David Alire Garcia, who works for the Albuquerque Journal on its editorial/Op Ed staff, writes the occasional column. I wish he did more.
Garcia’s habit is to take a question – yesterday he tackled, "Is Governor Richardson a tax cutter?" – and do the reporting and analysis required to answer it.
A while back, he asked, Is Rep. Heather Wilson really "independent" of the GOP leadership in the House? His conclusion, that she was more reliable than not, outraged the Wilson camp. (Since then, probably coincidentally, Wilson hasn’t followed her leaders on a couple of issues and paid a price for it.)
Garcia’s conclusion yesterday was "Richardson is really a tax shifter." He also noted that lots of New Mexicans pay lower taxes now than when the Governor took office and some pay more.
PS Garcia’s figures are not conclusive, but the more affluent probably are paying less. Richardson’s first move, you will remember, was to cut income taxes on the wealthy to encourage business activity. He is now promoting income tax cuts for middle-income New Mexicans.
I frequently point out here that news people - in failing to consider what words mean - are failing to describe reality, which is their job.
Yesterday, the Albuquerque Journal offered a magnificent example of what I am talking about. One Dick Polman of Knight-Ridder wrote about conservatives opposed to President Bush's war policy.
The story was competent until, near the end, Polman wrote a paragraph that began:
"The pro-war conservatives, however, denounce the dissenters as out to lunch and on the fringes of power; by contrast, conservative hawks crafted Bush's war polcy and dominate much of the conservative opinion empire......."
"Pro-war conservatives" Nope.
"Conservative hawks"? Uh-uh.
A White House that wages an optional war and embarks on it without - even in defiance of - allies Republican and Democratic Presidents have enjoyed since World War II (60 years!) may be a lot of things, even correct. But it cannot be described as conservative.
(Conservative, if it means anything, means cautious and respectful of precedent.)
Perhaps Mr. Polman has never heard of or dislikes the phrase "neo-conservative," which is fairly popular these days. Fine. Surely, though, he knows "far right." Or "radical right." How about "imperialist" or "Wilsonian idealist"? Or....well, you get the idea. There are many ways to describe the White House policy on Iraq, after you exclude "conservative."
I wonder. Should we begin a national drive to raise money to buy dictionaries for the language-impaired?
The other day I noted that the Albuquerque Journal was, probably unconsciously, hyping the Iraqi elections via headline. It is only fiar to mention that the Albuquerque Tribune does the same today; its headline reads: "A Key Test of Democracy."
Who says so? On what basis?
The CBS Evening News follwoed suit, moments ago, by virtue of having Dan Rather report live from Baghdad. Hey, if Dan is there this must be a big step toward Mideast democracy, right?
That is what the White House wants us to believe. Now, the story is not unimportant. But when the press devotes this much space, time and prominence it becomes the bearer of the White House's tidings. I thought that was Fox's job.
Where is the reminder that elections do not equal democracy? Or that the elections won't end the insurgency? (Fer gosh sakes, President Bush said that on radio today!)
Journalism is a form of show biz these days and it is hard to resist writing headlines that sing, that raise emotions, that purport to put an event in historical context. But resistance would be serve readers and viewers better.
Oh, the storm of protest! The horrors! Dan Rather messed up. Yes, he aired a story that rested on documents that may have been phony.
No matter that the story was true. (True and old, related four years ago by Molly Ivins and others!)
Shall we contrast the reaction to Rather's screwup with what happens when a major network – Fox – daily promotes President Bush and his Administration?
Or with the revelation that the Executive Branch paid three – count ‘em – three so-called journalists? Each talked or wrote in favor of White House policies, perhaps coincidentally.
The third, according to the New York Times today, is Michael McManus, author of a syndicated column and director of a nonprofit called Marriage Savers. Health and Human Services confirmed paying him $10,000. HHS said it was to train counselors about marriage, not to write columns praising the Administration.
You will remember Armstrong Williams (Education Department, $40,000) and Maggie Gallagher (HHS, $21,500).
Now that the Administration has owned up to a hat trick – three paid "journalists" – I will look for outrage in "the media" of the kind that greeted Rather’s serious mistake.
But I will not hold my breath.
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, syndicated newspaper columnist and radio talk show host – ah, that liberal media – has clarified his comments on Sponge Bob Square Pants.
