Sunday, February 10, 2013

Too Inside Baseball

I respect Michael Barone. He’s knowledgeable and he’s insightful. I have, however, lost a good deal of faith in his insight lately. It’s not so much that he got the election results so wrong, it’s that I haven’t seen any evidence that he’s really grasped yet why we lost. His article the other day about Eric Cantor highlights the problem. In fact, it highlights the problem with the entire beltway pundit-ocracy.

I’ve made no secret of the things I’ve learned and the things I’ve come to realize about the defects with our side right now. We offer nothing that anyone except a few purists could care about. We offer nothing to assure people that they will have jobs in the future, much less better jobs. We offer nothing to protect homeowners, to make investments less of a rigged game, to help people send their kids to school, to ensure people’s retirement, to ensure people’s health or safety, or to protection people’s privacy or civil rights. And the public knows this. They see that we don’t offer any of these things.

You would think that someone whose job it is to analyze our political system, our parties, and our electorate would recognize this huge glaring defect staring us in the face. Yet, our pundits don’t. Everywhere I look, our pundits are jerking themselves off over Benghazi or whatever tactical advantage they think the Republicans have over “sequestration”. . . a term not one in 100 Americans has even heard. They still think there’s an “advantage” to be gained by forcing the Democrats to pass a budget. . . an issue the public again doesn’t care about in the least. Or they think Reid’s fake attack on senate procedures matters to people. Whatever.

The problem here is that every one of these people is too “inside baseball.” They live in a private club and they don’t realize that the public doesn’t care about their club. Think of it this way. Every year industries like the marketing industry and Hollywood hand out all kinds of technical achievement awards for things that excite all the experts but which the public never notices. It’s the same thing here. The public does not care about process or about achievement or about gamesmanship. . . they only care about the big picture and results. Our pundits don’t seem to get that anymore because they’ve been in the club so long they mistake the club for America. It’s not.

That brings me to Michael Barone and, by extension, Eric Cantor.

On Thursday, Cantor gave a big speech that was supposed to lay out the new and improved vision for the Republican party. This was supposed to be the unveiling of the new consumer-friendly strategy. . . the grand opening of the NEW GOP to win the people back.

That sound of crickets you hear is coming from the public.

The sound of gushing you hear is coming from the insiders.

That’s the problem.

Michael Barone wrote about the speech in rather glowing terms. First, he wastes the first half of his article by talking about the fiscal cliff being an “insider’s game” but then wrongly arguing that the sequestration issue will be different. See, this time the Republicans have the upper hand because they can stomach the cuts and Obama can’t.

Oy. That’s just wrong. That again mistakes the inside baseball stuff for the public. First, the fiscal cliff was only an insider’s game to the extent of the potential Republican victory. In other words, what the Republicans were trying could at best score points with people who are part of the club -- the public couldn’t care less. BUT, the risk of playing that game was that the Republicans would be seen by the public as harming the country to score political points. Those are stupid odds to accept... heads you win a token victory, tales you lose big. Secondly, sequestration IS the fiscal cliff all over again, and Barone should see this. The best the Republicans can achieve if somehow everything goes right is some meaningless insider-victory. Nothing they can achieve will mean anything to the public. Yet, the cost will be that the public will see the Republicans as irresponsible obstructionists who want to stop military pay, let doctors go unpaid and kill old people. Barone would see this if he wasn’t so tightly wrapped up in this insider bubble.

Barone then finally addresses Cantor’s speech and he gushes (as least for Barone) over the speech because this introduces the Republican’s “outsider game,” i.e. their plan to talk to the unwashed public. What made him so happy?
(1) First, Cantor spoke “not of educational block grants, but of having federal education [dollars] ‘follow children’ to schools their parents choose.” Then he noted that Cantor talked about some specific members of the prole class who this would help.

(2) He brought a 12-year old girl who needed treatment for cancer “to illustrate Republican support for funding basic medical research.”

