Far too much media coverage of politics focuses on the horserace angle--who's ahead, who's behind, who's up or down. It relies on false equivalency: if Politician A says X, then the reporter goes to Politician B, who's sure to say Y. That's lazy journalism, and it doesn't actually inform the public about which position (if any) is actually true, or adheres to the facts as we know them. At TWiA, our mission is to discuss politics through the prism of policy--to look, in other words, at the real-world implications of the things that politicians say and do, to make connections others might miss, and to explain it all in language a lay person can understand. Also to offer suggestions of how you can help somebody in need, to report on what's awesome, and to keep tabs on bears. If you like TWiA, share or repost or tell a friend, and be sure to leave comments, even if they're arguments. Especially if they're arguments.
This Week in Truth and Consequences
Last week, we wrote about the outbreak of dishonesty that's spread like Ebola through the Republican primary process. This week, everybody else is writing about it, too. The Washington Post thinks it began with the traction Donald Trump's absurdly dishonest statements have provided him. We think it goes back further than that, to the fact that in 2012, although some of us were trying to keep track of Mendacious Mitt Romney's serial prevarications, the sheer number of them seemed to exhaust fact-checkers, and Republican voters didn't mind a bit. Having seen one rich guy get away with saying anything that swam into his head with absolutely no regard for the truth, Trump realized that he could build a whole campaign around the same strategy. Sadly, he seems to have been right--at the last debate, the biggest applause came when candidates dishonestly called out the media for telling the truth.
Carly Fiorina jumped on board the untruth train and it propelled her off the kiddie stage and on to the main one (though she has struggled since then to come up with appropriately spectacular lies, so her numbers have bottomed out again). And Ben Carson has such a long history of dishonesty mixed with kookiness that it's hard to say whether he's lying or telling what he believes is the truth, in many instances. The New Republic points out that in Carson's case, his apparent inability to distinguish what's only true in his head from what is or isn't true in the real world is not just a problem when discussing the past, but when talking about the future. His policy ideas are filled with magical thinking that bears no resemblance to reality.
* * *
Ben Carson is a unique case in presidential primary frontrunners. Some, like Romney, have been consistently dishonest. But Carson combines a lack of respect for honesty with an almost staggering cluelessness. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo nails it by calling him a "self-awareness Mr. Magoo." The latest example? Back in 1970, Carson fell victim to a prank, and he has spent the ensuing decades not realizing that it was a prank, believing it was all as he'd been told it was, and using it as a self-glorifying example of his own honesty.
This Week in Debates
Another Republican debate took place this week (transcript), so dishonesty and nuttiness once again went on display. Ben Carson whined again that no one in the history of presidential campaigns has ever been subjected to the kind of personal scrutiny that he has, proving that Ben Carson has never paid attention to a presidential campaign in his life, and isn't watching this one very closely, either. (Historically, the only candidate on a major-party ticket coming close to matching Carson for cluelessness was John McCain's 2008 running mate, Sarah Palin, who in fact was not scrutinized nearly enough before being brought onto the ticket.) Jeb! Bush showed us again that the most exciting thing about his campaign is the ! that he put on his Jeb! logo. And John Kasich is turning into the angry old man of the pack. The "Get off my lawn!" factor might have helped McCain secure the nomination (though not the election) in 2008, but 2016 ain't 2008.
* * *
Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio both offered almost stunningly false narratives about the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Fiorina said, "I understand that you cannot allow families to go bankrupt if they truly need help. But, I also understand that Obamacare isn’t helping anyone. We’re throwing more, and more people into Medicaid, and fewer, and fewer doctors are taking those payments. The point is Obamacare is crushing small businesses, it is not helping the families it was intended to help. So, let us allow states to manage high risk pools."
And Rubio said, "we have a crazy health care law that discourages companies from hiring people."
Let's take a deeper dive into these statements. First to the point that Obamacare isn't "helping anyone," we'd have to say that allowing something like 17 million people and counting to have health insurance, many for the first time in their lives, is indeed helping people. Saving lives is helping people. We're not sure what Fiorina's definition of "helping" is, but it's not ours.
