Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

Try and make a Reagan worshipper face up to the facts. Just try.

Easier to shovel against the tide with a fork.

Max slurs Garry Trudeau.

Yes. Trudeau is a very sharp commentator, who generally gets his facts right. A friend of mine did a study of Doonesbury during the Nixon era, and found that - even with his substantial lead time - Trudeau was on average 2 weeks ahead of the Times and Post front pages on most of the major stories.

So Max is not being fair.

Well,... (as Reagan used to say)... there’s a big change slowly churning in this country, and Ronald Reagan was the epicenter of the last change. But in newer hands his rhetoric has frayed, and in the face of the undeniable adverse consequences of their policies, the conservatives are loony and getting shrill. They may sense that their ascendancy is about to come to its cyclical end (if not in this election, then in the next)--and the country will turn a little to the left for the next 20 to 30 years. So the Right needs to trumpet itself in a last hurrah for Reagan, but the Left is still scrambling for an effective voice... This funeral will have the feeling of large tensions underneath. Most interesting will be Dubya’s eulogy, because he’s a Reagan clone: hook, line, and sinker--and may attempt to step into his brogans.

I agree - if the Post could rise *to* the level of Doonesbury, it'd be a massive improvement.

you missed what max is saying.

he is pointing out how sad it is that doonesbury is such better commentary than the post articles. An article should be better than a cartoon, but in this case it isnt. He is not saying that doonesbury is as bad as Kessler.

Although i do think he could have phrased that more clearly.

and why is it naive to think that articles should inform the readers? that is not naive, it is wistful. It would be naive if he thought this WAS a case of informing the public.

that smackdown was undeserved. is there some sort of delong vs. sawicky rivalry that would inform this snippy post?

sampo is right. Doonesbury is the only comic I read regularly, but it's no Calvin and Hobbes.

was that naive as in natural, or naive as not grasping the reality of the situation.

Why Oh Why Does He Worry?

The good professor is fairly depressed over the low quality of American journalism. Does this mean he believes that American journalists matter? Apropos of the subject, let me offer a totally uninformed opinion. My guess is that journalistic opinion is likely to follow public opinion, for two reasons.

First, journalists and the broader public are of roughly equal intelligence (on average) and are exposed to information at roughly the same rate. However, the public is not generally in the business of committing its opinions to the record and is therefore unlikely to anchor on old ideas. Accordingly, the public learns more quickly than journalists.

Second, even after a journalist learns, he must pitch ideas that already resonate with the public which is his market. For example, you will never hear from any major American media outlet the notion than a civilian Iraqi life is worth as much as an American life -- even though the odds of this being true are roughly even. If the American public were ever to believe it, you would hear it from journalists. Otherwise, not.

So I will assert that American journalism is just a lagging indicator of public opinion and that its opinions are harmless. The press needs to be free to disseminate INFORMATION but it does not need to be populated with particularly intelligent people.

Is this true? I have no idea. But it might make a "thoughtufl" op-ed piece somewhere in Arabia.

Brad,

Why don't you write a letter to the editor at wapo to correct the record?

interesting comparison of Bush 1 and Bush 2 economies
Plus Productivity increase is not the problem.

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/indicators/bushjobloss.htm#VI

Nice site. Keep up the good work.

Time to ask why the media has fallen so far. Theories?

Here are mine:

1. The government developed a set of techniques and discipline for managing the media. The need for sources was always the achilles heal of the media -- it just took a while for government to discover how to use this lever.

2. Economics. Print media is stressed by net advertising and the decline in classifieds revenue. Broadcast is stressed by cable. Financial weakness means more advertising levers to pull, and less ability to defend.

3. Corruption. Journalists saw too many stupid people getting rich ripping the system off. No-one seemed to care. Finally they gave up and decided to get their piece.

Are there historical analogies?

Brad--may I suggest that the second paragraph ("maybe, possibly") is a poorly-written attack on the GOP? It's awkward, but I think that it's a more plausible (altho generous) interpretation than Max's.

The first paragraph is inexcusable.

I don't know that public opinion informs the media. What the public often knows or thinks is about as far from reality as it is possible to be and not be institutionalized. My guess is that the media leads the public, and this fact is reflected in the hero worship of Reagan at his death.

I listened with horror as Dan Rather genuflected before his own creation as he spun Reagan into an icon. Reagan's reign was not without flaws, possible crimes and accidental accomplishments. 150 international journalists claimed that Reagan was the dumbest American president they had the displeasure to observe.

Tip O'Neal said one of the frustrating things about discussions with Reagan was that Reagan was redundant in his arguments; to the point of reintroducing discredited or unreliable information as if they were factual simply because he wanted reality to fit his preconceived notions. I only bring up these negatives in light of the sudden adulation that is being sold by the media.

There are people walking around today, who after hearing and seeing all the spin regarding Reagan's time in office, who will carry away an impression that is a fantasy. Those who believe this fantasy will do so because they were manipulated by the media and the RNC, (bed brothers,) for completely self-serving reasons.

