WSJ OP-ED: Why Working Class Votes Republican
AWWW YEAAHHHHHH!
The WSJ Nails it, courtesy of Jim M on FI, famousidiot.com
LINK: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006680
TEXT:
BY JAMES TARANTOThursday, May 12, 2005 10:38 a.m.
Scenes From the Class Struggle
The other day, Slate's Timothy Noah pondered the question of why "working class" voters don't favor the Democrats. Noah opens with a quote from Thomas Frank's 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?," then comments (emphasis his):
The working class's refusal to synchronize its politics with its economic interests is one of the enduring puzzles of the present age. Between 1989 and 1997, middle-income families (defined in this instance as the middle 20 percent) saw their share of the nation's wealth fall from 4.8 percent to 4.4 percent. Yet Al Gore lost the white working class by a margin of 17 percentage points, and John Kerry lost it by a margin of 23 percentage points. As the GOP drifts further to the right, and becomes more starkly the party of the wealthy, it is gaining support among the working class.
I have never seen a wholly satisfactory explanation for this trend, which now spans two generations. It's the decline of unions, says Thomas Frank. It's values, says Tom Edsall. It's testosterone, says Arlie Russell Hochschild. Each of these explanations seems plausible up to a point, but even when taken together, their magnitude doesn't seem big enough. Republicans, of course, will argue that it's simply the working man's understanding that the GOP has the better argument, i.e., that the best way to help the working class is to shower the rich with tax breaks. But the Bush administration has been showering the rich with tax breaks for more than four years, and the working class has nothing to show for it.
Let's consider another possibility, then: The working class, or at least a large segment of same, suffers from a psychological disorder.
Noah then considers the hypothesis of a silly 2003 study (which we mocked at the time) claiming that "conservatives"--defined to include Hitler, Mussolini and Reagan--are nuts. Even Noah ends up rejecting this claim, making the whole column a typically pointless digression.
What we wonder is: How come it never occurs to liberals or Democrats that the very terms in which they phrase the question are part of their problem? These, after all, are people who are obsessed with politically correct terminology, from "African-American" to "fetus." Yet somehow it never dawns on them that "working class" is an insult.
Think about it: Would you call a janitor, a secretary or a carpenter "working class" to his face? The term connotes putting someone in his place: Your lot in life is to work. Thinking is for the higher classes. The questions the Democrats ask about the "working class" reflect precisely this contempt: What's the matter with these people? Why don't they understand that we know what's good for them? Why do they worry about silly things like abortion and homosexuality? If they must believe in all that religious mumbo-jumbo, can't they keep it to themselves?
Every time the Democrats lose an election, they make a big show of asking questions like these. Then, the next time they lose an election, they once again wonder why the "working class" has forsaken them. Maybe it's as simple as: because they were listening.
Zapatero Rejects 'Global Test'"If it comes to choosing between pleasing President Bush or the Spanish public, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Wednesday that he--unlike the conservative opposition Popular Party--would opt for the latter," reports the Associated Press:
"Between pleasing Bush and doing what Spanish people want, I will go for what Spaniards want, and you (the Popular Party) are, naturally, within your rights to decide to please the U.S. president," Zapatero said.
Zapatero last year endorsed John Kerry*, then told Kerry to drop dead when Kerry urged him not to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. But in a way, his comment is reminiscent of President Bush's in the first presidential debate, when Kerry memorably said America should be subject to a "global test" before defending itself:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
Zapatero's comment makes one thing clear: All countries act in what they perceive to be their interests. If you're an American, aren't you glad to have a president who does that too?
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way has met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, "You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy," things like that.
Running From OfficeOur Peggy Noonan, writing on yesterday's evacuation from the Capitol because of an aviation scare, quotes an unnamed Senate staffer: "I was wearing open-toed, two-inch heels. Is this the official end of high heels in Washington? I think it might be, yeah." The Washington Post reports that "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was literally lifted out of her pinkish high heels by Capitol Police in a hallway outside the House chamber."
