The Strategic Triangle Redux
by Jacob Stefanik, Opinions Editor on September 30, 2009 in Opinion
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving there is no need to do so,” John Kenneth Galbraith quipped, “almost everyone gets busy on the proof.” For anyone enrolled in a class with more than 50 students, the trading room floor that was the initial attempt to return student papers was poignantly entertaining.
Leaving aside the enlightened decision to make HKS a “mailbox free zone”, countless students and several faculty members asked why I did not include other issues in the litany of recent management decisions in my previous editorial. Complaints ranged from the trivial – increase in salad bar prices, to the more serious – dysfunctional academic organization, reduced computer lab hours, and cuts to shuttle services at a time of increasing concerns over campus safety.
Instead of waxing on over student and faculty discontents, I thought it would be best to instead use this space to print the response from Dean Ellwood and the administration, outlining what steps they are taking to address these concerns. It is as follows:
• Blank
• Blank
• Blank
Thus, we can only conclude that the status quo must be pareto optimal. It would also appear that traveling on the high road lined with management platitudes such as support (“I feel student support is central”), operational capabilities (“We know that students enjoy the use of Town Hall, but in actuality the space is not used efficiently”) and value (“In general, the changes we have been able to make…have on net created real improvements”) absolves one from the need to step out from behind the triangle.
A Post-Partisan President?
by Zachary Kushel, Opinions Asst. Editor on September 30, 2009 in Opinion
Nothing has become more ubiquitous in American politics than pundits making baseless predictions about the future. Democratic ‘experts’ determined that the Clinton machine would simply be too much for Barack Obama to overcome. Just over six months before John McCain all but clinched his party’s nomination for president, ‘expert’ Charlie Cook proclaimed that, “…McCain’s campaign is over.” In 2005, ‘expert’ Dick Morris published an entire book entitled, “Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.”
After November’s election, pundits fell in love with a new fallacy: the election of Barack Obama represented a shift toward a post-partisan America exemplified by his ability to garner support from scores of Independents and Republicans. Commentators contrasted his campaign rhetoric with the divisive last eight years and lauded his Inaugural Address in which he called for “…an end to the petty grievances and false promises…that for far too long have strangled our politics.”
Such assertions were laughable. What does it even mean to be post-partisan? Given his position as the leader of the Democratic Party, it was not logically possible for Obama to be post-partisan when, by definition, he was a partisan. He was elected as a Democrat, would continue to lead the Democrats, and would therefore govern as a Democrat.
This point was codified just two days after his election with the appointment of Rahm Emanuel to serve as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel – a feisty, partisan, and effective operative from the Clinton years and respected congressman and Democratic strategist during his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives – was a great pick to help the president push his ambitious agenda through the tricky corridors of Capitol Hill. But post-partisan it was not. With a fresh mandate from the American people, President Obama had the ability to select a deputy who would not draw the ire of Republicans. Instead, he chose someone who could ease relations with fellow Democrats, choosing partisan efficiency over bipartisan symbolism.
His first big legislative push, the stimulus bill, was an opportunity to pass legislation without regard to party politics. The handling of this issue would set the tone for his presidency. Yet, to avoid conflict with members of the Democratic caucus, the President deferred to the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader, allowing party leaders in Congress to write the bill.
As could be expected, the bill did not win Republican support. While both parties recognized the need to pass a stimulus package, the Democratic-written bill contained a large amount of pork for narrow interests of specific members of Congress. A bill stripped of this pork could have won Republican support, but Obama’s desire to avoid antagonizing members of his own party caused him to sign a bill that could have been vastly improved.
Defenders of the President argue that Republicans are obstructionist and are seeking to derail Obama’s agenda for purely political reasons. While this may hold true for a select few members of the party, the vast majority of Republicans take their duty seriously and seek to advocate on behalf of their constituents each and every day. It is not helpful to the debate to impute the motives of the opposition.
The only way to have true post-partisanship in Washington would be to elect an Independent candidate for President, one not beholden to the interests and pressures of either party. Such a scenario could provide the ultimate test of this country’s ingrained two-party system. But would a president without a party be able to govern?
Students of history could cite the difficult terms of Presidents John Tyler and Andrew Johnson, who both struggled to accomplish their goals due to their ambiguous party status. Perhaps, nearly 150 years later, it is time to give it another shot. What could an engaging, charismatic leader such as Barack Obama accomplish as president if he did not have the shackles of the Democratic Party hampering his every move? What could he be advocating if he did not have to worry about earning his party’s nomination again in 2012?
To the President, I would offer this advice: resign from the Democratic Party. Only then will you be able to live up to the rhetoric of your campaign and act as the president of all of the American people, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. Then, we can fairly judge you on your promise to unite this country and put the politics of old behind.
If you are not willing to do that, then please bring your rhetoric in line with your governance. Acknowledge who got you here and that yes you, like those before you, do what is necessary to accomplish your goals in the partisan political environment that is Washington. Begin to push through your legislative agenda using force, if necessary. Elections have consequences, and it is about time you started using your mandate.
Obama’s Afghanistan dilemma: Who to fight?
by Anirudh Suri, Opinions Asst. Editor on September 30, 2009 in Opinion
In a recent confidential report obtained by The Washington Post, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, General McChrystal, has bluntly warned that the U.S. faces imminent failure in the war in Afghanistan if more forces are not deployed within the next year. The report has reinforced the need for the Obama administration to step back and reflect on the goals and objectives of the U.S. in the region before it outlines the strategy that would best position the U.S. for success.
