What do you think motivates people like Matt Yglesias and Steve Benen?
I just finished reading a happy little propaganda piece by Steven Benen on “Motivation.” His thesis is that the current disenchantment with Obama is misplaced. This always happens, he says:
Presidents take office with high hopes, governing proves difficult, the policymaking process gets bogged down, and supporters get discouraged and start to walk away. It can be pretty disheartening.
Poor president! Silly supporters! They just don’t understand that presidentin’ is hard work. Benen even hauls in Matt Yglesias for back-up; Matt’s been on a roll this week finding various people to blame for Obama’s failure to deliver (Mitch McConnell, Ben Nelson, the Founding Fathers).
Here’s my question for the group at large: how do you think pieces like this get written? Do Benen and Yglesias and the other water boys get the word from higher-ups (their publishers? their contacts in the Obama administration?) that it’s time to fluff the president? Do they think it up by themselves? Do they discuss it by email and synchronize their watches? Do they actually believe anything they’re saying?
I’m really curious. What do you think?
22 Responses to “What do you think motivates people like Matt Yglesias and Steve Benen?”
-
lanikai says:
A hundred monkeys?
December 13th, 2009 at 4:45 pm EST -
Becki Jayne says:
Ambition to be one of the Serious People requires denial. Truth-telling does not endear them to sources near to or within TPTB, and without these almighty sources, they can’t be Serious People.
I can imagine that Benen and Yglesias email each and compare notes, but the tie that binds them is ambition.
See Bob Somerby’s archives at The Daily Howler for his criticism of “career liberals” like Steve Benen and Matt Yglesias. They’re “play[ing] kiss kiss with powerful inside player[s].”
-
janicen says:
I think we can eliminate the , “…they thought it up by themselves…” option. I would go with the “…contacts in the administration…” theory. I think the press is lazy and will gladly report on a story that’s fed to them.
-
slythwolf says:
Is this dude actually arguing that we should never expect anyone to do their job with the competence they claimed to have when we hired them? Because that’s sure what it sounds like.
-
hm says:
Well, do they need a reason for rationalizing their fuck up? To see Obama as Obama they have to admit they made a big fucked up mistake. It was a big mistake more so because there was a viable alternative and they know that, especially for healthcare with Hillary at the helm. They will never say “Lord, we fucked up.”
-
Violet says:
Is this dude actually arguing that we should never expect anyone to do their job with the competence they claimed to have when we hired them?
I think it’s more than an argument about competence. Matt Taibbi’s piece is getting a lot of attention — not that other people haven’t been saying the same thing, but other people aren’t Taibbi writing for Rolling Stone. Anyway, Taibbi is fairly brutal: that Obama’s presidency is one of the greatest bait-and-switches in our history, that he’s betrayed almost everything he promised or seemed to promise.
The water boys like Yglesias and Benen seem to be trying very hard to shift the conversation. They don’t even entertain the possibility that Obama is a sellout/liar/corporate hack; instead, their argument seems to be that, gosh, he’s trying really hard to do lots of good progressive things, but it’s hard! Look at all these obstacles in his way!
-
Cyn says:
Gawd, Violet - it’s the xmas season. Don’t make me read that. I have all I can to to get through fake sentiments and real snow.
-
Ev says:
Hi, all–
I read Taibbi all the time, and a buncha folks on Wall Street got bent over his series that showed how speculation on Wall Street, greed, corruption, and no government oversight tanked the economy. He took a lot of heat for that, and lots of Wall Street denials (of course). I’m leaning toward Violet’s opinion, in which she notes that Yglesias and Benen are trying to shift the conversation away from what people like Taibbi are pushing–that is, the president has sold us out in more ways than one, and put Wall Street foxes in his cabinet. Does he seriously think that these guys are going to do good for the American people? They don’t give a rat’s ass about us. All they want is more money and to go quietly into the night so they can continue stealing. And sitting in Obama’s cabinet, they’re getting to do just that.