He said he never meant to single out the cartoon character. He meant to focus on the We Are Family Foundation, producer of a video for schools that "promotes the acceptance of homosexuality." A Newsday story in this morning’s Albuquerque Journal attributes the quote to the Focus on Family web site. (More liberal media!)
So Dobson makes it clear he does not "accept" homosexuality. He wouldn’t say that if he believed it was in-born, so he must think it a choice and, almost certainly, a sinful choice.
Why mention this in a web log dedicated, mostly, to critiquing the news business? First, to remind readers that the terrible, powerful "liberal media" is a political tool wielded by the political Right. (The reality is too complex to sum up in a phrase, but "liberal media" is laughable.)
Also, to raise a question outside of journalism – namely, is progress what happens when we redefine "sins" to some other category? In my youth, alcoholism was a moral failing. Today it is a disease. Many individuals use that redefinition to overcome alcoholism; that sounds like progress to me. I tend to think that when we agree homosexuality is genetic, or mostly so, that will constitute progress. And so on?
Meanwhile, we ought to appreciate Mr. Dobson - I believe but am not certain he is "the Rev. Dobson," a Protestant cleric - for helping us think. Oh, and for reminding us that invincible ignorance and cruelty in the name of religion did not end with the Inquisition.
My monthly Albuquerque Tribune column appeared yesterday. Here it is:
Like a rusty pail, ideas don’t hold water
by Arthur Alpert
I was cleaning the bathroom recently when I noticed the sponge wasn’t absorbent. No big deal, I thought. I’ll just add it to my list of things – and popular ideas – that just don’t hold water.
o Technology brings us closer.
o Conservatives oppose price controls. Not when the drug manufacturers do the controlling, they don’t.
o Godly Americans and unbelievers are waging war. No, the Deity wins that fight hands down. The battle is between two kinds of believers - those who hear God urging love and justice versus the faithful who know he wants us to moralize and judge.
o Tomatoes are tomatoes. (Tasting some heirloom tomatoes recently reminded me that I regularly consume cardboard.)
o That democracy can survive government of, by and for corporations.
o That faith conquers all! (Example: it’s true that you must have faith to venture into New Mexico traffic. But only skepticism – about the other drivers – will get you home in one piece.)
o Elections equal democracy. (No, not even free, fair elections. Democracy also demands tolerance, legal protection of minority rights and independent judges, for starters.)
o History is past. No, the roots of our war on Iraq lie with McKinley, Cleveland and Teddy, even the gospel of Manifest Destiny.
o That the main bout pits conservatives against liberals. No, it’s (feeble) conservatives versus the (muscular) extreme right.
o That the Democratic Party stands for anything. (It will prove totally unprincipled by selling out on Social Security; remember you read it here first.)
o That major pizza chains sell pizza. Lunching recently at Giovannni’s on San Pedro, I realized that its Bronx-born pie must be what the Almighty orders in.
o That frivolous lawsuits are why malpractice insurance is so expensive.
o That there’s justice in this life. I heard Heather Wilson and Richard Romero agree that campaign contributions don’t affect the way Congress people vote. And neither has yet to be struck by lightning!
o Pricey brand-name fuel is better quality than the cheap gas I pump.
o A word has one meaning. Attached to Social Security, "reform" means, "death." In "Tort reform," it translates as "defending powerful corporations from the pipsqueak." And "Tax reform" equals "take dollars from salaried folks, give to the investing class."
o Religion and spirituality are synonyms.
o Only minorities play the victim game. The business pages carry countless sob stories, wherein the airlines, Big Pharma, insurance, utilities, coal and steel, plus poor, downtrodden Wall Street firms seek our sympathy. Must be tough when your government welfare check doesn’t cover expenses.
o That risks are the same for small business folks and corporate types.
o John Kerry is a liberal. (To argue, you must know what he believes, right?)
o We Americans still have the best health care.
o We love the underdog. True, we adored George Bailey once, but Old Man Potter is today’s idol. That’s him on NBC exclaiming, "You’re fired!"
o That behind the war on Iraq lies the Bush Administration’s deeper agenda – time travel, returning to the good ol’ days before the New Deal, when the right people steered the ship of state. Steered it right into Depression, in fact.
Oops! Sorry. That last is from my list of propositions that do, indeed, hold water.
Alpert, a semi-retired newsman from Albuquerque, writes a web log at alpertstruth.com. His column appears in Insight and Opinion the fourth Thursday of the month.