Maybe John Kerry** was on to something with those flip-flops.
** Fop cit.
Two Schools for the Price of OneYesterday's item on Tampa, Fla.'s Hillsborough High School--which got a "D" from the state but was rated the country's 10th best school by Newsweek--prompted several readers to write us with an explanation. Here's Skip Simpson:
As a former resident of Tampa and a graduate of a "blue ribbon" private school in the area I can tell you that the reason Hillsborough High is listed as the 10th best school in the country is because of their International Baccalaureate (IB) program. This IB program took many promising students from my private school after eighth grade by offering a similarly excellent education free.
In the IB program students are sheltered from the rest of the student population so that they may focus on their studies without being distracted by the dropouts and poor students that led the school to get a "D" in the first place.
It also turns out there's an explanation for why New York City's elite high schools didn't turn up in the list, given in an online Q&A with the authors:
New York, NY: Unless I missed them, I didn't see 1 NYC public school on the top 1,000 list. How could that be possible?
Barbara Kantrowitz and Jay Mathews: We are looking for schools that challenge average students as well as the most gifted and therefore we exclude schools that have strict academic admissions criteria. Some of the best and most famous high schools in New York City use a entrance exam for all students and therefore don't qualify for our list. That would include schools like Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Hunter College High School--all of which would likely be at the top of our list if we did include them. There are other wonderful public high schools in New York; we mentioned a few of them in our story.
So it turns out these are the best 1,000 (actually 1,042) mediocre high schools in the country.
Rose à la PêchePhoenix's KFYI radio reproduces a map that apparently comes from the Arizona Republic and is headlined "Today's News Briefing." It features summaries of various news stories, with lines pointing from the boxes to the places on the map where the news happened. One of the stories is headlined "Bush Supports Georgia's Democracy." The dateline is Tblisi, but the pointer ends up somewhere near Atlanta.
Oh well, it's been almost a quarter century since Georgians voted for Jimmy Carter. We suppose it's time to let bygones be bygones and welcome them back into the community of democratic states.
He Was Expecting a Picnic?"Spokane Mayor Complains of 'Brutal Outing' "--headline, Associated Press, May 12
What Would Kids Do Without Experts?"Being Safe Can Keep Kids From Being Run Over, Expert Says"--headline, Internet Broadcasting Systems, May 11
'I Now Pronounce You Suit and Gown'"GOP Chair's Suit: I Was Married Five Times, Not Six"--headline, FoxNews.com, May 11
The Watchers of the Watchers Watch BackOn Tuesday we noted that the Australian Broadcast Corp.'s "Media Watch" program had aired a nasty item on Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for the Australian, concerning her favorable mention of Arthur Chrenkoff's "good news from Iraq" series on this Web site. Our item prompted a lengthy e-mail from Peter McEvoy, executive producer of "Media Watch," which in the interest in fairness we print in full:
Your column "Watching the Watchers" has been brought to our attention and I'd like to clarify and correct several points.
As I've made clear elsewhere we have no problem with Arthur's Good News blogs in themselves. There is certainly no misrepresentation of them on OpinionJournal.com. It is clear on your site that they are what they are--a cull of media reports and media releases highlighting the good news from Iraq prepared by an Australian blogger.
If you check the transcript of our program you will see that we did not state as you assert that OpinionJournal.com is not published by The Wall Street Journal.
We did attempt on many occasions to clarify the precise relationship between the WSJ and OpinionJournal.com but our phone calls and emails have still not generated an answer from Dow Jones.
My first email to Dow Jones was sent at 2.41 p.m. Friday, 6 May, 2005. Since then I have sent another two emails to your corporate communication representatives but have generated just one auto reply and no responses.