So what’s motivating them? They’re apologists and trying to do their own bait-and-switch. “Hey! Look over there! A flying cow! Wow, I’ll bet the president has a hard time trying to get that flying cow through Congress because of all the anti-flying cow people there…”
-
lambert strether says:
I don’t think access bloggers like Benen and Yglesias (or Ezra) need to get word from on high; rather, they’ve internalized the desires of those they look up to so effectively (”working toward the leader”) that the fluffing and the talking points emerge more or less spontaneously, providing the illusion of actual, democratic discourse. This is called being “savvy.” Of course, there are times when word comes down from from the East Wing, but then the ruthless message control shows right through, and the timing tends to be a lot tighter.
-
gxm17 says:
When you don’t allow dissent, you get an echo chamber. And from the (very) little I know about access blogging, that appears to be the case. I doubt these folks take orders as much as embrace “suggestions” handed to them by their insider connections. Won’t it be terrible if the left abandons Obama in 2012 and let’s the evil Republicans take office? When the truth of the matter is that “lefties” should never have embraced Obama in the first place. (And, honestly, if I were an insider I’d be more scared about losing the independent middle than the liberal left.)
I had to chuckle at the Yglesias piece claiming Taibbi “ignores congress” and then he turns right around and ignores Obama and “his Wall Street crony advisors.” It’s really rather funny if you’re not too queasy to laugh. (All that spinning in circles makes me sick to my stomach.)
-
JSF says:
Follow your Google links to “JounaList” started by Ezra Klein.
Groupthink at it’s best.
-
Adrienne in CA says:
Wiki says it’s spelled JournoList:
JournoList
In February 2007 Klein created a Google Groups forum called “JournoList” for discussing politics and the news media. The forum’s membership is controlled by Klein and has been limited to “several hundred left-leaning bloggers, political reporters, magazine writers, policy wonks and academics.” [17] Posts within JournoList can only be made and read by its members.[18] JournoList has been criticized for its secretive nature, lack of transparency, and media echo chamber implications. Klein defends the forum saying that it “[ensures] that folks feel safe giving off-the-cuff analysis and instant reactions.” JournoList member, and Time magazine columnist, Joe Klein adds that the off-the-record nature of the forum is necessary because “candor is essential and can only be guaranteed by keeping these conversations private.”The existence of JournoList was first publicly revealed in a July 27, 2007 blog post by blogger Mickey Kaus.[19] However, the forum did not attract serious attention until March 17, 2009 when an article was published on Politico that detailed the nature of the forum and the extent of its membership. The Politico article set off debate within the Blogosphere over the ethics of participating in JournoList and raised questions about its overall purpose. The first public excerpt of a discussion within JournoList was posted by Mickey Kaus on his blog on March 26, 2009.[20]
Members of JournoList include: Ezra Klein, Jeffrey Toobin, Eric Alterman, Paul Krugman, Joe Klein, Matthew Yglesias, and Jonathan Chait.
Didn’t The Confluence post about a similar group called something like TownHouse?
I absolutely question the notion that ideas and talking points just emerge spontaneously. The right spent billions since the Powell Memorandum on think tanks to hone a coordinated message and on consolidated media through which to deliver it.
Latest innovation: Now they even have charismatic mouthpieces, ostensibly of the left, to parrot it.
*****A
-
Swannie says:
Denial. ( some people learn to live here )
Anger.
Bargaining.
Depression.
Acceptance.
Then again ..some people have to think up words to use to defend their positions. I have not gotten over the recent use of the word UNGOVERNABLE .
If BO cannot goven; it is because the USA is ungovernable .What a piece of twisted logic, and an abundance of fallacious logic. BO himself is the strawmans BFF. and I think Bo thinks proof by verbosity holds up in court.What is next..spoonerisms?