I am not certain how serious I am, but often I think the daily newspaper ought to contain a "connections guide." It would suggest to readers what stories might profitably be read together.
This morning, for example, liberal columnist Matthew Miller says the President’s "obviously irresponsible" fiscal policy is producing a "yawn." He cites several reasons; including the Democrats’ fear of pointing out that it’s a "revenue problem." Translation: Washington has cut taxes too much and the political opposition hasn’t the courage to say "Stop!"
My "connections guide" would send readers from that to a report on the New Mexico State Legislature wherein we learn that three Democrats oppose (Democratic) Governor Richardson’s tax cuts, existing and proposed. They think the State needs the money to deal with Medicaid funding, for example.
Tying these two stories might spark a tentative conclusion that the Democratic Governor is not just fearful of arguing it’s a revenue problem, as Miller suggested, but is aping the Bush approach.
Or that the three Democrats are courageous. Or living dangerously. Or living in the past.
Picking up on the Medicaidl note, my "connections guide" would then send the reader to David Broder’s interview with retiring Health and Human Services boss Tommy Thompson, who argues Washington should further subsidize health insurance to reduce the number of uninsured. Universal (even near-universal) health insurance would relieve pressure on Medicaid and other elements of our dysfunctional system, wouldn’t it?
You get the idea. I’m sure many readers connect the dots on their own, but not all. Our daily newspapers are rich in pieces of information, but I rarely remember facts, events or moments that I cannot fit into a pattern. Which leads me to think a "connections guide" might help me and other readers move more easily from facts to meaning.
Yesterday President Bush called the upcoming Iraqi elecitions "a grand moment in Iraqi history."
Yesterday the Albuquerque Journal headline "Iraq Nears Crossroads" ran on page one over a big color photo from Basra.
The President's statement was his opinion.
The Journal's headline - while not unreasonable - was a conclusion nevertheless and a debatable conclusion. We will know some day if the Iraqi elections are a crossroads, but we sure don't know that now. All we know is that Bush wants us to think so.
(Mind you, I suspect he will be correct, in retrospect. The voting may well be a big step toward what the White House is praying for - an Iraqi government that will ask us to leave.)
But when he or she wrote it, the writer jumped to a conclusion.
Sen. Clinton believes abortion is sad. She wants folks on both sides of the Roe v. Wade issue to work together to make it rare.
I agree. Pro-choice people should have been saying that years ago. In fact, I did.
But the timing of the Senator’s speech (a few days ago) suggests she is triangulating, positioning herself between two "extremes." She will do so on more issues as we approach 2008 So will most national Democrats.
Anything to avoid saying, "This is what I believe…."
They think Gore and Kerry lost because they were too "liberal."
Gore won, of course, but he lost a lot of voters who got the idea he had no core beliefs. That produced an election close enough to steal.
Kerry, too, was all strategy and no conviction. Or so he looked.
Triangulation is a tactic whose primary goal is to find a middle of the road position. As practiced by Bill Clinton, it’s accompanied by heavy polling to identify voters’ sympathies on various issues and what language they like.
Clinton then adopted the political positions – couching them in the pre-evaluated language – and stitched together a majority of those voters.
Clinton was lucky. Post-Clinton, in the era of True Believer Bush, that is a formula for keeping the GOP in power. (And since Bush governs from the Far Right, it guarantees that the middle will keep moving to the right.)
PS The January 31 edition of Newsweek reports that the leaders of the Democratic Party are engaged, once again, in an "Anybody But Dean" action, trying to keep the former Vermont governor from getting the job of chairman of the Democratic Party.
Not just the Washington powers, but Governors Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Bill Richardson of New Mexico are leading the drive to keep Dean from that job.
Political questions arise. Do they oppose Howard Dean because he speaks carelessly? Or is it because 1) he opposed the Iraq War from the outset, 2) he rallied lots of Democrats, many young, by expressing his anger at President Bush and 3) he flaunted his habit of balancing the budget in Vermont.
If 1),2) or 3), which scares the party Establishment the most – being unambiguous (and right) on Iraq, expressing anger or balancing the budget? Or all of the above?
Finally, a journalism question - our local newspapers have written thousands of words on Richardson lately. How come Newsweek had to tell us the game Richardson is playing within the party?