(3) He then brought some Chinese grad student who is here on a visa and he endorsed the Dream Act and “citizenship for illegal immigrants brought here as children.”
Barone then smiles and tells us that he’s not sure how effective this will be, but he’s glad the Republicans are trying.

Shoot me now.

Dragging kids to speeches is cute, but the public wants solutions. . . not photo-ops. So praising the photo-op is more insider garbage. The education idea is a decent one, but it only addresses a tiny portion of the debate. It ignores colleges entirely, how parents would know which schools are good, reforming schools that are ok but not great, etc. This is just the same old voucher pitch that has won a little, but hasn’t really set the world on fire.

The cancer research thing is ridiculous. For one thing, funding cancer research is not something the public is screaming for. You don’t see that anywhere on the public’s list of concerns. They are much more concerned with health care generally. Moreover, when issues of research do come up, the Republicans are usually the ones screaming that “God don’t like that” and wanting it stopped. Dragging a cancer patient from her bed isn’t going to change the public’s perception. . . only a change in policy will change that.

Third, his immigration stance is absolutely the worst of all worlds. His solution will anger Hispanics because it keeps open the door to deport them, i.e. “it changes nothing.” But it will also anger conservatives because it will stop us from deporting some of them, i.e. “it’s a total surrender.” The only thing his position is guaranteed to do is to anger everyone and to keep this debate alive and angry for another several decades.

Finally, let me point out the big problem once again. This was supposed to be a speech to the American people to get them to see value in our brand again, but what is being offered here? Jack squat. As usual, there is nothing here to assure people about their jobs, their homes, their assets, their pensions, their health, their retirements or their rights. There is a little on education if you fall into the small group who could use vouchers, there’s a nice photo-op if you get turned on by images of cancer patients, and there’s a promise that we won’t deport the kids of illegal immigrants. That’s it.

The fact that Barone doesn’t see this flaw is troubling. He’s one of our more insightful analysts, and if he can’t see this GLARING problem, then clearly it’s time for a change. It’s time we imposed term limits on pundits because these guys are so lost inside baseball that they don’t even know why fans watch the game anymore.

29 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

FYI, You can always click on images to make them bigger.

Individualist said...

The problem with our immigration policy concerning the countries to the south of us has nothing to do with deportation, either departong too often or not enough. It is a problem with finances.

Undocumented workers have been sneaking into America since the 1900's and maybe before then and working for significantly less in wages than are paid to American citizens and when the minimum wage laws came into place less than that. Part of this is the the small amount paid was still more than could be earned in Mexico.

Then the liberals in California decided that these people should qualify for welfare benenfits and so the undocumented migrants now came to this country to get on the dole instead of find work. All of it is about Money.

I have long thought the problem can only be solved by treaty with these countries. The predominant one being Mexico. A free labor treaty that allows our citizens and their citizens to cross their borders and find work if they can. Likewise their businesses and their business can cross the border to do business. Thus no migrant will be apid less than minimum wage because the workers would have legal rights to sue and the penalties for not paying enough can be very stiff.

Likewise a deal would have to cut to designate that a citizen of a country must recieve public benefits from his countries government. Either the government has to give then unemployement, welfare, healthcare etc. or they have to agree to reimburse the states and local agencies that pay for this.

If we do this then the people who wish to obtain American citizenship will be those who want to be Amercans and not those that want some kind of more profitable financial situation.

This is also not a bad idea trade wise. The European Union has increased their trade by removing barriers. This is not just the free trade for business of NAFTA. It is also a free market for labor. With Globalization we need stronger trading partners and localized trading blocks with nations that are in our hemisphere.

AndrewPrice said...

Indi, That's not a bad solution, though you won't find much support for it in the conservative world right now because you're essentially suggesting amnesty... and that makes you a commie.

My point on immigration, however, is that Cantor's solution is horrible because it will only anger both sides and it won't solve anything. It will basically keep conservatives screaming about deportation, and it will probably add some vile rhetoric about deporting them "before they breed." Meanwhile, it won't assure anyone here illegally that they won't be deported. So it solves nothing.