I hope not, I love spoonerisms
-
Jeff says:
Kool-Aid withdrawal can be a bitch, and addicts will say ANYTHING.
-
pds says:
the unspoken tyranny of american “pragmatism” couched in the schtick of “realism” has infiltrated the thinking of so called “progressives” for decades. they continually confuse a party with a movement, a fight with a strategy…and are always prone to offer excuses for analysis.
-
myiq2xu says:
I’m not disappointed with Obama’s performance. He’s turning out pretty much like I expected.
But the impression I get from the people who voted for him is that they aren’t upset about the slow pace of policymaking, they’re pissed because they feel betrayed. The problem isn’t promises that haven’t been kept, it’s promises that have been broken.
Even worse, it’s not like Obama even tried to keep them. As soon as he took office he started breaking promises left and right, often without any explanation.
The economy is in the crapper, he’s escalating the war in Afghanistan, Gitmo is still open, his AG is defending DOMA, DADT is still in place, and even the Kool-aid bloggers think health care reform is a clusteruck.
But Wall Street is happy.
-
propertius says:
FWIW, I think Tabibi is wrong. Obama didn’t deceive anyone about his intentions. He said he wanted to give insurance companies “a seat at the table”, and he is (okay he didn’t say “the only seat at the table”, but that’s just nit-picking). He said he would send more troops to Afghanistan, and he is. If you’re disappointed in Obama, then you just weren’t paying attention. If you looked at his legislative record, you would have seen a cautious, fairly conservative careerist politician with no discernible principles and no interest whatsoever in disrupting the corporate gravy train. I’m not disappointed at all - I expected four more years of Bush and that’s exactly what I’m getting.
I don’t see how any rational person could’ve expected Obama to do anything about DOMA or DADT - we are after all talking about a politician who refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsome (the straight mayor of San Francisco), wouldn’t be caught dead within 90 miles of a Pride parade, and toured with “ex-gay” raging homophobe Donnie McClurkin.
And women’s issues? After the way his campaign savaged both Clinton and Palin? After he voted “present” on every major Illinois vote on reproductive rights? Be serious.
I just haven’t got a single molecule of sympathy for all those Betrayed Progressives ™. Not one. To hell with the lot of ‘em.
-
tinfoil hattie says:
Anyway, Taibbi is fairly brutal: that Obama’s presidency is one of the greatest bait-and-switches in our history
Well, sure - if you weren’t paying attention when Obama was running. See propertius, above.
-
LV says:
If you’re disappointed in Obama, then you just weren’t paying attention. If you looked at his legislative record, you would have seen a cautious, fairly conservative careerist politician with no discernible principles and no interest whatsoever in disrupting the corporate gravy train.
Yes!
The way I see it, what motivates the blogger boyz and their ilk is pretty simple. They’re not that smart, though they think they are. They don’t know that much about politics, though they think they do. They’re not even that interested in politics, at least in any really meaningful and intellectually curious way. If they were, they would have been able to see, as others did, that Obama is a flapping empty corporate suit. But politics is kewl, and the internet and the blogs gives them a chance to use politics as a means to what they really like - shouting, telling other people that they are wrong, and telling each other they’re right. Therefore, it’s easy for them to carry on with the fluffing - it was never based on real intellectual or moral conviction to start with, so it doesn’t matter in the least that it isn’t now.
-
Nessum says:
White (progressive) guilt?
That you simply can’t let the first black American president fail? - or as Chris Matthews phrased it:
“My job is to make Obama presidency a success.”
-
monchichipox says:
I don’t think they get their word from anyone. It’s their inner nerd that has never graduated from High School. Their inner nerd is stuck in about 10th grade. Somehow, somewhere way deep down, they think writing this stuff is finally going to get them an invitation to sit down at the jock table during lunch.
-
Petro says:
What Becki Jayne @ #2 said. They wish to be considered as Very Serious Writers by the industry.
That is my Very Serious analysis.