It is unclear what President Obama will decide to do next, who he will choose to fight – the Taliban, Al Qaeda, the corrupt Afghan government, or some combination thereof. However, it is clear that the increasingly deteriorating situation in Afghanistan requires a revised strategy. McChrystal has made this clear, arguing that without a change in strategy, more troops are unlikely to lead to success. Obama seems to understand this when he says, “I don’t want to put the resource question before the strategy question.”
So what are the strategic options that Obama is likely to be weighing? First, as McChrystal has recommended in unambiguous terms, the U.S. could adopt a full counterinsurgency strategy where the goal is to root out the insurgency and secure the safety of all Afghanis. The resurgence of the Taliban has ramped up fighting in recent months, with July and August witnessing record number of U.S. troop casualties. McChrystal believes that success against a resurgent Taliban, especially in light of a corrupt and inefficient Afghan government, requires a comprehensive counterinsurgency campaign, which in turn requires more troops.
Leading Democratic lawmakers have, however, expressed concern about committing more troops to what many are terming a war with bleak prospects for success. Senator Carl Levin, for example, has argued that the Afghan forces should be bolstered first, before we contemplate sending more forces. In a similar vein, Obama has emphasized, in a thinly veiled critique of the Karzai government, the need for the Afghans to first demonstrate a commitment to build their own capacity to secure their country.
An alternative option would be to focus U.S. efforts on rooting out Al Qaeda in the region. Under this plan, U.S. presence in Afghanistan would be scaled back significantly, concentrating on strikes against Al Qaeda cells instead of rooting out the Taliban or assuming the mantle of the security of the Afghani population. Obama’s recent statements seem to suggest that he favors this option of refocusing on the original goal, which was to target Al Qaeda. “To the extent that our strategy in Afghanistan is serving that goal, then we’re on the right track,” he stated. “If it starts drifting away from that goal, then we may have a problem.”
This option would not require any additional troops, but focusing on Al Qaeda might not only be hard to achieve operationally, it might also irreparably endanger broader U.S. interests in the region. The distinction between Al Qaeda and its supporters on one hand, and the Taliban insurgency and its supporters on the other, is likely to be difficult to make. Furthermore, the Taliban would tout such a strategic shift as a victory. It would embolden them, also bolstering their efforts to destabilize the government in Pakistan.
As it struggles with the different options on the table, I believe the key decision that the Obama administration really needs to make relates to its objectives in Afghanistan. In other words, what led us to intervene in Afghanistan in the first place—was the original mission of the U.S. simply to target Al Qaeda or was it to root out the terrorist infrastructure in Afghanistan that had led to the attacks of September 11, 2001?
If the Obama administration and U.S. policymakers believe the answer to the latter question is yes, it might be foolhardy to narrow the focus of the war. A crucial aspect of this goal would be improving security and governance in key population centers in Afghanistan that would prevent anti-U.S. elements from using the country as a safe haven yet again. If, however, the understanding in the Obama administration is that only Al Qaeda possesses the capability to harm U.S. interests and threaten the safety of its citizens, then the option of zeroing in on Al Qaeda and its associates might very well suffice.
Focusing on Al Qaeda and not the broader insurgency is inherently risky and short-sighted. A resurgent and powerful Taliban will not serve U.S. interests in any imaginable scenario. In fact, a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy is likely to not only contribute to defeating Al Qaeda but also best position the U.S. to achieve its ultimate end goal: a safe and secure United States of America.
The Republican Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Scott Darnell, MPP'10 on September 30, 2009 in Dems v. Reps
We are living in a moment of great consequence with regard to U.S. foreign policy in Afghanistan. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has said the situation is “serious” and “deteriorating.” U.S. commanders have just told Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, that they do not have sufficient troop levels to combat Taliban and other insurgents who are becoming more sophisticated in their attacks and whose growing intensity challenges the legitimacy of Afghanistan’s national government.
Currently, the U.S. is attempting to quell an insurgency with one-third or fewer total military forces and half the number of security and police trainers than were needed to dispel the insurgency in Iraq. All of this is taking place in a country that is not only more populous than Iraq but which also maintains dangerous hideouts along its rugged border with Pakistan.
Rightly or wrongly, what Afghanistan looks like in 20 years will depend largely on the decisions President Obama makes in the weeks ahead. A future of continued tyranny and fear for the Afghan people, as well as increased instability in South Asia, are not impossible outcomes. The longer the U.S. waits to increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, the harder it will be for the country to be fully secure.
As Obama correctly noted when running for the presidency, “…the security of Afghanistan and America is shared.” He called the Afghanistan/Pakistan border the “wild frontier of our globalized world,” later remarking, “We cannot fail to act because action is hard.” Obama’s rhetoric about the importance of the war in Afghanistan must be quickly matched – not by politically palatable mini-surges or tactic shifts – but by a significant surge in forces (perhaps as many as 40,000 additional U.S. troops) that will display his clear and decisive commitment to ending the violent insurgency. This will serve as the necessary first step in achieving peace and progress in Afghanistan.
To this point, Obama has spoken words of support for a war that he hasn’t convinced the American people is winnable. He has lacked clarity in defining what ought to be America’s end goals in Afghanistan, namely to enhance U.S. security by gaining a democratic ally in a region that has become a hotbed of conflict, and to provide the approximately 28 million people of Afghanistan a chance to experience freedom, prosperity, and social progress.
