Two treatments of Michelle Bachman

I don't know much about Michelle Bachman other than what I've posted so far, and a hazy impression of her from a scattering of TV appearances. I've gathered that she is religious, outspoken, and has made inroads with some Tea Party folks. But I've also seen a lot of support for her from some conservative blogs, and a lot of "lookit the crazy!" reactions from the left. So I thought it would be instructive to compare two recent profiles of her from two different media sources: a Rolling Stone article by Matt Taibbi, and a Weekly Standard  article by Matt Continetti.

Both authors can be seen as having a sort of bias (Taibbi to the left, Continetti to the right) without, I would hope, too much consternation.

Having read both in succession, the thing that is most striking is the difference in tone between the two articles. Taibbi's article is frankly astonishing in just how viciously he treats Bachmann, her husband, and especially her supporters. One must read the article to get the full effect, but briefly, he refers to Bachmann as a "religious zealot," "the T2 skeleton," "ignorant," "batshit crazy," a "psychopath," and "six-faced." And that's all just on the first page. Taibbi calls Bachmann's husband, Marcus, "doltish," and implies that he is a repressive authoritarian of the Bill Henrickson type.

Taibbi's contempt for religion and those who subscribe to it is obvious, but plain ol' elitist condescension seems to be the motivating factor behind all the vitriol:

 She has brilliantly piloted a media system that is incapable of averting its eyes from a story, riding that attention to an easy conquest of an overeducated cultural elite from both parties that is far too full of itself to understand the price of its contemptuous laughter. All of those people out there aren't voting for Michele Bachmann. They're voting against us. And to them, it turns out, we suck enough to make anyone a contender.

In other words, it is the fault of the "media system" (whatever that means) that indulges the crazy Bachmann instead of righteously ignoring, or perhaps outright deriding her. This will lead to her fooling all the slope-headed fools in fly-over country into voting for her, because they don't know any better, and can't possibly agree with her. The media and these rubes can't be trusted. No, only the "overeducated" can see through her, and even then, it takes Taibbi, such a brave truth-teller, to bring the Truth to light!

What a pile of bullshit. There is little in modern American politics that I disdain more than the notion that Americans are too stupid to govern themselves, to vote in what they perceive to be their own interests, and thus what they're REALLY voting for is something else, something hidden. Voting for smaller government and less taxes is inconceivably stupid, because if you just vote for Democrats, the government will give you jobs, a place to live, food, a car, a cell phone, etc. etc. etc.  The Tea Party doesn't actually want smaller government and less taxes, they're crypto-racists looking for a socially acceptable way to vote against the black man. They can't be voting for Bachmann because she seems to stand for smaller government and less taxes, no, they're actually voting against the "overeducated elites!"

I could go on about the numerous other flaws in Taibbi's article, flaws that have nothing to do with Bachmann, but let's leave off by saying that I no longer trust assertions like...

She launched a fierce campaign against compact fluorescent lights, claiming that the energy-saving bulbs contain mercury and pose a "very real threat to children, disabled people, pets, senior citizens." She blasted the 2010 census as a government plot and told people not to comply because the U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to participate, when in fact it does. She told her constituents to be "armed and dangerous" in their resistance to cap-and-trade limits on climate-warming pollution. 

...unless there are links provided. I mean, shit, does mercury NOT pose a threat to people? And no, Matt Taibbi, the Constitution does NOT require citizens to participate in the census. The Constitution requires the federal government to conduct a census, but citizens are required to participate only via federal law. When Bachmann told her constituents to be "armed and dangerous" when talking about cap-and-trade, she wasn't referring to actually wielding guns, she was talking about being armed with facts. See? That's just one paragraph. I mean, Oral Roberts did NOT become Regent University. That's an even easier one. What else is Taibbi hiding with all that name-calling?

Anyway. Enough. Suffice to say that Taibbi's vitriol does little to help me get an unbiased picture of Bachmann's policy views, or to get me to believe she's too stupid to be president. That's not an endorsement, mind you. I'm just saying that I can't really trust that article to give me solid reasons to vote against her.

Continetti's article is kind of the polar opposite. It's so respectful that it's boring. It contains basically the same uncontroverted facts about her background (he gets her law degree correct, however), and even has a few more, such as her time in Israel, and her disillusionment at the failure of the Carter presidency. Continetti uses some nice adjectives ("Energetic, charismatic, intelligent, and attractive," he writes), but restrains from fawning praise that could dilute Taibbi's raving hatred. Continetti explains her popularity thus: "Her combativeness will delight conservatives eager to fight Barack Obama." With Obama's approval ratings at historic lows, this seems to me to be a somewhat stronger thesis than "let's pretend to want smaller government, but vote for Bachmann because we can tell she hates fags too!" Continetti glosses over her strange encounter with some lesbian protestors, which yeah, that's weird, and probably needs to be explored further. But unlike Taibbi, Continetti explores Bachmann's Tea Party credentials: she's openly challenged what many perceive to be the Obama administration's predilection for crony capitalism ("gangster government," she said), opposed health care reform, and opposed the stimulus plan. Like it or not, these are legitimate political positions that one can hold without being "batshit crazy" or "ignorant." 


We can end, for now, on a note of unity: both authors agree that Bachmann has only lost one election for public office in her career, and that her base of support makes her an extremely formidable candidate. 




UPDATE: And one more thing: The argument that the Tea Party folks are just racists in disguise is based on the notion that none of them objected to the increasing amounts of spending under Bush (a white president), so what other motivation could they possibly have to object to spending by a black president? But once again, those who fancy themselves as belonging to the "reality-based community" are ignorant of relevant history. Nobody seems to remember the PorkBusters movement, or how a guy named Tom Coburn was a hero to small government types before he apparently went all Anakin on them. 