But the bigger point is that our chattering and our political classes are so lost in the weeds that they don't even realize it. What they are doing is praising a commercial for using some difficult process to achieve an effect when the commercial itself failed to reach its target audience. I think until people like Barone get this, we can forget the party shaping up.

Patriot said...

Andrew...It really is inside the beltway (NE corridor) crap that Barone and all the big name pundits and consultants (Rove) really think is important.

I think that our think tanks at one point were incubators of different ideas (Cato Inst.) as they were out of power and repubs and conservs didn't have a voice in gov't policy shaping. Wasn't it until 1994 that repubs finally won one of the houses of congress? Sure, we got the presidency at times, but the machinery of gov't, the bureaucracy, stayed in liberal dems hands. Now that the leftists are ascendent, we are fighting a different enemy from within, that doesn't play by the old chummy rules that the repubs still think exist. Thus, we have our side talking about "my good friends across the aisle" while these same "friends" are calling us jackbooted thugs, liars, rapists and murderers, etc., and we sit there and take it.

Barone and his ilk are dinosaurs. They can't grasp the field has changed. Conservs need to be as nimble (read obfuscate), as the left. The left NEVER tells the public what they are planning...if they do it is all unicorns and rainbows, while we point out the unicorn shit and empty pot o gold. Sure, we're talking "reality" but so what? Barone can get off on knowing all the minutiae around every policy decision, but never offers a viable alternative to sway folks to our side.

We laugh and scoff at the left's spokesmen, but they are working from the top of the mountain and we're struggling to shore up the foundation of our gov't. Most people could give a crap about our foundation. They just want to hear that their gov't only wants to help them.

Your points are well taken here and I'm looking forward to your "plan" on how to fix the side.

T-Rav said...

I'm pretty sure Barone predicted back in November that we would not only win but net like 315 electoral votes or so. Eh, maybe he's just getting old.

AndrewPrice said...

T-Rav, Yeah, his prediction was really wrong. Everyone was. And I think this shows that the conservative world was in a bubble, where everyone just talk each other into certain things that weren't true. The question now, is getting out of that bubble and I think Barone/Cantor show they aren't out of that bubble.

AndrewPrice said...

Patriot, I agree. Until the 1990s, when conservatives were outsiders, conservatives were getting really good at coming up with ideas that worked for the country. The Republican establishment was a mess -- they were chummy with the Democrats and, frankly, they liked losing. It felt comfortable to them.

Then we won. And for the first year, conservatives were really good at changing the world -- that's what ultimately made a Clinton a good president is that he claimed the credit for what the conservatives did.

But then conservatives became the establishment -- despite all the simply false rhetoric that somehow RINOs still ran the Republican party... they didn't, conservatives did.

And from that point forward, they started playing these insider games, looking for how to score points inside the club with no thought to the rest of the country. This combined with a rosy-eyed view of politics, to generate a really out-of-touch world view.

Unfortunately, I think we all bought into it because so much of it makes sense IF you are already conservative. What we didn't realize was that it made no sense to people who weren't conservative.

That is what we need to cure now. We need to break out of that bubble. What troubled me with both Barone and Cantor is that they both seem to recognize the bubble problem, but their solution tells me they can't think outside the bubble. That is troublesome and it explains a lot of the problem we are having.

Koshcat said...

The more you talk about it the more I see it. Where are the big ideas? Please don't beat me up over it but again the GOP can learn a lot from Bush. He ran on big ideas: cut taxes, privatize social security, prescription drug coverage for Medicare patients. But it almost seems that the GOP has adopted the left's Bush Derangement Syndrome.

We have pundits praising those with little ideas and ignoring those with big ones. I know you criticize Ryan's plan, but name another person who put his ideas on paper like he did? The reason so many are afraid to do this is what has happened to Ryan. And Ryan has been a little weak at times when he should just come out and say "put up or shut up." It's far easier to poke holes in another's plan than it is to develop your own.