There are many aspects of the fight against the insurgents in Afghanistan that differ from what the U.S. faced in Iraq prior to President Bush increasing troop levels there. That being said, as Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution astutely notes, “Basic principles of counterinsurgency and stabilization do have a general applicability across missions. The size of security forces always matters.”
It’s also becoming clear that an insurgency grows when the U.S. is distracted by other matters, and democratic, social, and economic progress is hindered until a violent insurgency is reigned in. We’ve found this to be true in Iraq, and this currently characterizes Afghanistan. A surge in armed forces would disrupt the confidence of the Taliban and allow for increased efforts to train Afghan security and police forces. A concerted effort to bolster local governmental authorities and work to legitimatize the national government could then be undertaken to achieve greater democratic stability.
Obama is in the political fight of his life over an ambitious and controversial domestic agenda that involves the U.S. government taking over aspects of the financial sector, auto industry, and healthcare system. Undoubtedly, he’d prefer not to face the potential political fallout of sending additional troops to Afghanistan. But he must understand that, so long as he believes the mission to be worthy and winnable, Americans will likely give his new strategy an opportunity to succeed.
From a political standpoint, Obama deserves no sympathy. If President Bush could successfully surge U.S. forces in Iraq two months after his party was trounced and thrown out of power in midterm elections while his approval ratings languished at 30 percent, then President Obama can surely survive any political fallout that might come from his ordering a significant surge of forces to Afghanistan.
Our strength can break the confidence of the insurgency; our reticence only bolsters it daily. The decision is on the president’s desk. For our soldiers in harm’s way and for the Afghan people who seek a brighter future, it’s time now to honor our commitment and send additional forces to Afghanistan.
The Democratic Caucus at Harvard Kennedy School
by Mary Smith on September 30, 2009 in Dems v. Reps
Afghanistan has reached a critical point. After holding a joke of a presidential election last month, Afghanistan is under immense pressures both internally and externally. Internally, the Taliban has made major inroads with the people in various regions of the nation. For complex religious, cultural, and economic reasons, some Afghans are turning to the Taliban. Economically, the Taliban’s presence as a controlling force behind the opium drug trade leaves local farmers, who harvest the drug as a cash crop, little incentive to buck the Taliban influence. With the resurgence of the Taliban, the country, the region, and the rest of the world are put in danger.
The United States’ position among the people of Afghanistan has also dropped precipitously. Less than a third of Afghans now view the U.S. favorably, down from nearly 70 percent in 2005. This drop is not surprising given that the U.S. and other allied forces prop up the corrupt and unstable Afghan government. U.S. forces have been in the country for eight years, and what has their presence brought the people of Afghanistan other than a crooked president elected through a foreign system?
We are currently reaping the oats that George W. Bush sowed. After September 11, 2001, the U.S. had strong international support for our objectives in Afghanistan. Bush squandered that initial unity in order to invade an unrelated country: Iraq. Bush divided our troops, our resources, and our attention. He allowed our objectives in Afghanistan to be lost in the shadow of his vendetta against Saddam Hussein. We now are left to clean up Bush’s mess.
Republicans’ solution to the cultural and military complexities of Afghanistan is to advocate for an immediate surge in the troop levels in the country. It is unclear that a larger military force will solve the issues that we see on the ground. Economic growth, infrastructure development, and eliminating corruption in the government are all goals that we have for Afghanistan, and a simple increase in the level of U.S. troops may not be the right answer.
Members of the diplomatic community have begun to speak out saying that more American troops may drive Afghans to align with the Taliban in opposition to the invading U.S. forces. It is disrespectful to the lives of our soldiers to increase the troop levels without a full evaluation of the options.
The Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, has requested more troops. But with this request, he also concedes that the U.S. needs a new strategy. General McChrystal understands that something more needs to be done; yet his response is to send more troops. President Obama has invited input from the military, intelligence, and diplomatic communities. He is taking his time to evaluate all options: military, diplomatic, developmental, etc. He. We should stand with President Obama on the decision that he makes.
As the Commander in Chief, President Obama is given the most complete view of the situation on the ground and how new and different approaches can change the outcome there. President Obama’s measured, studied approach to decision making should be respected. He is taking the input of military commanders seriously and will make a decision based on his full understanding of the situation and all potential options. He will not make a decision about the lives of American military members based on political pressures. The Republicans should not try to win political points with their hawkish base by pressuring President Obama into a hasty decision about the changing mission and strategy of the U.S. in Afghanistan.
Succeeding in Afghanistan is essential. A destabilized and divided Afghanistan further disrupts any semblance of order in Pakistan and allows the continued resurgence of the Taliban and warlords. We cannot allow the Taliban and their previous Al-Qaeda allies to reestablish themselves in this country. Afghanistan is the front line in the war on terror and should have remained the central focus of the U.S. after September 11th. For now, we must respect the intelligent and balanced approach that President Obama will take when reaching his ultimate conclusion about the proper troop levels for Afghanistan.
Left Faith, Right Faith; Health Care, Shmealth Care
by Jesse Lava, Opinions Columnist on September 30, 2009 in Heresies
A battle of biblical proportions has broken out over health care reform. And I’m not talking about the spat between President Obama and Joe “You Lie!” Wilson.