I have just read the transacript of George W. Bush's Inaugural address. Unbelievable! A dangerous left-winger in the White House!
Seriously, it is hard to know what to make of it.
If Bush is serious, the US will oppose every nation but one or two (Canada, Costa Rica?) in our hemisphere, every nation but one (South Africa) in Africa, many nations in eastern Europe including Russia, China and most Asian nations (though not India) and...well, you get the idea.
Given Bush's corporate sponsorship, I think we can dismiss out of hand the
idea that the United States will, in fact, crusade for freedom and against tyranny.
But then, why this speech? There are two possibilities - one, that the President is honestly idealistic in the Wilsonian sense. (Wilson, you remember, got us into World War I and then helped construct a "peace" that pretty much guaranteed a second World War.)
Delusion, I call that, and yes, it is possible that Bush is self-deluded.
Or, alternatively, that he is cynical.
As I ponder the question - self-deluded or cynical - I will try to remember what actors know, that villains do not think they are bad guys. And what I have learned in lying and being lied to over the years, that liars most often persuade themselves of the truth of their fabrications before uttering them.
While I mull the question it is only fair to note that the Inaugural speech reflects a retroactive honesty on the President's part.
We went into Iraq because he was persuaded by neo-conservative advisers both dark and ignorantly idealistic that we could thereby change the course of events in the Mideast for the better.
Fearful of telling us that, Bush and friends invented and/or elaborated cover stories. Thanks to UN inspections (!), there were no WMD. And as the Commission told us, Saddam did not collaborate in the murders of 9/11.
The cover stories served their purpose, though. Amplified by a compliant news machine, these stories persuaded many Americans that our attack on Iraq was payback for 9/11 and part of a single "war on terrorism."
Over time, though, the lies frayed. Enter the third rationale - bringing freedom to Iraqis. This wasn't quite the truth, but was certainly closer to the neo-con theory. And this Inaugural speech - announcing the nation's new role as exporter of freedom - builds on that last justification.
As such, it's as close to the truth as this Administration is likely to get.
After reading thousands of words about Governor Richardson in stories on the opening of the 2005 Legislature, I have the sense that a lot of New Mexicans - some in the press - consider his ambition to be a defect.
Bill Richardson wants to be President. A strong political leader, he walks a path he thinks will give him a shot at the Democratic Party's Presidential (or Vice – Presidential) nomination in four years.
I wonder at his strategy. He’s triangulating, a la Bill Clinton, finding positions in between the Republican and the "liberal" Democratic. (There’s lot of room there; the GOP has moved so far rightward that a Democrat easily can occupy a conservative middle.)
But triangulation has its limits. Clinton's election may have been an accident - remember Ross Perot? - rather than a model. Subsequently, Kerry-Edwards gamesmanship fell to GOP conviction. It did not suffice to say, "I will wage a smarter war," nor did finessing "tort reform" work. Most voters would rather elect Republicans to execute Republican policies.
Personally, as a traditional Democrat, I find the prospect of President Richardson unappealing. I have no idea what he believes, but strategies tend to become goals, so Richardson’s election would mean no challenge to what we have - an imperial policy abroad, corporate dominance at home. Like Clinton, he would accept that agenda and dabble at the edges.
Still, why downgrade Richardson for his aspirations? His bid is plausible, certainly - he’s intelligent, talented, disciplined. He hasn’t offended the sources of big money (Wall Street, defense, insurance, pharmaceuticals, among them). And though he stumbled by failing to win New Mexico for Kerry, he might yet benefit from the growing political clout of Hispanics nationally.
Are we jealous? Do we fear the ascent of one of our own?
Richardson is dreaming a big dream, elaborating a strategy to realize it and keeping his nose to the grindstone in that cause.
Though I wish his bid for power was more than a bid for power, I am forced to consider his effort courageous.
CBS Chairman Leslie Moonves is thinking about a brand-new format for the CBS Evening News, after Dan Rather's departure. So reports the New York Times this morning. One possibility - two or three or several anchors.
(That news came not from CBS's top news executive, but his boss, who reports to his boss, who is responsible to his board and investors, which is to say, Wall Street.)
This, from the network that explained its decision last fall to shelve (read, censor) a story critical of Bush policy on Iraq by saying it didn't want to influence the election!!!
