The Trouble With Normal...

..is it always gets worse.

Back in 2006, I wrote that, "one of the things which I find annoying about the 'right-wing' these days in North America, is an inability to distinguish being things which should be partisan, and things which shouldn't." and complained about, "the politicization of the Government of Canada webpage, which, since the election, has become an extension of the Conservative Party site."

Somewhat naively, I offered that, "Perhaps now that the Globe and Mail has picked up on this story, with a well-written article by Ivor Tossell, the Conservatives will be shamed into making the taxpayer funded website less of a marketing tool for one particular party."

So now we see that, far from improving, things have steadily deteriorated on the inappropriately partisan front. In addition to disproportionately funneling federal stimulus funding to Conservative ridings, Conservative MP's have been running around the country passing off taxpayer money as being provided by the Conservative party or its MP's.

With the instinctive 'yeahbuttheLiberals' response rising from the Conservative side, not to mention the recent stacking of the senate by Harper, it's a pity Arzt is no longer with us to point out that the pigs are walking.

From the Archives: Why 3 parties are better than 2

Note: This is another old post that was languishing in the draft folder for many years, intended as a follow-up to this post about the highly partisan nature of American politics, it was first drafted on November 24, 2004 and it is possible that the reason I never posted it to the blog was not that it was incomplete, simply that it was very dull:

---
I am thankful for the fact that Canada has more than 2 parties, so that if one party takes a marginal, extreme viewpoint (like the Conservatives saying that Global Warming isn't a serious issue in the last election campaign), then that is at least partly reflected by the fact that there are 3 other parties that disagree with them.

Also, the presence of at least 3 parties in most of Canada makes possible the practice of moderation, something which Ontarians are discovering the value of after swinging first one way and then the other, but something which isn't even an option for folks in B.C. on many issues.

Not Partisan

One of my recurring themes here on the blog is that one of the problems with right wingers these days is that they have no ability to distinguish between things that are partisan in nature and things that aren't. See here or here for a couple of examples.

Just in case there are any right wingers out there who want to change this habit, here's a tip for the future. When a serious economic crisis threatens the country*, that is not the time for partisan games.


* On the off chance someone wants to try and argue we're not facing a serious economic crisis, save it. The prices of our main exports are plunging, our major trading partners are in recession and facing worse, some of the largest employers in the country are on the verge of bankruptcy, with many more of the country's biggest most stable companies needing to raise funds at distress prices and trading at levels that suggest very high risk, our housing markets are falling fast, government budgets are coming under increasing strain, and we're only getting started. Just because the coyote hasn't looked down yet doesn't mean we haven't run off the cliff.

P.S. What's wrong with Andrew Coyne these days? For someone who supports proportional representation he seems awfully bent out of shape at the idea of having a government that actually represents a majority of the votes cast for once.

And he's making all sorts of crazy arguments of the sort you'd normally associate with loony national post types (such as Colby Cosh who actually sees a day of trading in which the TSX dropped less than U.S. markets (comparing like sector to sector, e.g. financials were down 9% in Canada, 17% in the U.S.) and thinks that this proves that 'Money has cast a vote' against the coalition. People who have yet to realize that the TSX is heavily weighted in commodities and that on a day when commodities do poorly, the overall TSX index will do poorly, really shouldn't be commenting on the stock market, but that's what I get for reading the national post where the only qualification required is ideology not actual knowledge.

Partisan Hack

I see that the NY Times had the same take on Greenspan's social security remarks as I did, both in an editorial and in Paul Krugman's column.

The biggest difference between what I wrote and what Krugman wrote is that he was a lot less polite,

"By repeatedly shilling for whatever the Bush administration wants, [Greenspan] has betrayed the trust placed in Fed chairmen, and deserves to be treated as just another partisan hack."

Ouch.

Superbowl Sunday

Over at his blog, Colby Cosh explains that he is cheering for the Patriots to win tomorrow (or at least limit McNabb's stats) because: "a Patriots win would be a blow to the interests of the groupthink machine, which thrives on novelty." and "If the technically outrageous Vick were playing in this Super Bowl, instead of a B-grade traditional passer like McNabb, the story would be football instead of the second coming of Doug Williams."