As for throwing people into Medicaid, government isn't doing that. A minimum wage with less purchasing power than it had 30 years ago is. An economy being prevented from reaching its full potential (more on that in a moment) is. But at least Medicaid is there for them--in those states that embraced it. It's almost uncanny how Fiorina could mention Medicaid almost immediately before a pitch to give the states even more power, when Medicaid points up precisely the danger of letting states make certain health care decisions on behalf of their residents. What makes her think they would do a better job with high-risk pools? Unless she imagines some federal law would require them to, and set standards for those pools--like, say, the ACA?
And Rubio's comment doesn't pass the simplest smell test. Dan Diamond observes in Forbes that we're enjoying the longest streak of private-sector hiring ever--a streak that began in March 2010, the month that the ACA became law. That streak isn't entirely due to the ACA, of course. Some of it can be attributed to the auto industry bailout, the stimulus package, and the fact that we have a president who understands that the best way to grow the economy is from the middle out. (On the other hand, progress could be better if not for austerity measures at various Republican-led statehouses, and if the Republicans in Congress didn't refuse to invest in America.) So the ACA isn't growing jobs by itself--except in one important area: health care employment was up 50% in 2014 compared to 2013, and so far this year it has done better than 2013 and 2014 combined. But it surely isn't preventing hiring at any level.
* * *
In many instances, it seemed like the candidates simply couldn't hear or understand the questions that were asked. Look at this Q&A for Rubio:
BAKER: Meanwhile, with factories run by robots and shopping done increasingly on smartphones, many traditional jobs are just going away. How do you reassure American workers that their jobs are not being steadily replaced by machines?
RUBIO: Well, you know, that’s an excellent question, because what we are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn. We are living through a massive economic transformation. I mean, this economy is nothing like what it was like five years ago, not to mention 15 or 20 years ago.
"What we are going through in this country is not simply an economic downturn?" There is no measure by which one can claim this country is going through an economic downturn at all. We're recovering from a near-Great Depression level disaster. He's right that we're not where we were 5 years ago, since we are considerably better off now. But his economic plan--Tax cuts favoring the rich! Cut spending! Cut regulation!--would put us right back there in no time.
Then there was this one for Rand Paul:
BARTIROMO: Senator Paul, you were one of 15 republicans to vote for an amendment which states that human activity contributed to climate change. President Obama has announced an aggressive plan to cut carbon emissions. At the same time, energy production in America has boomed. Is it possible to continue this boom, and move toward energy self-sufficiency, while at the same time pursuing a meaningful climate change program?
PAUL: The first thing I would do as president is repeal the regulations that are hampering our energy that the President has put in place.
In short, Q: Our energy production is at an all-time high, so how do we continue that and address climate change? A: Make the president stop slowing down energy production. The rest of his answer goes on in the same vein--it's as if he was asked about how to increase energy production, not about the link to climate change. And his answer never acknowledges the boom that led off the question.
And this for Ms. Fiorina:
BAKER: Now, in seven years under President Obama, the U.S. has added an average of 107,000 jobs a month. Under President Clinton, the economy added about 240,000 jobs a month. Under George W. Bush, it was only 13,000 a month. If you win the nomination, you’ll probably be facing a Democrat named Clinton. How are you going to respond to the claim that Democratic presidents are better at creating jobs than Republicans?
FIORINA: Well, first of all, I must say as I think about that question, I think about a woman I met the other day. I would guess she was 40 years old. She had several children. And she said to me, you know, Carly, I go to bed every night afraid for my children’s future. And that really struck me. This is America. A mother is going to bed afraid for her children’s future. And the reason she’s afraid for her children’s future is because we’ve had problems for a long time. Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats.
Again, the short version: Q: How do you respond to the true fact that Democrats are better at creating jobs than Republicans, as demonstrated by the last three presidential administrations? A: Yes, problems have gotten much worse under Democrats.
The mind reels.