Two reminders that the networks own their news operations. That the degree of autonomy granted their news divisions - never huge - is these days impossible to discern with the naked eye. And that news remains a somewhat foreign element in the body of TV, whose purpose is the creation of big audiences, which audiences are to be exposed to advertisers' messages.
For the last few months I have been reading High Country News, a biweekly out of Paonia, Colorado that’s dedicated to protection of the Western environment. Its reporting is serious and solid on complex issues.
I am moved to write about it because of a long article, "Conscientious Objectors," in the issue dated Dec. 20, which reports on government employees who, often at the cost of their jobs, make common cause with allies "on the outside." In telling this story, assistant editor Laura Paskus does a heckuva job of describing how industry and its friends in high places go about subverting laws passed to protect the environment.
Revealing, to say the least. Not always easy to read, though; Bush Administration cynicism can be hard to take. But if the job of reporters is to describe how things work, Ms. Paskus earns her pay. And a bonus.
You can find out more about HCN at hcn.org or call 800-905-1144.
A few perceptions that seem obvious to me, but – as I read the newspapers - not to everybody:
o The elections in Iraq must take place as scheduled because they are essential to the Bush Administration’s single, overriding new goal for the Middle East – getting the Hell out of the quagmire.
The White House no longer requires a democratic Iraq. Its prayers are for any government stable enough to ask the US to leave, at which point we will run, not walk, to the exits. (Inking a few oil deals, maybe, before we ship out.)
o The Bush strategy on Social Security "reform" parallels its strategy on Iraq. Step One: turn a problem (Iraq/ long-term financial woes) into a crisis.
Two, push a policy (war/privatization) that will benefit your friends (military-industrial complex, including Big Oil/Wall Street).
Three, flavor liberally (!) with idealistic rhetoric (bringing democracy to the Arab world/creating an "ownership society.")
The Administration may achieve the same success with Social Security (destroying it) as it has in Iraq (destroying it).
o Re Iraq, why not give up on re-creating it? Why not three entities – Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish? Turkey and Iran would hate a Kurdish state making eyes at the Turkish and Iranian Kurds across the borders, but coping with that can’t be harder than it’s been trying to rebuild an artificial unity. Or have we created and/or imported so many terrorists there that none of the trio would survive?
o Re Social Security, I see no consideration in the press of the wisdom of moving big money into a system prone to thievery. The latest on that, January 14, from AP:
"Federal regulators are preparing to charge the New York Stock Exchange with failing to police the specialist firms that manage stock auctions on the exchange floor, thereby allowing them to cheat investors…."
In a letter to the editor of Outlook, the Albuquerque Journal’s twice-weekly business insert, a fellow named Bob Herrington of NTS Communications, does some neat reporting on Qwest’s efforts to persuade us (regulators and the public) that it faces competition in local phone service.
The result of his inquiry is clear - Qwest retains its monopoly in that field.
I cite this because a reader, not Outlook, did the research. Like an overwhelming number of daily newspapers, the Journal boosts business rather than scrutinizing it.
Oh, the newspaper will carry debate on business issues. It will even publish syndicated reports on business wrong-doing. But you will find almost no hard local reporting on business. (The "almost" is a nod to Winthrop Quigley. He doesn’t investigate, but does a fine job otherwise of keeping tabs on the health business in New Mexico.)
Again, I do not mean to single out the Journal. Boosterism is the rule in the newspaper business. You probably know the exceptions –Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, perhaps a few others with which I’m not familiar.
(WSJ’s accomplishment is truly extraordinary. It is, after all, the newspaper of the nation’s business/financial sector. While no longer psychotic, its editorial page, under a new editor, remains pretty far out. Yet WSJ reporting sets the standard.)
The normal state of affairs is easily explained. Calvin Coolidge surely was correct, in some sense, that "The business of America is business." Local newspapers are businesses. They prosper by carrying advertising placed by other local businesses. The newspaper business and its advertisers have in common the desire for local prosperity. This often produces fine things for the community – cultural institutions, notably – but it makes reporting on local business a dicey task. So it’s understandable that local papers take a pass.
Still, this is something to remember the next time you hear that the press is "liberal," whatever that means.
David Broder, the Washington Post’s veteran political observer, reports today on a walk through the Department of Homeland Security, where the "FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service and 33 other federal agencies each has its own workstation. And so do the police departments of New York, Los Angeles, Washington and six other major cities."