Two sets of religious activists are fighting to define the moral terms of the national health care debate. In one corner we have the religious right — an aging champ that’s not the dominant force it once was but hopes to grind out another victory. In the other corner we have an emerging crew of religious progressives — lean, hungry, and desperate to knock out the reigning champion. Each side has a story.
Let’s start with the right. Immediately after the 2008 election, the religious conservative movement was considered moribund. Sure, conservative leaders like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Falwell had spent three decades ingratiating themselves with the Republican Party and had come to wield enormous influence over the public discourse. Indeed, the movement’s PR offensive had been so effective that religion in politics became synonymous with conservative religion in politics. But by the end of 2008, the religious right had little to show for its efforts. Abortion was still legal, TV was sexier than ever, and in a few states, gays were starting to make lifelong, monogamous commitments to each other through marriage (gross!). Meanwhile, the Democrats had just expanded their majorities in Congress and a cosmopolitan liberal had won the presidency. With polls showing that young evangelicals were significantly more progressive than their traditionalist parents, hopes for the future of the religious right seemed dim.
But all was not lost. The movement has since identified a new source for resurrection: denying Americans health care.
That’s not how they think about it, of course. They want to keep America from turning into a hellish pit of socialism. (Perhaps they have access to a secret gospel in which Jesus quotes Milton Friedman approvingly.) They also want us to be very careful to protect life — though not, apparently, the estimated 45,000 lives that are lost every year due to a lack of health insurance. So in response to Democratic efforts to make health insurance affordable for everyone, right-wing Christian groups such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family have been successfully mobilizing their rank-and-file through webcasts, church assemblies, and e-mail campaigns. Reports suggest these organizations are enjoying a spike in donations and e-mail sign-ups. Good times.
And what of religious progressives? Faith communities have been a fount of social justice activism since the early days of the republic, with churches playing key roles in the movements for abolition, worker rights, and civil rights. After the 1960s, however, this strain of faith began to fade in power and prominence; in its place came the religious right. This shift reflected the rightward drift of American politics in the ‘70s and ‘80s. And the organized intensity of the conservative cause — fueled initially by court rulings on abortion and, less famously, racial integration in Christian universities — redefined the role of faith in politics. Religious progressives found themselves excised from the national conversation on public morality.
Over the last few years, however, the pendulum has begun to swing again. After the 2004 election — an election in which Democratic candidate John Kerry notoriously failed to convey a sense of values and President George W. Bush effectively organized evangelical voters — liberal religious groups that had been toiling in relative obscurity against war and tax cuts for the rich started receiving national attention. A slew of new groups started springing up, as well. And today, with a faith-friendly Democrat in the White House, the progressive faith community has a louder voice in Washington than it has had in decades.
Organizations like Sojourners, Faith in Public Life, PICO, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are now working to frame health care reform as a moral imperative. It’s a right, they say — one that’s reflected in the social teachings of every major faith. They watched in dismay as Obama lost the moral high ground in this debate over the summer and urged him to recast his argument pronto. When Obama addressed Congress earlier this month, he did not disappoint. He quoted the late Ted Kennedy in insisting that health care “concerns more than material things” and is “above all a moral issue. At stake are not just the details of policy, but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country.”
That, in essence, is what religious progressivism is about. And it is the polar opposite of what the religious right has stood for during the last three decades.
Two sets of rabble-rousing religionists; two visions of what defines a nation’s character. The winner remains to be seen.
Citizen Conversation With… Dan Okrent
by Matt Bieber, News Writer on September 30, 2009 in Citizen Conversation with..., Features
Photo taken by Taylor Chapman, MPP'11
Interview Conducted by Matt Bieber, MPP’11
Daniel Okrent is the Visiting Murrow Lecturer of the Practice of Press and Public Policy. Before his appointment as the first Public Editor of the New York Times in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal, he was editor-at-large at Time Inc.; editor of new media for all Time Inc. publications; and managing editor of Life magazine. Okrent was the first Hearst Foundation Fellow in New Media at the Columbia University School of Journalism, and was a Shorenstein Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School in 2006. His six books include Great Fortune: The Epic of Rockefeller Center, which was a finalist for the 2004 Pulitzer Prize in history, and Public Editor #1, an annotated collection of his Times columns. His forthcoming Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition will be published in 2010. [Biography courtesy of the Shorenstein Center]
Do news organizations have on obligation to ignore? To not to let the crazy fringes – the birthers, say – hijack meaningful public conversations? To keep debate at some level of reason and accuracy? To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan: “You are entitled to your opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” I might add that you’re entitled to your opinion, but you aren’t entitled to news coverage.
You used the word ‘ignore,’ and I think there are relative levels of ‘ignore.’ To ignore it entirely would be to deny a reality, which is that that there are a lot of people who believe that Obama was not born here. Whether they are right or wrong is, to a degree, irrelevant. If people are choosing not to vote for him or not to support his policies or not support what his government is trying to do because they have this notion, news organizations have to report that this is indeed so. To give credence to their position is a different matter. To say, “There are some who believe he was not born here” without adding, “Although all the evidence indicates otherwise,” or “They are wrong,” or, “This is a false assertion,” that’s a different matter. But I think ignoring it is more dangerous than giving it credibility.