Later I contacted the WSJ where the news desk journalists told me that they couldn't make any comment. I phoned the desk and mobile phones of another 3 of your corporate representatives but none returned my calls. I eventually spoke to your corporate communications man in Hong Kong who was very helpful but couldn't answer my question and referred my query to New York.
When we still had no response I tried your Corporate Communications Vice President Amy Wolfcale again and was finally lucky enough to catch her on her cell phone. She told me she was very busy but that she would try to get me a response. I never heard from her or Dow Jones again.
Given the unresponsiveness of Dow Jones we reported the facts that were clear.
"Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website--it's a blog published by a sister site."
We don't see any error for Media Watch there, but as you concede The Australian got it wrong.
Where we were wrong was in our report of Arthur Chrenkoff's relationship with OpinionJournal.com. We said that Arthur was not paid and that his blog (Arthur's own description) was published without editing.
That information came directly from Dr. Chrenkoff. I spoke at length to him before this story. Naturally I contacted him after your latest column to clarify why he had given us false information.
Arthur has apologized for misleading us and given me permission to provide this quote from our conversation:
Media Watch: Do they pay you?
Arthur Chrenkoff: They do actually--a pretty insignificant amount--I started doing it for free but they suggested they might pay me a rather a nominal amount. It's certainly not in line with what is paid for opinion pieces. . . . I do apologize, with hindsight I should have told you the truth. As I said I was a bit taken aback. I didn't see how it was relevant to the story but having said that I do apologize.
MW: What about editing. Do they edit your pieces?
AC: I told you they didn't edit it because to my mind editing means to make substantial changes, but they do have a look at it before they publish it.
The false information that Dr. Chrenkoff provided was not significant, but we apologize for those small errors. We'll put a correction on our website.
We stand by our argument that The Australian's columnist Janet Albrechtsen misrepresented the nature and source of "Good News from Iraq."
We checked with Chrenkoff, who confirms the substance of the conversation that McEvoy quotes. He has apologized to us for his lapse in judgment in giving a false answer to what he felt was an invasive question. Let this be a lesson to anyone who is ever interviewed by a reporter: You are under no obligation at all to answer any question, but if you decide to answer a question, do so truthfully.
So "Media Watch" made two honest errors in its report--one the result of bad information from a source, the other of a misunderstanding about the meaning of the term "editing." We'd be inclined to view this as entirely forgivable--except that these errors came in the course of a piece devoted to smearing Janet Albrechtsen over an honest, and very small, error.
Here, again, is what Albrechtsen wrote:
[Terrorists] must detest The Wall Street Journal. Each fortnight the paper's website (www.wsj.com) includes a round-up of good news from Iraq. It makes for refreshing reading, if only to even up the Iraq ledger.
This is entirely true, except that Albrechtsen misidentifies which Wall Street Journal Web site carries the roundup in question. This makes it a bit harder to find (clearly it flummoxed the "Media Watch" folks), but it is not substantially inaccurate. OpinionJournal.com is part of what we call the WSJ.com network, and the OpinionJournal logo (which appears atop this page, unless you're reading this in text-only e-mail format) includes a prominent WSJ.com in a blue circle.
Again, we would have been happy to explain this had McEvoy contacted us in advance. We're sorry if our corporate colleagues failed to return his calls, but an enterprising reporter might have thought to ask Chrenkoff for a referral to his contact at the Journal.
Instead, "Media Watch" jumped to the erroneous conclusion that "Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website." Since the goal was to make another journalist's honest mistake look like a deliberate misrepresentation, one cannot credit "Media Watch" with acting in good faith.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ed Lasky, Rich Pedersen, Steve Prestegard, C.E. Dobkin, Shelley Taylor, Mike Billok, Marc Rosaaen, Debbie Eaton, Jason Revzon, Cory Friedman, Greg Askins, Chuck Opramolla, William McCarthy and Nick Olson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
The WSJ Nails it, courtesy of Jim M on FI, famousidiot.com
LINK: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110006680
TEXT:
BY JAMES TARANTOThursday, May 12, 2005 10:38 a.m.