The point of his column in today’s Albuquerque Journal is that Tom Ridge made a start at integrating the forces, federal and local, protecting the nation against terrorism. And, Broder writes, he "tried to erase some of the bureaucratic barriers so frustrating to local law enforcement."
I mention this because to really understand Broder and the Homeland Security problem, you can do worse than read Nelson DeMille’s latest book, "Night Fall". His novel (which I recommended yesterday) deals brilliantly with just those barriers. Funny, isn't it, how fiction often gets closer to reality than journalism.
I think I will email Broder, suggesting the book.
I have just finished reading Nelson DeMille’s latest detective novel, "Night Fall," which centers on the tragedy of TWA Flight 800, the jet that went down off Long Island in 1996, killing everybody aboard.
I recommend it highly. It’s perhaps a bit less exciting than previous DeMille books – I have read several - but becomes powerfully gripping as it nears the resolution of the story. Once again, his protagonist – former NYPD detective John Corey – is persuasive, thanks to the huge reservoirs of skepticism covering his idealistic core. This more than compensates for DeMille's continuing failure to make his female characters real.
And what has this to do with journalism? That is DeMille’s strength. He knows and is masterful at laying out how law enforcement works – its procedures, biases, strengths, weaknesses and definitely its inter-agency tensions.
Come to think of it, if DeMille’s hero is a projection, if the author is himself a skeptic burning to expose truth, well, that just about defines a great reporter, doesn’t it?
Two days before Christmas, the Albuquerque Tribune published my monthly column, In it, I deplored the free market, arguing that our nation benefits when the powerful economic engine of capitalism is fettered by, for example, government regulation and taxes. (The column is posted above, if you care.)
The Monday after Christmas came a reply from J.D. Bullington, a regular Tribune columnist (ABQ Biz) and an officer of the Association of Commerce and Industry.
Mr. Bullington opened by hinting – not quite charging - that I was in the business of "capitalism-bashing." Not nice, I thought.
After noting, with approval, my description of American capitalism as "the best economic system ever and producer of most the wealth and jobs…" he recapped a few of my supporting arguments. Interestingly, he made no attempt to refute them. Nor, for that matter, did he argue with the burden of my piece.
Instead he went on to deplore what he sees as a great problem – young people who "sidestep the opportunities and successes afforded by capitalism and create a counterculture of values and norms that lead to dead ends."
I think that means he likes market values.
On Jan. 6, the Tribune published a lengthy comment on my views and Bullington’s by Anne Kass, a retired judge.
Judge Kass said she agreed with most of my argument, except for the favorable description of American capitalism that Bullington liked. She then wrote a hearty condemnation of our system and clobbered Bullington for his rosy view of it.
Two days later, a Tribune reader, one Richard Hahn of Sandia Park, wrote a letter to the Editor agreeing with Bullington in part, but largely with my premise.
So why am I telling you all this?
First, because I am delighted to have started an argument. I write, after all, to stimulate thought. (Well, OK – also to convert the world to my point of view.)
Secondly, because I really enjoyed being attacked from the left. Thank you, Judge Kass.
Thirdly, because Bullington’s column suggests that he is not beyond reach, that we might be able to talk. No, I do not like that "capitalism-bashing" line; it smacks of Linda Chavez or John Dendahl. Nor do I agree with what seems to be his belief, that you can base a healthy society on materialism Still, I have the sense he wants to understand and to help kids.
Neither is trivial. In fact, neither is common these days.
Finally, I am delighted because (as Judge Kass notes) the flaws of our economic system rarely get noticed, no less debated, except in small magazines.
Which reminds me - the Tribune deserves great credit for its vital "marketplace of ideas."
Respectable newspeople on the Sunday morning talk shows carefully distanced themselves from Armstrong Williams, the African-American "journalist" who was paid real money by the Bush Administration for saying nice things about its policies. There was a need, they said on both "Meet the Press" and "Face the Nation," to retain credibility with the public.
I don't believe network TV but I guess credibility disappears gradually; many Americans still credit what passes for journalism there.
Unfortunately, our society extols faith and undervalues skepticism. Unless we produce more doubting Thomases, quickly, we will pay the price.
As so many trusting young American soldiers have already done in Iraq.
Yesterday the Progressive Women of New Mexico (they sounded like Democrats to me) sponsored a briefing on health legislation to be considered in the upcoming session of the New Mexico Legislature. I was there and came away very impressed by….well, first let me tell you a little about the panelists and the subject matter.