You wrote a column in 2004 entitled, “It’s Good to be Objective. It’s Better to be Right.” In it, you lament the way that a fear of being labeled impartial leads many journalists to shy away from contradicting their subjects’ or sources’ claims, even when those claims are patently deceptive or inaccurate. I notice a parallel phenomenon in the way much of the media focuses on controversy - the emphasis is often on the fact of a controversy rather than an inquiry into which – if any – of the parties are in the right. How do you think about these issues, about the moments in which journalists come into an obligation to correct for inaccuracies?
We have a perpetual obligation to correct inaccuracies. If there is one thing that we can ask of journalists, it’s, “Get the facts right.” And whether that means, “How do you spell my last name?” or “Was Obama born in the United States?” the assertion of fact that is contrary to the impression left by partisans on one side is a necessary part of doing your job. But I get back to the point that liars are news. The misinformed are news. Hitler said that the Jews were an inferior race - does that mean we don’t cover Hitler? Pretty dangerous.
A Pew Research Center study published this week indicated that Americans now rate the accuracy of media coverage lower than at any point in nearly 25 years. Do you think the proliferation of partisan cable news shows, blogging, and other new forms of media have altered Americans’ overall view of media? And - perhaps given these changes - are Americans right to be more skeptical of media accuracy today?
We have greater access to the public square because of technological change, and greater access to the public square means more divergent voices. We are way past the era when all of America listened to Walter Cronkite at 6:30 every night. This is an America with thousands of different voices and thousands of different views, so of course that’s going to undermine the authority of what once was the established view. So I’m not surprised that the Pew study had that finding, even if it dismays me. I don’t think there’s been a material decline in the quality of news coming from the major news media. But there’s also the matter of what news media were they asking about?
The questions covered the major news networks, Fox, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, and CNN….Respondents’ assessments of news outlets’ trustworthiness broke down pretty cleanly on partisan lines….From that same study: “…only about a quarter (26%) now say that news organizations are careful that their reporting is not politically biased, compared with 60% who say news organizations are politically biased. And the percentages saying that news organizations are independent of powerful people and organizations (20%) or are willing to admit their mistakes (21%) now also match all-time lows.” There’s a fairly stark partisan division in the way Americans see news outlets - roughly speaking, Fox News and the WSJ on one side, and the rest of the networks, the NYT, and NPR on the other.
What’s really interesting to me about The Wall Street Journal particularly is, I don’t think there’s been a material decline. I think their stories are getting shorter, but there hasn’t been a material change in the partisanship of their news coverage. But people have an impression of the Journal and trust or mistrust its news because they like or dislike its editorial page — which tells us a lot about how people are coming to their conclusions. Which is to say that the same facts may appear in the Journal and in the Times, but if you’re on the right, you’re going to trust them more in the Journal because you make this association with the editorial page. There’s no justification for that, but we have lined up in partisan camps. Rupert Murdoch did a brilliant thing with Fox - by setting up on the right, that suggests that everything to the left of that is… the left. There is no center. If you start where everything is in the presumed center, and then you create something on the right, then the center becomes the left.
Would you suggest that no news organizations on the left have tried to deliberately position themselves in opposition to -
Well, no. Clearly MSNBC has done so. MSNBC saw a market opportunity. It wasn’t, I don’t think, that the people at MSNBC had this passionate belief that Keith Olbermann was the voice of god. No, they saw the success of the ranting on the right, and decided to try some ranting on the left. Which has been good for CNN - to have somebody positioned to the left of CNN suggests that CNN might be toward the middle — even though Fox has been trying to maintain since they were created that CNN is the left. There are absolutes, and there are relatives, and readers and viewers have come to believe that everything in the news media has become ideologically relative: is it to the right or to the left?
If I remember correctly, CNN had the highest overall favorability rating among respondents. But on the same topic, it’s worrying to me - and I’m wondering if it’s also worrying to you - that we don’t seem to have a media outlet that’s trusted relatively equally across partisan lines.
I think this is a terrible, terrible thing. And I think that those media who are in a position to do so have not responded to this. This is an expression of my own personal issue, with my beloved New York Times. If you have an op-ed page and an editorial page that is so consistently mainstream Democratic left, then that affects the perception of the whole newspaper, just as The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page affects the perception of The Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times newsrooms - really, they’re not that different, but we have these perceptions because of something that is extrinsic to the news reporting, namely the editorial policy. And, in fact, in both places…the editorial pages, and the people who manage them, have nothing to do with the news coverage.
You wrote about that in some of your columns when you were public editor, about how there’s this perception that the editorial board dictates the tone of news coverage.
Right, there’s a real wall. Now it’s true, and some of the critics when I wrote about it pointed out that the same Arthur Sulzberger who runs the newspaper and appoints Andrew Rosenthal to be the editorial page editor also appoints Bill Keller to be in charge of the news operation. So to say that they are from different planets isn’t fair - they have the same genealogy. But, you know, cousins and siblings sometimes don’t think the same way, and there is nothing to suggest that because Andrew Rosenthal and his colleagues at the editorial page think a certain way that Bill Keller and his colleagues think a certain way. Now there is, as I wrote - quite controversially - there is a general worldview that journalists have, and particularly journalists in New York have, and that’s an inescapable reality, very hard to get around. But I think they make an effort, just as the reporters at the Journal make an effort, to do work that has nothing to do with the editorial views of ownership or of the people who edit the editorial page.