Scenes From the Class Struggle
The other day, Slate's Timothy Noah pondered the question of why "working class" voters don't favor the Democrats. Noah opens with a quote from Thomas Frank's 2004 book, "What's the Matter With Kansas?," then comments (emphasis his):
The working class's refusal to synchronize its politics with its economic interests is one of the enduring puzzles of the present age. Between 1989 and 1997, middle-income families (defined in this instance as the middle 20 percent) saw their share of the nation's wealth fall from 4.8 percent to 4.4 percent. Yet Al Gore lost the white working class by a margin of 17 percentage points, and John Kerry lost it by a margin of 23 percentage points. As the GOP drifts further to the right, and becomes more starkly the party of the wealthy, it is gaining support among the working class.
I have never seen a wholly satisfactory explanation for this trend, which now spans two generations. It's the decline of unions, says Thomas Frank. It's values, says Tom Edsall. It's testosterone, says Arlie Russell Hochschild. Each of these explanations seems plausible up to a point, but even when taken together, their magnitude doesn't seem big enough. Republicans, of course, will argue that it's simply the working man's understanding that the GOP has the better argument, i.e., that the best way to help the working class is to shower the rich with tax breaks. But the Bush administration has been showering the rich with tax breaks for more than four years, and the working class has nothing to show for it.
Let's consider another possibility, then: The working class, or at least a large segment of same, suffers from a psychological disorder.
Noah then considers the hypothesis of a silly 2003 study (which we mocked at the time) claiming that "conservatives"--defined to include Hitler, Mussolini and Reagan--are nuts. Even Noah ends up rejecting this claim, making the whole column a typically pointless digression.
What we wonder is: How come it never occurs to liberals or Democrats that the very terms in which they phrase the question are part of their problem? These, after all, are people who are obsessed with politically correct terminology, from "African-American" to "fetus." Yet somehow it never dawns on them that "working class" is an insult.
Think about it: Would you call a janitor, a secretary or a carpenter "working class" to his face? The term connotes putting someone in his place: Your lot in life is to work. Thinking is for the higher classes. The questions the Democrats ask about the "working class" reflect precisely this contempt: What's the matter with these people? Why don't they understand that we know what's good for them? Why do they worry about silly things like abortion and homosexuality? If they must believe in all that religious mumbo-jumbo, can't they keep it to themselves?
Every time the Democrats lose an election, they make a big show of asking questions like these. Then, the next time they lose an election, they once again wonder why the "working class" has forsaken them. Maybe it's as simple as: because they were listening.
Zapatero Rejects 'Global Test'"If it comes to choosing between pleasing President Bush or the Spanish public, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Wednesday that he--unlike the conservative opposition Popular Party--would opt for the latter," reports the Associated Press:
"Between pleasing Bush and doing what Spanish people want, I will go for what Spaniards want, and you (the Popular Party) are, naturally, within your rights to decide to please the U.S. president," Zapatero said.
Zapatero last year endorsed John Kerry*, then told Kerry to drop dead when Kerry urged him not to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. But in a way, his comment is reminiscent of President Bush's in the first presidential debate, when Kerry memorably said America should be subject to a "global test" before defending itself:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, "passes the global test," you take preemptive action if you pass a global test. My attitude is you take preemptive action in order to protect the American people, that you act in order to make this country secure.
Zapatero's comment makes one thing clear: All countries act in what they perceive to be their interests. If you're an American, aren't you glad to have a president who does that too?
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way has met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, "You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy," things like that.
Running From OfficeOur Peggy Noonan, writing on yesterday's evacuation from the Capitol because of an aviation scare, quotes an unnamed Senate staffer: "I was wearing open-toed, two-inch heels. Is this the official end of high heels in Washington? I think it might be, yeah." The Washington Post reports that "House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was literally lifted out of her pinkish high heels by Capitol Police in a hallway outside the House chamber."