What is really frustrating is president Dingaling has no real plan. He has the illusion of a plan but compared to Bush what big thing did he fight to get passed? Obamacare, nope Pelosi and Reid did all the work. Porkulous? Nope Pelosi and Reid. He has taken credit for a lot, but he has really done jack squat. God help us when we really do need a leader.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I'm glad you see what I'm talking about. I didn't see it either for a long time until I started having to explain what we stood for to non-conservatives. That's when the light went on upstairs.

The missing the forest for the trees idiom really is apt in this instance. We are so busy trying to critique a tree or two that we've missed the point that the public is only interested in the forest. We need to start talking about the forest again if we want to win people over.

On Bush/Ryan, I'm not a fan of Bush, but I do agree with you. He offered the public big ideas. I think they were largely the wrong ideas, but at least he offered people a plan they could believe would have made things better. And people bought that because he gained a LOT of votes in his re-election.

Obama offered the same sort of vision in his first run in 2008, but he never delivered and instead delivered bad things. That's why he lost 9 million votes. Unfortunately, our side offered nothing at all, so we couldn't add any votes.

I think you are right about Ryan. I give him credit for the bigger ideas of fiscal sanity and privatizing medicare, but you are right that he became too timid. I also think, in hindsight, that his plan was too timid. That was one of those moments where the world may have been different if he had been bolder.

I think that in the past few years, Ryan, Romney, Boehner and now Cantor have all had a chance to break the cycle and win people back with a bold plan, but each has failed because they just offered more of the same. If the party is going to be saved it will be by the first recognizable leader to think big.

BUT, as you note, that will be very hard because our side had started attacking anyone who offers the big idea. Too many people on our side are happy to tear down rather than build up, and are acting like any suggestion of change is traitorous.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, You know how lots of moderates say that Ronald Reagan couldn't get nominated today, I actually have come to think that's true. Reagan was not a desk pounding ideologue who promised to do extremist things and die on principle on obscure theological and theoretical points. He was much more practical than that, and he never pandered to the angry part of the base.

He would be savaged if he ran today as an unreliable RINO who wants to sell us out and "doesn't know what's really important."

Koshcat said...

I was only a kid when Reagan ran but I'm not sure I agree that he couldn't get nominated. He was the outsider and very popular governor from a populous state. He was also much more conservative than Ford or even Nixon, but more polished and affable than either. He also had big ideas: cut tax rates, reign in inflation, stand up to middle east and USSR, expand military, etc. In addition, if there was something important he wanted passed, he went to the people and explained it to them. He spoke about why it was necessary to do this rather than berate those who opposed him. He could make Tip O'Neal laugh. The next best president who could do some of these things is Bush the younger followed closely by Clinton. Their interpersonal skills allowed them to develop a sort of Teflon.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I was only a kid too when he ran in 1980. But looking back on his career, I think the Religious Right would hate him because he never made social issues a big part of his agenda -- he only rarely mentioned abortion and he never proposed anything strident. That's not enough for them. I also have no doubt that California did a lot of abortion funding under his watch. Nor can I see him being willing to sign any pledges to ban gay marriage (because his first goal was to not be divisive), and I have no doubt that he probably appointed a gay judge or two to California courts. Not to mention, looking at the people he put on the Supreme Court, many of them are now described by conservatives as liberals or wishy-washy. His appointees even voted to make sodomy legal across the land. That would be more than enough for the Religious Right to savage him throughout the primary in favor of a "real conservative" like Rick Santorum... cringe.

Then you have the libertarian wing, which would be incensed that he raised taxes in California, which they will assume means he will raise taxes in DC. They would savage him for raising X number of taxes for a total of $X. Grover Norquist would savage him for not going far enough in 1981 and then for "raising taxes" (on the rich) in 1986. Also, he also worked for GE and a union, and he appointed boogeymen to run the Fed. They will smear him as an insider.

The neocons would have considered him dangerous for his aggressive foreign policy and "lacking nuance" for not wanting to engage in nation building. The hawks would have been upset by his nuclear disarmament stuff with Gorby and his failure in Beirut which got Marines killed.