I’m not quite sure how to phrase this, but I want to resist what you said just now a little bit. I can imagine that journalists from, say, the far right and from across the country would be more than happy to move to New York to take a job at the Times. In other words, it’s not as if there’s a shortage in -
Oh but there is a shortage of conservatives working in the news media — or, I should say, an imbalance between liberals and conservatives. The last survey I saw was on the ‘04 election - I don’t know what it was in ‘08 - but in ‘04 something like 75 percent of working journalists at daily newspapers voted for the Democrat. I mean, you can’t deny this. It’s a reality.
In recent years, the Times made what I took to be a pretty blatant effort to change the public perception about the paper, and about the editorial board in particular -
How?
By hiring, say, Bill Kristol a couple of years ago.
But Bill Safire had been there for 30 years. And so he leaves, and management thinks we have to hire somebody to replace Bill Safire. Now I’m not equating Safire with Kristol exactly, but in fact there’s long been a conservative spot on that page.
Almost like the Supreme Court.
Yeah, that there’s a view that the columnists can’t all be to the left . There are some who make an arguable case that they’re in the middle, but generally it’s a left-tilting page. There’s always been the presence of at least one, and sometimes two - depending on how Brooks feels that morning - conservatives on that page, as it is now. Kristol’s gone and now it’s Douthat. Now, why they picked Kristol specifically is a different issue altogether, but there was an acknowledgement, just as The Boston Globe chose Jacoby to hold down its right flank, they don’t want to be exclusively left on that page.
Do you think if there were fewer unsigned editorials by the editorial board - basically if the page were just a series of individual columns signed by individual authors - might the page seem more like a general marketplace of ideas rather than a place in which the paper speaks as a monolithic institution?
Well, it depends who the authors are. When I was at the Times - my term there ended four years ago - everybody on the editorial board was a Democrat. I asked Gail Collins, who was then the editorial page editor, “Why don’t you have a greater ideological variety and philosophical variety so you can have richer debate on the page?” And she said, “If I had a couple of conservatives on this page, they’d be unhappy all the time. They’d either have to write something that wasn’t their view, because we decide our view consensually, or they’d never get to write. So, what’s the point?” Now, Gail knows a lot better than I the dynamics of coming to an editorial position, but it would seem to me that, if for no other reason than to challenge the conventional thinking that may - and I stress the may - dominate the conversation on the editorial board, it’d be nice to have somebody else there who might say, “Well, here’s another point of view.” Now if your editorial page was like an op-ed and offered a wide range of opinion, that would be, to me, a much more satisfactory way to go. But it’s ingrained in the American tradition that there is an editorial voice that is the voice of ownership or the owner’s designee, that endorses candidates, that takes positions on legislation, that uses the one word which as a journalist just makes my skin crawl, which is ’should’: Congress should do this, the State Department should do this, Israelis and Palestinians should do this. It sounds like my mother telling me how to behave. I can’t argue that mine is a sensible position, but I’m a believer in facts and reporting and analysis that leads the reader to arrive at his or her own conclusions, rather than having the conclusions presented to them as if tablets from Mount Sinai.
A lot of ’should-ing’ goes on in individual op-eds as well; why is it meaningfully different in the case of a collectively produced, unsigned editorials?
Because if you have a wide variety and the individuals are saying ’should do this,’ ’should do that,’ then you’re going to have - I mean, I’m not crazy about their doing it either - but at least its gets a dialogue going. Editorials are not a conversation; editorials are pronouncements. Maybe that was really important in the era of a less informed public, but I think we’re pretty informed today. This is not to say that a lot of the analysis they do on editorial pages isn’t really fine analysis, but you know, keep it to the analysis, don’t tell me what to think. The one place where I do think the editorial pages of America do perform a function is in endorsements for down-ballot positions. How am I to know whom to vote for for civil court judge in Brooklyn? So, if I’m aware that The New York Times thinks the way I do [and] The New York Post does not, I’ll vote for the guy the Times tells me to vote for.
So back to the question about the fact that we don’t have a news outlet that’s relatively equally trusted across partisan lines. If we can’t agree on what the news is and what the facts are, it’s difficult to have a productive conversation about what to do in response. So what can we do about that problem?
I would turn to the people who run the news organizations of America and ask them to be absolutely assiduous about the way they present the news and avoid giving a logical opening to the inevitable criticism from the other side. If you have an editorial page and an op-ed page that seem to be working in behalf, or against, the Obama Administration, it’s going to color the way people view your news coverage. So I suppose one answer is, get rid of editorial pages, or have much more varied op-ed pages.
It sounds like you’re not committed to preserving op-ed pages at all.
Well, certainly not in the form they are now. If I owned the Times I would really have a balanced range of views in there. I would not have - you know, I listen to people say, “I love the Times, but that guy, that Douthat, he’s a conservative, and David Brooks is a right-winger - well, if you only want to read people who agree with you, read The Nation. If it’s to survive and flourish, the Times has to be an honest broker, and the perception left by that op-ed page and the adjoining editorial page is that it’s not.
But we’re not starting from a blank slate and creating wholly new perceptions. How to contest the fact that there’s already this deep-seated, widespread distrust?