It is not naive to expect more than a self-serving response from public servants and the news media. In fact if the public's self-worth was up to snuff they would demand it.

I'm not the least bit interested in arguments that paternalistically claim that Americans need a hero in these troubling times, or that we must hero worship our leaders like the Chinese did Mao.

Silly me, I have felt for some time that because Americans were realists it proved that we were free. Trash that idea, because the media want followers, (in their anointed wisdom,) not independent thinkers. The result of their desire will be a handicapped social structure that will result in a weakened will to defend harming our national defense posture.

Today's leadership has forgotten about the power that is given a people when they are doing the right things for the right reasons, and I'm a realist in the sense that if as little as ten percent of the reasons are the right ones it is enough, I could not expect one hundred percent from any culture on the planet, except in the area of self-defense where one need not wait for justification of any amount to act.

It is a corruption of intent and perception to believe that the public can be manipulated into righteous indignation or courageous self-sacrifice, for the wrong reasons.

I don't know that public opinion informs the media. What the public often knows or thinks is about as far from reality as it is possible to be and not be institutionalized. My guess is that the media leads the public, and this fact is reflected in the hero worship of Reagan at his death.

I listened with horror as Dan Rather genuflected before his own creation as he spun Reagan into an icon. Reagan's reign was not without flaws, possible crimes and accidental accomplishments. 150 international journalists claimed that Reagan was the dumbest American president they had the displeasure to observe.

Tip O'Neal said one of the frustrating things about discussions with Reagan was that Reagan was redundant in his arguments; to the point of reintroducing discredited or unreliable information as if they were factual simply because he wanted reality to fit his preconceived notions. I only bring up these negatives in light of the sudden adulation that is being sold by the media.

There are people walking around today, who after hearing and seeing all the spin regarding Reagan's time in office, who will carry away an impression that is a fantasy. Those who believe this fantasy will do so because they were manipulated by the media and the RNC, (bed brothers,) for completely self-serving reasons.

It is not naive to expect more than a self-serving response from public servants and the news media. In fact if the public's self-worth was up to snuff they would demand it.

I'm not the least bit interested in arguments that paternalistically claim that Americans need a hero in these troubling times, or that we must hero worship our leaders like the Chinese did Mao.

Silly me, I have felt for some time that because Americans were realists it proved that we were free. Trash that idea, because the media want followers, (in their anointed wisdom,) not independent thinkers. The result of their desire will be a handicapped social structure that will result in a weakened will to defend harming our national defense posture.

Today's leadership has forgotten about the power that is given a people when they are doing the right things for the right reasons, and I'm a realist in the sense that if as little as ten percent of the reasons are the right ones it is enough, I could not expect one hundred percent from any culture on the planet, except in the area of self-defense where one need not wait for justification of any amount to act.

It is a corruption of intent and perception to believe that the public can be manipulated into righteous indignation or courageous self-sacrifice, for the wrong reasons.

Watch Jerry Falwell, then flip to Paul Kangas, then flip to Newt Gingrich, and do it over and over again. After awhile you realize we live in an era of faith-based economics, or as someone else put it, data-evangelic economics, made for TV mini-schlok mixing ponzi confidence schemes, rewrites of political history & the usual tea leaves about shorter skirts raising the market, or that old choss, deficits lead to boomtimes.
There's way too much MTBE in our drinking water!

Why shouldn't reporters (or repeaters, as posted by John Faughnan) support Republicans? They make more than most people, and the more popular they are, the more money they make. Check out where reporters live in terms of income clusters.
Reporters will only move towards reality when the Republicans as a whole move toward reality, and that's when reality moves their environment for them.

Remember "work, save, and invest"? Who knew this meant we'd have to work more as Reagan's fiscal stimulus lowered saving and investment? And when conservatives say economic growth was promoted by the Reagan tax cuts - I have to wonder what form of fuzzy math are they practicing.

http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/06/there_is_a_grea.html

Whoa! I read the whole Kessler piece and don't see the same message. Kessler uses the 2 paragraphs posted by Max to set up the economimc ideology of Reagan. Kessler then analyzes the results in comparison to Reagan's rhetoric. The very next paragraph reads,

"While Reagan only slowed the growth of nondefense spending, his deficits piled up and sent government interest costs soaring, thereby making it difficult for future Congresses and presidents to increase spending without making even bigger holes in the budget."

Any charitable reading of the Kessler piece points to the conclusion that Reagan had lofty rhetoric and the country loved his optimism, but Reagan's results did not measure up to what was advertised. If you actually read the whole article, not just the 2 set up paragraphs, it is clear that Kessler does indeed get it right.

"But undergirding that expansion were stresses and fractures that quickly exposed themselves in the recession that doomed the George H.W. Bush's presidency. The boom was powered by the debt-financed defense spending, while savings and investment were poor, living standards had stagnated and the divide between rich and poor had widened."