Incidentally, Baker's question is carefully phrased to make Obama's record look worse than it is, by going back to the beginning of his administration, when we were still shedding jobs because of the Bush recession. Since Obama's policies took effect, job growth has been closer to or over 200,000 a month.
* * *
The economic foolishness displayed at this debate was enormous and terrifying. From Ted Cruz arguing for reinstating the gold standard to multiple candidates claiming that raising the minimum wage kills jobs (it doesn't) to the continued voodoo economic contention that cutting taxes and regulations grows the economy, it's almost as if the history of the last 40 years has been entirely forgotten (much less the current example of Kansas). Obviously, it's hard to run a campaign by saying, "The president I want to replace has been a much better shepherd of the economy than anybody my party has offered up." But if they can't honestly address the real issues preventing even greater economic growth, they have no hope of solving them.
Side Note: Study after study show that confronting people with facts that contradict their opinions, in many cases, only seems to solidify their preexisting positions instead of changing their minds. In the case of Republican politicians, the problem is that they're offering non-facts to buttress the fact-free positions of their base voters.
* * *
There was also a kiddie table debate the same night, featuring Chris Christie, Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee, and Rick (Don't Google Me!) Santorum. It happened. Christie wasn't bad. The end.
This Week in Holiday Shopping
The malls are about to get crowded, if they aren't already. If you're still wondering where to shop, Donald Trump makes the choice a little easier by suggesting a boycott of Macy's.
If you're looking for us, we'll be at Macy's.
Side Note: Trump might finally have gone off the deep end. The Washington Post reports, "The usually punctual executive was nearly 40 minutes late. His voice was hoarse, his hair mussed, his tone defensive. He promised to take questions from the audience but instead launched into a 95-minute-long rant that at times sounded like the monologue of a man grappling with why he is running for president — and if it's really worth it or not. Even for a candidate full of surprises, the speech was surprising."
In the speech, he called Ben Carson "pathological" and compared the neurosurgeon to a child molester. He said he knows more about ISIS than the generals do, and promised to "bomb the shit" out of oil fields benefiting them. He called Carly Fiorina "Carly whatever-the-hell-her-name-is." He asked--in Iowa--"How stupid are the people of Iowa?" The Post says he "appeared to unravel." That's putting it mildly. It sounds like a complete breakdown, and we have to wonder if this will finally be the moment that ends his campaign.
This Week in Inappropriate Responses
When an audience member at a candidate's appearance threatens of suggests physical violence against a rival candidate--even if said audience member is clearly employing hyperbole, the candidate who's present has a duty to try to tamp down that impulse, not to reward it. We hope that Hillary Clinton apologizes to Carly Fiorina, and soon. Fiorina said she has no problem with it, but we do. The language of physical violence shouldn't be applied toward public figures in that way.
This Week in Cheneyville
Former VP Dick Cheney's daughter Liz is once again considering an effort to ensure that there's a new generation of warmongering, vile-spitting, pro-torture Cheneys in elected office. We think Liz has just as twisted a perspective on what it means to be an American as her father does, and we hope her popularity rivals his (13% at the end of his eight years in office).
This Week in the Crazy
Remember that time an undocumented African immigrant seized control of the executive branch of the United States government, declared martial law, banned interstate travel, took away everybody's guns, and put American citizens in concentration camps?
Neither do we. But these jokers have been expecting it for years, and they still think it's just around the corner. And if "Hitlery Clinton" becomes president, they'll be ready, because she'll be just as bad if not worse. We feel a whole lot safer with geniuses like this walking around carrying weapons. Don't you?
This Week in Bears
A man went into the water to save a black bear from drowning. The bear--being an intelligent animal--cooperated. Humans who are drowning don't always do that.
(Thanks to TWiA special Ursa Major correspondent Marcy Rockwell for the tip.)
Last year, we shared video of a New Jersey bear who walks upright. Now, we've learned that the bear has a name: Chris Christie Pedals, and that locals want to make sure Pedals is healthy and safe this winter.
Comments