vicious wave of character assaults on Obama — “the Ayers strategy,” if you will. To which I say — good. Like Luke’s battle with Vader, this is a necessary and inevitable fight — so let’s have it. Political campaigns are the ultimate Darwinian environment. Whatever … Read more
by hilzoy For the most part, I try to steer away from accusations of racism. I’m usually more interested in changing people’s minds, and that tends not to happen when I call them racists, since they suddenly feel the need to convince me that they are not, in fact, about to excuse themselves for a … Read more
by publius I just saw my first Texas Senate commercial. Somewhat hilariously, it’s Cornyn talking (with phony accents) about the need for “change.” Cornyn, remember, is what Josh Marshall called a “wholly owned subsidiary of the Bush White House,” and one of the biggest hacks in the Senate (unless of course if it’s about bashing … Read more
by publius starbursts
I’m ecstatic that McCain’s health care plan has taken center stage on the campaign trail. It’s a debate worth having. Unlike the juvenile nonsense we’ve endured for most of the campaign, it’s a truly substantive political debate — one that illustrates the deeper philosophical differences between the candidates and their parties. It also illustrates — to me, anyway — an important theoretical flaw with conservative economic ideology.
For fellow non-health wonks, I heartily recommend Ezra Klein’s accessible post summarizing the central problems with McCain’s health benefits tax. The nickel version is that the problem isn’t the tax itself, but the tax’s structural effects upon the health care market. McCain’s plan would essentially create a world where individuals are tossed out on their own, with little bargaining power and even less information.
In other words, the tax is bad even we assume it’s completely revenue neutral. Let’s pretend, for instance, that McCain’s tax doesn’t really cost you anything. Let’s pretend the proposed tax increase on employer benefits is completely offset by tax credits and higher wages. Let’s even pretend that the tax credit is pegged to inflation medical costs (McCain’s is not, so the credit becomes worth less and less each year).
Even under these assumptions, the plan is still flawed at its core because of the way it restructures the market. As Klein explains, the effect of the tax increase is to cause employers to drop benefits, thus forcing employees into the individual market. The tax credit has the same effect — even individuals without employer coverage will start buying individual plans. In short, the vision of the McCain plan is a system consciously premised upon an “individual” market that is subsidized by taxes and tax credits. Klein, however, explains the problems with elevating individual markets to be the foundation of our health care system:
by hilzoy From The Economist: “A survey of academic economists by The Economist finds the majority — at times by overwhelming margins — believe Mr Obama has the superior economic plan, a firmer grasp of economics and will appoint better economic advisers. (…) Eighty per cent of respondents and no fewer than 71% of those … Read more
by hilzoy One of the stranger aspects of the debate over the bailout was the way both progressives and conservatives latched onto the idea of suspending mark to market accounting. (The final bailout bill (pdf) reiterated that the head of the SEC had the power to do this (sec. 132), and called for a study … Read more
by hilzoy The Washington Post has an article called “McCain Plans Fiercer Strategy Against Obama”: “Sen. John McCain and his Republican allies are readying a newly aggressive assault on Sen. Barack Obama’s character, believing that to win in November they must shift the conversation back to questions about the Democrat’s judgment, honesty and personal associations, … Read more
by hilzoy Nouriel Roubini is more than usually terrifying today: “It is now clear that the US financial system — and now even the system of financing of the corporate sector — is now in cardiac arrest and at a risk of a systemic financial meltdown. I don’t use these words lightly but at this … Read more
by hilzoy From the Washington Post: “In a dramatic reversal, the House today approved by a comfortable margin a $700 billion financial rescue package that will bring the greatest intervention of the federal government into the private marketplace since the Great Depression, attempting to prevent the economy from sliding into a deep recession. (…) President … Read more
by hilzoy I watched the debate at a party last night, so I didn’t write abut it at the time. I agree with what seems to be the consensus view: Palin exceeded expectations, such as they were; Biden won. A few random notes: First, I was struck by the moment David Kusnet describes here, in … Read more
by hilzoy Apparently, yet another key McCain staffer was hired by Freddie Mac specifically to influence McCain: “When mortgage giant Freddie Mac feared several years ago that Sen. John McCain was too outspoken on the issue of executive pay, it pinpointed a lobbyist known for his closeness to McCain and hired him to work with … Read more
by publius My views on the debate shifted pretty dramatically as it went on. For the first 30 minutes or so, I thought Palin was going to run away with it. It wasn’t that she was actually saying anything — she just seemed more animated. The zingers were flowing, and Biden looked flat. But after … Read more
by publius She’s been absolutely awful. Her questions are terrible. And more importantly, she’s let Palin ignore every single question. Just flat out ignore them. They got in her head.
by publius A few thoughts on tonight’s main event. First, I don’t think that it will prove all that significant even if Palin does well. I was IM’ing with a friend the other night who was concerned that a strong Palin performance could shift the campaign momentum. I’m as Nervous Nelly as they come on … Read more
by hilzoy From the NYT (h/t): “The abandonments began on Sept. 1, when a mother left her 14-year-old son in a police station here. By Sept. 23, two more boys and one girl, ages 11 to 14, had been abandoned in hospitals in Omaha and Lincoln. Then a 15-year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl were … Read more
by Eric Martin During the debate last Friday, John McCain, as predicted, spent much time lauding The Surge as one of the greatest strategies in the history modern warfare. In so doing, he misattributed every positive development in Iraq to its influence, while exaggerating the parameters and permanence of those encouraging trends. On the flip … Read more
by publius Ramesh Ponnuru: Those excerpts from Couric’s interviews give me more concerns about Biden than Palin. He seems to be under the impression that there’s a “liberty clause” in the Fourteenth Amendment[.] Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Constitution: [N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law[.] And … Read more
by hilzoy NYT: “The Senate strongly endorsed the $700 billion economic bailout plan Wednesday, leaving backers optimistic that the easy approval, coupled with an array of popular additions, would lead to House acceptance by Friday and end the legislative uncertainty that has rocked the markets. In stark contrast to the House rejection of the plan … Read more
by publius Hilzoy’s on the beat, but let’s look more closely at Palin’s discussion of the rulings in the great history of America. I need you to help me translate this: COURIC (to Palin): Do you think there’s an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution? PALIN: I do. Yeah, I do. COURIC: the cornerstone … Read more