Be Fair

In fact, the WaPo piece is quite astute as analysis--that's the opposite of the approach taken by the usual suspects here, fellas.

He's being fair to Carter by first noting that even he realized that the military had to be rebuilt following its near destruction by the post-Watergate Democrats in congress. And that airline and trucking deregulation was the work of Al Kahn (and Charles Schultz?).

But Carter didn't campaign for re-election on those positions. Similarly, Bill Clinton didn't argue his economic policies would lead to balanced budgets--he hilariously contradicted himself numerous times about when the balance would arrive.

While Reagan was willing to sacrifice budget discipline to the goal of defeating the Evil Empire, he did talk about reducing the level of federal government spending. Which did lead to reducing the level of growth in that spending that he had inherited, while he was in office.

It was only after the implosion of the Soviet Union--largely due to Reagan's forceful challenges to it--that defense spending could be cut (which is where the spending cuts needed came from).

All of which meant that Clinton was doubly lucky. He inherited a low military spending, recovering economy from Bush I. Then two years later had his worst instincts checked by the arrival of Newt Gingrich, John Kasick, Phil Gramm et al in the majority. That's the real source of Clintonomics. And it began, as the WaPo reporter correctly notes, with the Reagan Revolution.

James Lileks has a few words to say to youse guys:

http://www.lileks.com/bleats/

------------quote---------
2004, June 5: I am reminded of the thrill I got when I heard the words “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Because you can sum up Reagan’s legacy by polling any random high-schooler and reading that line.

“What wall?” they’d probably ask.

The wall, kid. You know: The Wall. The fortified gash. The thin lethal line that stood between tyranny and freedom. I mean, we lived in a time when there was a literal wall between those concepts, and we still didn’t get it.

What you don’t know when you’re 22 could fill a book. If you write that book when you’re 44, you haven’t learned a thing.
-----------endquote----------

Krugman takes on Greenspan-

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/06/magazine/06GREENSPAN.html?ex=1087559008&ei=1&en=ed53da65be977088

This will probably get buried under all the Reagan retrospective.

Patrick, a couple of corrections. The FSU imploded economically, not militarily. Reagan military challenges to the FSU had little effect on reform or maybe a drag on reform. Reagan's encouragement of Gorbachov, FSU reforms and negotitiations created a climate where needed FSU reforms could occur.

Reagan spent insane amounts on the military and had little bang to show for his bucks. Reagan increased defense spending from aroung 5% of GDP to almost 6%. Clinton got the job done for around 3.3% of GDP. Reagan never used the military outside of Grenada and Lebanon. Clinton did Haiti and Bosnia along with the Iraq no fly zone.

You overlook that the need to cut excess military spending prompted a round of military base closings. The military did not want nor need these bases. They were operated as a sop to supporting Congressmen. A terribly inefficient waste of resources. In his desire to increase the numbers of Navy ships, Reagan brought numerous ships out of retirement or wasted lots of money on costly maintenance of ships that the Navy did not want nor need. Duplications of weapons systems and investments in bad apples wasted money and limited the ability of the military to acquire better technology because of overcommitments to lesser hardware during the Reagan administration.

Another source of reduction in military costs was through privatization. Why pay a highly trained soldier to mow lawns and clean toilets at the base when those services can be more efficiently contracted to the private sector? This allowed the army to use its remaining personnel more efficiently.

As for not having enough troops for Iraq, the US is not supposed to be a colonial power. The American public did not sign up to support the American colony of Iraq. There are many that will make the argument that it is better to keep a lower level of US troop strength just so neocolonialist presidents will not be tempted to set up new US colonies. A lower troop strength means the US has the ability to fight a war and get out. We should use our military to accomplish military objectives. We should not use our military to support unwanted political hegemony. Political goals must be accomplished by political negotiations backed by force if necessary. Using military force to impose a unilateral political prescription is a recipe for disaster, a clear violation of the Powell doctrine.

Thank you, Patrick. Lileks' output is also good for roses.

"Patrick, a couple of corrections. The FSU imploded economically, not militarily. Reagan military challenges to the FSU had little effect on reform or maybe a drag on reform."

Which, as usual, aren't corrections, but misinformation. Where did I say the USSR didn't implode economically?

And that is the direct result of Reagan's policies, such as getting the King of Saudi Arabia to agree to open the oil spigots and deny revenues to Soviet exports. Or, putting an end to the favorable financing terms Western Europe was offering the Soviet Union in the building of the natural gas pipeline.

And, I wonder if bakho would like to hazard a guess about what percentage of GDP JFK spent on defense prior to Vietnam?

Rident stolidi verba Latina - Fools laugh at the Latin language. (Ovid)

Nec possum tecum vivere, nec sine te - I am able to live / I can live neither with you, nor without you. (Martial)

Cotidiana vilescunt - Familiarity breeds contempt

Cotidiana vilescunt - Familiarity breeds contempt

Cotidiana vilescunt - Familiarity breeds contempt

Cotidiana vilescunt - Familiarity breeds contempt