In addition, he seems concerned that if the Eagles win or McNabb does well, the media will take it as as a further rebuttal of Rush Limbaugh's comment (which cost him his job) that, "I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defence carried this team."

Some of his other concerns are that McNabb being friendly to the media makes them hype him too much, that the Falcon's offensive system doesn't suit Michael Vick, that the media is too critical of QB's that run a lot like Vick and too favourable to pocket passers, that the media gives too much praise to the team that wins and not enough to the team that loses and that Eagles receivers Pinkston and Mitchell are underrated.

Hey, Colby lives in a complicated world, mine is much simpler. As a lifelong Eagles fan I say, Go Eagles!!


Update: Crap. Offseason homework assignment: Clock management. Good effort though.

Partisan madness, Onionized version

So, I re-read my last column, and I still think I have a good point, but the post itself is way too long, goes off on a number of digressions and lacks both a proper introduction and a decent structure. In my defense, it was just a stream-of-consciousness ramble that took about 15 minutes to type out, but still.

So, I was thinking about posting a revised version, but that seemed kind of dull, so in an effort to make it more entertaining while still getting the point across, I decided to Onionize** it as follows:


But Who’s Counting?

Citing homeland security concerns, White house officials announced today that they will no longer be making federal budget figures publicly available.

“Given the number of people who would like to use these figures as a means to financially attack the U.S., it is no longer prudent for this sensitive information to be distributed to such a wide audience,” said White house spokesman, Bill Frobisher.

Reaction to the proposal on Capitol Hill was mixed. “It’s about time the White House showed some leadership on this issue,” said Republican Senator Carol Hedberg, “allowing this information to fall into the hands of foreign traders is like giving them a veto over U.S. government policy.”

Meanwhile, with one unnamed Democratic source quoted as calling the proposed changes, ‘stupid’, George Lakoff called on Democrats to turn away from name-calling and instead try to frame the issue in terms of progressive American values such as accountability and responsibility.

Pundits were also split on the issue with Conservative commentators suggesting that the move would help Bush shore up support with his base since they were clearly motivated more by security issues than by economic ones. On the other hand, Liberal talking-heads suggested that it could widen the rift in the Republican Party between so called ‘Fiscal Conservatives’ and ‘Social Conservatives’.

The discussion got heated throughout the Blogosphere with hundreds of left-wing readers reassuring themselves that the proposal was indeed stupid at DailyKos, while an equal number of readers vied to outdo each other in explaining why it was a good idea at pro-Republican blogs.

Understandably, some citizens were left a little bewildered by the conflicting reactions:

“Both sides just want to try to sell you their side of the story,” said Danny Black, 55, of Michigan, “I just tune out anything that has to do with politics.”

Maria Cox, 44, from Georgia takes a different approach, “The way I figure,” she said, “If two people have extreme views on something, the right answer is likely about halfway in between, maybe there’s some sort of compromise that everyone could agree to on keeping the budget numbers secret.”

Xavier Madsen, 22 of Oregon had the strongest reaction, “Man,” he said, “they need to change that Republican symbol from an elephant to an ostrich. That’s their reaction to any kind of problem, just pretend it doesn’t exist and hope for the best. If Bush keeps doing stuff like this for the next four years, I’m totally going to have to think about maybe going out and voting in the next election.”


-------
** Onionize v. To take an extreme example which demonstrates your point and write a deadpan story which presents your extreme example in a factual ‘news-report’ style.

Partisanity = Part-insanity

I followed a link from View From Seymour, to George Lakoff's writing on the topic of framing discussions to highlight the values you want to highlight.

Despite the protestations of being non-partisan, the page read (to me) as follows:

1. Conservatives are using framing to get their message out and it is proving to be an effective weapon in the battle for American hearts and minds

2. Liberals need to adopt use of this weapon as well.

3. Here's an example of how to do it.

Leaving aside the (interesting in its own right) theory of framing discussions, I was struck most by yet another example of the incredibly partisan nature of discourse in the U.S.