Maybe John Kerry** was on to something with those flip-flops.
** Fop cit.
Two Schools for the Price of OneYesterday's item on Tampa, Fla.'s Hillsborough High School--which got a "D" from the state but was rated the country's 10th best school by Newsweek--prompted several readers to write us with an explanation. Here's Skip Simpson:
As a former resident of Tampa and a graduate of a "blue ribbon" private school in the area I can tell you that the reason Hillsborough High is listed as the 10th best school in the country is because of their International Baccalaureate (IB) program. This IB program took many promising students from my private school after eighth grade by offering a similarly excellent education free.
In the IB program students are sheltered from the rest of the student population so that they may focus on their studies without being distracted by the dropouts and poor students that led the school to get a "D" in the first place.
It also turns out there's an explanation for why New York City's elite high schools didn't turn up in the list, given in an online Q&A with the authors:
New York, NY: Unless I missed them, I didn't see 1 NYC public school on the top 1,000 list. How could that be possible?
Barbara Kantrowitz and Jay Mathews: We are looking for schools that challenge average students as well as the most gifted and therefore we exclude schools that have strict academic admissions criteria. Some of the best and most famous high schools in New York City use a entrance exam for all students and therefore don't qualify for our list. That would include schools like Stuyvesant, Bronx Science or Hunter College High School--all of which would likely be at the top of our list if we did include them. There are other wonderful public high schools in New York; we mentioned a few of them in our story.
So it turns out these are the best 1,000 (actually 1,042) mediocre high schools in the country.
Rose à la PêchePhoenix's KFYI radio reproduces a map that apparently comes from the Arizona Republic and is headlined "Today's News Briefing." It features summaries of various news stories, with lines pointing from the boxes to the places on the map where the news happened. One of the stories is headlined "Bush Supports Georgia's Democracy." The dateline is Tblisi, but the pointer ends up somewhere near Atlanta.
Oh well, it's been almost a quarter century since Georgians voted for Jimmy Carter. We suppose it's time to let bygones be bygones and welcome them back into the community of democratic states.
He Was Expecting a Picnic?"Spokane Mayor Complains of 'Brutal Outing' "--headline, Associated Press, May 12
What Would Kids Do Without Experts?"Being Safe Can Keep Kids From Being Run Over, Expert Says"--headline, Internet Broadcasting Systems, May 11
'I Now Pronounce You Suit and Gown'"GOP Chair's Suit: I Was Married Five Times, Not Six"--headline, FoxNews.com, May 11
The Watchers of the Watchers Watch BackOn Tuesday we noted that the Australian Broadcast Corp.'s "Media Watch" program had aired a nasty item on Janet Albrechtsen, a columnist for the Australian, concerning her favorable mention of Arthur Chrenkoff's "good news from Iraq" series on this Web site. Our item prompted a lengthy e-mail from Peter McEvoy, executive producer of "Media Watch," which in the interest in fairness we print in full:
Your column "Watching the Watchers" has been brought to our attention and I'd like to clarify and correct several points.
As I've made clear elsewhere we have no problem with Arthur's Good News blogs in themselves. There is certainly no misrepresentation of them on OpinionJournal.com. It is clear on your site that they are what they are--a cull of media reports and media releases highlighting the good news from Iraq prepared by an Australian blogger.
If you check the transcript of our program you will see that we did not state as you assert that OpinionJournal.com is not published by The Wall Street Journal.
We did attempt on many occasions to clarify the precise relationship between the WSJ and OpinionJournal.com but our phone calls and emails have still not generated an answer from Dow Jones.
My first email to Dow Jones was sent at 2.41 p.m. Friday, 6 May, 2005. Since then I have sent another two emails to your corporate communication representatives but have generated just one auto reply and no responses.