Eliot Spitzer, moving the goalposts

Eliot Spitzer's piece on Slate is a near-perfect example of how Republican politics are misunderstood, at best, and flat-out lied about at worst. He's ostensibly writing about the recent debate among some Republicans who have either declared their candidacies, or are dipping a toe in the water, checking the electoral temperature. It's such a disappointing article, because while there is plenty of room to criticize Republican policy or the candidates themselves, this article simply moves the goalposts in an attempt to portray literally ANY nominee as "extreme."

The article is subheaded: "The Republican presidential debate revealed how alarmingly far right the mainstream GOP has shifted." His subtly-stated example of a centrist Republican is George W. Bush. The same Bush who, just a few scant years ago, was called Nazi, facist, Hitler, warmonger, worst president in history, the real mastermind behind 9/11, and any and every other slur and smear a fevered mind could think of. Now, Spitzer wants us to think Bush was a moderate, compassionate example of what GOP candidates should aspire to? It should be pretty obvious that the article is not a serious exploration of policy at this point, but let's look a few specific examples.

Read more...

On Social conservatives vs. Tea Party conservatives

The NY Times has a story about how social conservatives in Iowa could complicate an election strategy for Mormon candidates (or potential candidates) like Mitt Romney and John Hunstman (former governor of Utah, and recently stepped down from his position as Obama's ambassador to China), and for candidates who may be more popular with the Tea Party crowd. I'm not sure I'm buying it.

The Times frames the story as "evangelicals don't like Mormons, so Romney and Huntsman are skipping the upcoming straw polls." However, the story seems to undermine itself immediately by then listing several political positions that may have done just as much work in affecting the poll's outcome.

First, although Huntsman does indeed seem to be skipping the straw poll, he's not even an announced candidate yet, so I think it's lame to attribute this to some sort of anti-Mormon bias. Further, his statement says he's skipping because he's against ethanol subsidies, believes in global warming, and hasn't embraced the Tea Party movement. Considering this, the decision to skip Iowa makes perfect sense. If a guy is going to run for president, he's going to need an obscene amount of money. Donors don't want to waste money, so they're going to give it to a guy who they think can win. Those three positions do indeed put Huntsman at a disadvantage, and when you combine that with almost zero name recognition, you're writing a recipe for single-digit support, not an auspicious way to kick off a campaign (or the fund raising for one).

Second, the article goes on to list several political problems that Romney may have with Iowa voters, namely the fact that the health care plan for the state of Massachusetts that passed while he was governor has been cited as the model for the federal legislation (derisively, but handily known as "ObamaCare"). This paragraph of the story, in particular, immediately contradicts itself:

Mr. Romney’s decision, in particular, suggests that candidates who are viewed suspiciously by the state’s religious conservatives may stand little chance there. Mr. Romney, who was once a pro-choice governor and passed a health care plan that served as the inspiration for President Obama’s, has struggled in Iowa for years.

(Emphasis mine.) It seems to me that the Times is setting up to spin a poor Romney showing as based either in sectarian animosity, or on Tea Party opposition.

Next, the story holds out Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum out as candidates with Tea Party support. While Bachmann is certainly a Tea Party favorite, she is also known as a social conservative. Santorum is also a serious social conservative, not known for significant Tea Party support at all. Again, I suspect the Times is conveniently lumping social and Tea Party conservatives together so as to tar the two with the same brush.

What's my evidence for this? In the story, there is a link to a March 26 story, also from Iowa, where the Times asserts that social conservatives are flexing their muscles. The story distinguishes Bachmann and Santorum from Romney as candidates with social conservative followers. Somehow, in the intervening four months, they gone from social conservatives to Tea Party candidates?

But the real point, according to the story, is this:

Here in Iowa, whose caucuses next winter will open the campaign, social and religious conservatives are pressing the likely candidates on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion rather than on jobs, the budget deficit and other economic concerns that leaders of both parties expect to dominate the general election.

... 

 While social conservatives have long wielded a greater influence in Iowa than in many early-voting states, a bitter fight here over same-sex marriage and rivalries among some of the state’s conservative leaders have amplified the issues and might help define the message of Republican candidates in ways that could resonate nationally.

So, by conflating social conservative candidates with Tea Party candidates, and by defining Mormon candidates with serious political problems as victims of evangelical bigotry, the Times seems to be putting together a narrative where whoever emerges from Iowa's contest can be painted as hand-picked by evangelicals. This will "define the message" of the candidate, and will "resonate nationally" even though the election will be dominated by budgetary and economic issues.

Personally, I think the claims on anti-Mormonism amongst evangelicals are overstated. While tricky to prove, I don't think that if Romney loses in Iowa, or nationally, that this will be due to his religion. I think this election is about policy, and in particular, the size, scope, and proper role of the federal government. I think this is the motivation of the Tea Party folks, too, despite thinly-sourced accusations of racism, nativism, or anti-intellectualism.

For a variety of reasons which I hope to explain further as the campaign progresses, I don't support candidates because of religious affiliation, or because of antagonism to one denomination or to religion as a whole. I should hope it obvious that the pre-eminent issue facing the country right now is, broadly stated, the economy. Further, I think the role of the federal government in the economy is an issue  inextricably linked to "the economy." While there are certain to be plenty of distractions along the way, I hope that this is what we're all talking about for the next 17 months.