It seems that when writing about something with potential bearing on U.S. politics, no study or source can be quoted without either: a) defending the non-partisan nature of the study/source, b) admitting that the study/source is a partisan for your side but arguing that what they say is still at least somewhat valid or, best of all, c) noting that the study/source is actually from the opposing team.

The underlying assumption (by Democrats) is that Republican supporters will twist the facts (and make things up), to the extent that what they say is not even worth listening to (unless it supports a Democrat point) and the same is true in reverse.

At some point, I wonder if the concept of objective truth gets lost. Consider a random voter, Mr. X, who is faced with a referendum on a flat tax proposal. Mr. X could try to figure out whether a flat tax will be good for him and the country or not, but if everything he has available to read is just pro-tax or anti-tax spin and is probably just lies, what's the point? If all Republicans are going to support it whether they think it's a good idea or not and all Democrats are likewise going to oppose it, then he will be unable to get any sense of a general consensus of opinion on the topic. In the end, Mr. X will just vote for whoever best framed the issue in terms of his values, or better yet, just vote for whoever seems the most trustworthy (i.e. vote for the person with the most symmetrical face).

Even on something as clear and straightforward as global warming, the 'teach the controversy' approach can create an appearance of two sides with equally valid but different points of view, both of which are just trying to 'spin' the issue to their benefit. And then the reaction is to say, 'who knows who is really telling the truth?' Living inside this us-against-them, all-spin, U.S. prism, even otherwise intelligent people like Andrew Sullivan can get drawn into just offering their readers two opposing opinions on global warming and saying that they should decide, as if this is representative of the current state of thought on this issue (among those who know what they are talking about).

The media in the U.S. reinforces this trend. It avoids taking positions on anything the least bit potentially controversial and when opinions are needed it goes to a talking head format in which an equal number of partisan representatives do their best to frame/spin the issue in their favour.

The end result is that on any issue, regardless of the weight of the actual evidence, the testimony of those involved, the informed judgment of serious, knoweldgeable analysts, the rational arguments or the impact of similar policies enacted elsewhere, either side in the U.S. (Republican/Democrat) can take any position they like and it will be treated as a valid option to be weighted with equal consideration with whatever position the other party takes.

Supporters of both parties will look to their own partisan media outlets to reinforce their viewpoint and tell them why the other guys are wrong. The 'non-partisan' media will treat both options equally and will allow roughly equal time for both sides to make their case (and if they don't they will be accused of bias).

Obviously there are limits to this kind of thing. A party which supported a draft for example would have a hard time framing it well enough not to take a hit. More generally, the more close to home a policy hits, the more people will see through the spin to figure out how a policy affects them and vote accordingly. But to the extent that this paradigm does hold, a party in the U.S. can both propose and do pretty much whatever it wants - the only thing that will matter in the end is which party frames it's message better, and of course who seems more trustworthy (symmetrical).

OK, this was a long rambling post (silly me thinking that blogging would teach me to be more concise), but even if you didn't like it, I feel like writing it has brought me closer to understanding how Bush could be re-elected, so I still think it was worthwhile.

In a later post, I'll look at Canada and talk about why we are in a somewhat better position than the U.S. on this issue.

----
Update Jan 24, 2005: Some time after I wrote this post, I noticed that Paul Krugman has said the same thing much more concisely:

"The media are desperately afraid of being accused of bias. And that's partly because there's a whole machine out there, an organized attempt to accuse them of bias whenever they say anything that the Right doesn't like. So rather than really try to report things objectively, they settle for being even-handed, which is not the same thing. One of my lines in a column -- in which a number of people thought I was insulting them personally -- was that if Bush said the Earth was flat, the mainstream media would have stories with the headline: 'Shape of Earth--Views Differ.' Then they'd quote some Democrats saying that it was round."