Later I contacted the WSJ where the news desk journalists told me that they couldn't make any comment. I phoned the desk and mobile phones of another 3 of your corporate representatives but none returned my calls. I eventually spoke to your corporate communications man in Hong Kong who was very helpful but couldn't answer my question and referred my query to New York.
When we still had no response I tried your Corporate Communications Vice President Amy Wolfcale again and was finally lucky enough to catch her on her cell phone. She told me she was very busy but that she would try to get me a response. I never heard from her or Dow Jones again.
Given the unresponsiveness of Dow Jones we reported the facts that were clear.
"Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website--it's a blog published by a sister site."
We don't see any error for Media Watch there, but as you concede The Australian got it wrong.
Where we were wrong was in our report of Arthur Chrenkoff's relationship with OpinionJournal.com. We said that Arthur was not paid and that his blog (Arthur's own description) was published without editing.
That information came directly from Dr. Chrenkoff. I spoke at length to him before this story. Naturally I contacted him after your latest column to clarify why he had given us false information.
Arthur has apologized for misleading us and given me permission to provide this quote from our conversation:
Media Watch: Do they pay you?
Arthur Chrenkoff: They do actually--a pretty insignificant amount--I started doing it for free but they suggested they might pay me a rather a nominal amount. It's certainly not in line with what is paid for opinion pieces. . . . I do apologize, with hindsight I should have told you the truth. As I said I was a bit taken aback. I didn't see how it was relevant to the story but having said that I do apologize.
MW: What about editing. Do they edit your pieces?
AC: I told you they didn't edit it because to my mind editing means to make substantial changes, but they do have a look at it before they publish it.
The false information that Dr. Chrenkoff provided was not significant, but we apologize for those small errors. We'll put a correction on our website.
We stand by our argument that The Australian's columnist Janet Albrechtsen misrepresented the nature and source of "Good News from Iraq."
We checked with Chrenkoff, who confirms the substance of the conversation that McEvoy quotes. He has apologized to us for his lapse in judgment in giving a false answer to what he felt was an invasive question. Let this be a lesson to anyone who is ever interviewed by a reporter: You are under no obligation at all to answer any question, but if you decide to answer a question, do so truthfully.
So "Media Watch" made two honest errors in its report--one the result of bad information from a source, the other of a misunderstanding about the meaning of the term "editing." We'd be inclined to view this as entirely forgivable--except that these errors came in the course of a piece devoted to smearing Janet Albrechtsen over an honest, and very small, error.
Here, again, is what Albrechtsen wrote:
[Terrorists] must detest The Wall Street Journal. Each fortnight the paper's website (www.wsj.com) includes a round-up of good news from Iraq. It makes for refreshing reading, if only to even up the Iraq ledger.
This is entirely true, except that Albrechtsen misidentifies which Wall Street Journal Web site carries the roundup in question. This makes it a bit harder to find (clearly it flummoxed the "Media Watch" folks), but it is not substantially inaccurate. OpinionJournal.com is part of what we call the WSJ.com network, and the OpinionJournal logo (which appears atop this page, unless you're reading this in text-only e-mail format) includes a prominent WSJ.com in a blue circle.
Again, we would have been happy to explain this had McEvoy contacted us in advance. We're sorry if our corporate colleagues failed to return his calls, but an enterprising reporter might have thought to ask Chrenkoff for a referral to his contact at the Journal.
Instead, "Media Watch" jumped to the erroneous conclusion that "Good News from Iraq is not published on the highly respected Wall Street Journal website." Since the goal was to make another journalist's honest mistake look like a deliberate misrepresentation, one cannot credit "Media Watch" with acting in good faith.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Ed Lasky, Rich Pedersen, Steve Prestegard, C.E. Dobkin, Shelley Taylor, Mike Billok, Marc Rosaaen, Debbie Eaton, Jason Revzon, Cory Friedman, Greg Askins, Chuck Opramolla, William McCarthy and Nick Olson. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
posted by NDwalters @ 9:07 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home