You can only contest it with the work that you do. And so that means maybe changing the lineup of op-ed writers and also being really careful in the news pages….We see what we see because of the way we stand. If we’re facing east in the morning we see the sun rise, and if we’re not facing east the sun isn’t rising. So when you put together a news staff, you have to ask where do your people stand? Are you getting people who are, together, looking in all directions? Are we getting a really representative newsroom? When I was at the paper I criticized it pretty strongly for not having ideological diversity or religious diversity on the staff. The same reason we would want racial diversity , to provide different perspectives on the world, would suggest that we want the same thing religiously and ideologically and philosophically. And I was very roundly criticized by some people on the left about that, people who thought it was an outrage that I was suggesting that the Times hire more conservatives. Why is that an outrage? Why is it an outrage to get a more varied view of the world? We want a varied view if we’re going to be good citizens, if we’re going to have a functioning democracy. We must have a varied view.
Thank you.
Is that persuasive?
I think you and I probably disagree about the extent to which we’re capable of arriving at best answers and then describing them in a public forum. To my mind, at least with regard to some public questions, there are best answers, and in other cases there are best choices among unpalatable choices.
I don’t disagree with that.
Perhaps I misinterpreted, but it did sound a bit like you don’t want newspapers playing that role - of not only providing analysis but also coming to some recommendation about what to do as a result of their analysis.
I think if the analysis is good, then the recommendation is implicit, and you don’t need to come out and say ’should’. I disagree only…from a rhetorical point of view. I think that the language one uses to make one’s recommendation needn’t be prescriptive to make the same point. I think you’re more effective if you’re not prescriptive….Did you read the clean water series they did last week?
No.
Almost nobody did. [T]hat’s one of the problems with these big acts that go on for four pages. But it presented an inarguable description about how awful our water systems are and what needs to be done, but there wasn’t a ’should’ in it. If you just give the facts - obviously we all select our facts, and we can select one set or the other - you’re much more likely to be persuasive with those people who don’t trust you because you disagree with them on other issues. You tell me how you think on same-sex marriage and I’ll tell you how you think on many other issues — unless you’re Theodore Olson. This comes across in the way that people perceive our news media. ‘Well, I know they take this position and therefore, they’re over there and I’m over here. I don’t need to listen to them, I don’t trust them, I don’t trust their facts.’ They [the news media] undermine their own authority by declaring themselves.
I’m wondering whether - with the rise of what you called ‘the ranting right’ and ‘the ranting left’ - whether Americans turn to news organizations as much for facts as they do for opinions.
I worry about that. I think that has been one of the consequences of the fractionalization, and its particularly visible online and at the cable news networks. You know, my friends watch MSNBC to agree with Olbermann and Maddow. That’s not about facts.
It’s much more about partisan solidarity, finding a community of like-minded people.
I suppose here’s an argument you can make that, well, if I’m on the left and I read The Nation, my arguments will get stronger. And people on the right can probably say the same thing about National Review or about The Weekly Standard. But beyond that, it is affirmation and community that people are after when they’re watching cable news.
There’s something troubling and dangerous about the prevalence of media organizations that are now in business basically to make you feel more comfortable with your own opinions.
Yes — it’s terrible! One of the things that most upset me during the presidential campaign was that moment during the primaries when Fox was going to host a debate, and there was an outcry among Democrats, and the debate was cancelled. These Democrats might as well have said, “Let’s not try to persuade the people who disagree with us. Let’s only talk to our own people.” Here they had a chance to be watched by people who don’t vote Democratic - well, don’t you live for that opportunity, if you’re a politician? To change minds?
World-Class Jazz on Our Doorstep
by Michael Zakaras, News Asst. Editor on September 30, 2009 in Culture
This past weekend, pianist Ahmad Jamal, who is one of the few of his generation still alive and playing, came to Cambridge with his quartet and put on an electrifying show.
The venue was the Regattabar, which has developed a reputation as the best jazz club in Boston, and one of the best on the East coast, in part because it attracts performers like Jamal. Located literally next door to the Kennedy School, inside the Charles Hotel, it is certainly worth the trip if you like jazz at all.
What Regattabar lacks in charm – a hotel is a hotel – it makes up for with superb acoustics, a classy vibe, and a lively, diverse audience. We shared a table with two Berklee students, one of them a harp player, and behind us was a table of four women who’d ordered a bottle of chardonnay for their ladies’ night. The bar has a few good beers on tap, plenty of cocktails, and the wait staff is friendly. Read: it’s a perfect place to take a date.
Though I bought our tickets late – on Friday morning for Friday’s 10 p.m. show – we ended up at a table just off the stage where we could practically touch the drummer. The hour-and-a-half set included mostly up-tempo pieces with a Caribbean flare, fired by the expressive Puerto Rican percussionist Manolo Badrena who danced around from his congas to his cowbells. On more than one occasion, he began blowing through what looked like a duct-taped piece of vacuum cleaner hose that produced an elephant-like trumpeting sound.
Jamal brings his own flare too. He may be 79 years old, but he’s anything but boring. He’ll moan, groan, and shout out while he’s playing. Stand up, sit down, stand up. If he likes someone in his quartet’s solo, he’ll get up in the middle of a song, spin around, and clap.
Jamal was one of Miles Davis’ favorite pianists, and his virtuoso rhythm and style have influenced generations of jazz musicians. Part of what makes him so unique is his use of sudden and intense fluctuations in volume and tempo in the middle of a song – as if to catch you off guard. He’s also famous for his “vamps,” which are extended periods of improvisation set to a series of repeating chords. Vamps allow musicians to deeply explore melodies and sounds and bring their own interpretations to a tune with few limits.