The biggest thing, however, is that Reagan actually liked the American people and he spoke to them... not to this small cadre of angry one-issue conservatives who dominate the primaries. I think that if he ran today, he would be dismissed as a RINO.

Koshcat said...

Good points. I guess the biggest difference between Reagan and today's RINOs is that today's RINOs are wishy-washy and do not ever actually stand for anything. The fact that a few of them conteplated voting for Obamacare illustrates this. Even if you are for a comprehensive single payer system, Obamacare is such a piece of crap you would actually vote against it on principle.

AndrewPrice said...

OT: This is interesting.

The left is losing the gun control debate, so they've decided to change the terms they use... like they always do when they failed.

They are now calling it "gun reform" instead of "gun control."

It will be interesting to see how quickly that catches on.

Koshcat said...

HOW DARE YOU GO OFF TOPIC! Oh, wait it's your blog. Carry on. :)

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I have no love for RINOs because they really are disloyal and stupid. They work to undermine the conservative agenda, just as they always have.

But there aren't many RINOs left. And, unfortunately, conservatives now label anyone who isn't as far right as they think they are a RINO. Moreover, a lot of conservatives have become single issue voters -- abortion, guns, nuke the Fed, etc. And they view anyone who isn't openly passionate (read: foaming at the mouth) about their issue as a RINO.

That's why I do believe that if Reagan ran for the first time today, he would never win. Our candidates really need to toe the line on a whole bunch of extremist stuff or they will be written off as RINOs or worse by each of these groups.

AndrewPrice said...

LOL! Thank you for your permission! :P

Actually, I just noticed the first official use of the words "gun reform" by the AP, which is why I mention it here. It will interesting to see how quickly it catches on.

Koshcat said...

All the media will start using it since they all receive the same white house memo. If there is one thing Rush does well, that is his ability to directly show how all of the major media outlets use the same talking points.

AndrewPrice said...

I'll bet they will, and that's what has me curious. I saw the first mention of this new phrase about 2 minutes before 2:00 EST. I will be very curious to see how long before it becomes the dominant phrase in the media and in Washington. Let me know if you see it used.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I've sent you an e-mail.

Koshcat said...

Totally OT (but I don't know where to put it):

My wife and I watched the movie The Devil's Double starring Dominic Cooper last saturday night. I thought is was a well written and acted movie. Very entertaining. What made it more interesting is it was billed as the true story of Latif Yahia who claims he was forced to by Uday's body double. This seemed like a real and possible situation. Knowing that often the book is much better than the movie I started to do a little more research. Turns out Latif is a far more interesting character more similar to Frank Abagnale. He's probably a grifter and Uday never used body doubles.

If you haven't seen the movie I recommend it but recommend one also read the pieces by Irish Times journalist Eoin Butler and Sunday Times journalist Ed Caesar.

AndrewPrice said...

Koshcat, I haven't seen it, so there isn't much I can say about it.

Koshcat said...

I think the more interesting story is Latif Yahia. Here is the link to the Sunday Times article. http://www.edcaesar.co.uk/article.php?article_id=55

I have occassionally met people like Latif and am always amazed what they get away with.

AndrewPrice said...

Some stories are too good to check and some are too weird not to. LOL! I like that!

One thing I can say about my legal travels is that there is a certain truth to the idea that he who pushes hardest always gets what he wants... not matter how unfair or impossible that sounds.

Here's the link: LINK

Kelly said...

Andrew, Any idea how we can wake people like Barone up to this?

AndrewPrice said...

Kelly, That's a good question. I guess you could e-mail him the link to this article? But I don't think it will work. I fear that our pundit class is so deep in this bubble that they aren't even open to the idea that they could be missing something.

T-Rav said...

And North Korea has just tested a nuclear weapon. Bollocks.

AndrewPrice said...

Who did they test it on?

T-Rav said...

Sadly, I'm assuming they did not test it on Kim-Jong Un or whatever his name is. Maybe they'll accidentally create Godzilla and he can level Pyongyang, or something.

Post a Comment