Something that always grabs and thrills me about jazz is that you’re watching art – personal creativity – unfold in front of your eyes. Jazz musicians have no interest in playing a song the same way twice, so what you see is genuinely unique and a reflection of the group’s personalities and passions at that time.
It was a joy to hear and watch Jamal in person, one of the last remaining jazz legends from the 50s and 60s. I’m going to keep an eye on the Regattabar’s schedule of performers, and the next time something promising shows up, I’ll close my statistics book again and head for the sounds.
Restaurant Review: Dali Restaurant and Tapas Bar
by BrandonBarford on September 30, 2009 in Culture
Dali Restaurant and Tapas Bar, located in Somerville, aims to provide the diner with nothing less than a fully sensual experience. As soon as you walk through the heavy wooden doors, you feel like you are in a different sort of restaurant, one that is definitely straight out of the surreal but romance-filled hearts of its owners and staff.
The hand-made bar made of blue and white Spanish tiles has peppers, garlic, and ham hocks hanging from the ceiling. The lighting reflects off its copper ceiling to exude a golden and red glow throughout, letting you know the owners believe the restaurant should be used as a venue for a decadent combination of eating and romancing.
Dali often gets crowded, even on a week night, and it means that you may have to wait a while for a table. This is not the worst thing in the world—you may forced to sit and drink a pitcher of Sangria and immerse yourself more fully in the unique ambience. Tapas were generally priced under $10—most were around $7-$9. There are also five Platos Principales, but the Pescado a la Sal (Whole Fish baked in a salt crust, served tableside) looked well worth trying!
Three friends (including one vegetarian) ordered ten tapas, which along with the warm, dense bread and chick-pea spread, filled everyone up. Highlights definitely were the Croquetas de Bacalao (Cod Croquettes with Coriander Mayonnaise), Caldereta Genoveva (Braised Lamb with Almonds and Mint Essence) and the Setas al Ajillo (Sauteed Portobello Mushroom Caps). The Croquetas were “delectable”—nicely browned, but juicy on the inside, always a challenge when cooking with salted cod. The green Coriander Mayonnaise brightened up the plate and provided excellent accompanying flavor. The Genoveva-style lamb was four hunks that had been braised and sprinkled with slivered almonds and peas. The lamb was exceedingly tender and the mint essence was definitely tasted, letting you know the dish’s complexity. The Portobello’s were the vegetarian’s favorite, who felt that they “more than made up for” another dish, (the artichokes) and were enough to make the cuisine “memorable.”
The Tortilla Espanola was a classic egg and potato omelet, with onions and peppers in a pleasant balance. The Pulpo A’Feria (octopus) was nicely spiced and carefully avoided the rubbery texture that often ruins octopus dishes. The Ravioles de Mariscos (Lobster/Crabmeat Ravioli) were served steaming in a pink sauce flecked with parsley, allowing the tasty crab and lobster stuffing to come through. After these choices, the results were more mixed, but with over forty tapas and numerous weekly specials, I do not doubt that a stellar and consistent list can be found with patience and experimentation, along with some Sangria and wine.
The much anticipated Alcachofas Salteadas (sautéed artichoke hearts), were disappointing, soggy, and bland. The Butifarras con Brevas (pork sausage with figs) was a bit too gristly and overwhelmingly sweet. The Patas Bravas while cooked well enough were doused in a spicy mayo that seemed to take away from the dishes simple, usually successful character. Finally, the Escabeche, a warm and vinegary mixed seafood salad, was totally overwhelmed in salad greens.
Despite the mixed food reviews, my overall impression of Dali was entirely favorable as it was for the whole group. The decor and excellent service alone make it a unique restaurant, especially for how reasonably it is priced. Upon my next visit, the Pescado a la Sal (Fish in Salt Crust) and the Chipirones Rellenos (stuffed squid in its own ink) are a must. To close, I will leave readers with a quote overheard from a group of women at the bar upon leaving, which may help you to more fully understand all the talk of romance and sensuality. “I feel like if I would get a bit drunk here, I would be easier than usual.” No words to describe that, just try Dali to see what she meant.
Dali Restaurant is located at 415 Washington Street, Somerville (corner of Beacon and Washington Streets/Cambridge-Somerville line)
www.DaliRestaurant.com
Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
by Marilinda Garcia, Culture Columnist on September 30, 2009 in Culture, Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down
A Guide to Grumblings and Gratifications at HKS
Email submissions to: marilinda_garcia@hks10.harvard.edu. Contributors will remain anonymous.
Thumbs up:
To Eric Edwards in the IT department. Pretty much the nicest, least condescending and helpful person around. If he can’t fix your tech problems, no one can.
To Angie (HKS security) who let me into the RG 20 classroom after hours to retrieve a bag I absolutely needed but absolutely forgot.
To the foreign film selection in the HKS library. There are some really good ones - we just need more.
Thumbs down:
To the absolutely spastic air conditioning system HKS seems to have. Between that and the New England weather, on any given day I don’t know if I should wear a swimsuit or a snowsuit.
To the small plastic drinking cups near the cafeteria water cooler. Drinking from them gives me flashbacks to being in the dentist’s office.
To the gnarly odors wafting about HKS classrooms and Cambridge in general. I’m looking forward to winter for at least this: The cold kills bad odors and gross bugs.