Warning – I usually critique the news, but here I am about to commit some journalism myself. This means you are about to read lots of words on the nuts-and-bolts of improving health care in New Mexico, which may bore you to tears. Sorry
Lt. Governor Diane Denish spoke first. The State has a huge problem of uninsured citizens. In that context, she said the Administration would attempt to get more small employers into the General Services Administration insurance pool. She mentioned efforts to educate younger people to the value of health insurance. And she signaled an attempt to tax smokeless tobacco the way cigarettes are taxed.
Rep. Danice Picraux of Albuquerque said earlier efforts aimed at making health care more affordable are beginning to pay off; the insurance pool, for example, has slowed price increases. It’s not all rosy, she said, and the state will have to do more to keep doctors. She saw insuring more residents as part of that effort. She said she hopes the Legislature will extend existing regulations to cover more part-time workers.
Picraux said she will work for:
o Full funding of Medicaid ($98 million)
o Expansion of the existing Tele-Health program (bringing specialized medical expertise, including psychiatric, all over the state)
o Broadening the prescription drug discount program for the 65+ crowd (Senior RX) to all citizens.
Secretary of Health Michelle Lujan Grisham defined the goal as getting more dollars for health care from a finite pie. She talked about defining Medicaid narrowly and neatly to get the federal matching funds.
She also described programs aimed at adolescents. Doubling the number of school-based clinics to better address problems like obesity (a predictor of diabetes) and pregnancies, Taking control of school vending machines – not easily accomplished. Establishing a peer counseling hotline.
She talked about better auditing of institutions for the aged and disabled and more effective work against infectious diseases (HIV/AIDS, hepatitis C).
Sen. Dede Feldman of Albuquerque noted that past Medicaid tweaks have produced more case management and are slowing the rate of increase in the cost of prescription drugs. She noted the SALUD program (Medicaid handled by managed care companies) soon will have a "preferred drug" list.
And that the State has hired Presbyterian to manage prescription drugs.
On the broader question of health care in New Mexico, Feldman said a study of where the money comes from and where it goes has revealed:
1. 75% is public money
2. federal agencies (Medicare, Indian Health Service, VA) make 65% of all health purchases
Her conclusion: big government already plays a major role. The next question, Feldman suggested, is "Are we getting our money’s worth?" That because NM still has 400,000 uninsured.
Incidental note: Feldman said 23% of all NM jobs are in the health care sector.
The audience of some 75 had questions and statements. There was concern that the Tele-Health program not "crowd out" health care providers in small towns. Also, that the Administration plans should but do not include dental care. And that New Mexico continues to have too few beds for mental health and drug abuse patients.
Still other questions suggested that the Senior RX program, which compares favorably to Medicare’s efforts to help seniors cope with high drug prices, is a state secret. Many of the well-informed activists who attended the briefing at the UNM Law School didn’t know much about it.
Well, there you have it. My report would be longer, and better organized, if I were a beat reporter. (I attended, actually, to refresh my memory on health issues.) And if I could read all my notes. I suspect I have made small errors. I hope I have avoided biggies.
So what to make of all this?
First, Denish, Picraux, Grisham and Feldman are my heroes. Their knowledge is one reason. Their commitment is another.
Secondly, I was struck by how touch it is to tackle health care piece-meal. The State ought to have a health plan for all its citizens. So should the United States. By that, I mean universal health insurance, with doctors, groups, hospitals – all health providers - competing to provide services.
Which leads to politics.
Denish was Governor Richardson’s running mate and is his ally in the Executive Branch. Grisham is a member of his cabinet. Legislative leaders Picraux and Feldman are, like the Governor, Democrats. Richardson wants to be President of the United States. He calculates that he cannot win the nomination, no less the office, as a liberal. He must be a moderate, a la Bill Clinton.
(For purposes of this piece, let’s not argue with his perceptions.)
This is not just a matter of ideology; it’s about money. Any politician who favors a single-payer approach to rescuing our crumbling health care system will receive not a penny from the insurance or pharmaceutical industries. In fact, they will rush to the aid of his opponents in the primaries. (Ditto, some physicians’ organizations, though not all.)
This is one more reason to admire the four women at the briefing. They know this and they keep working for incremental progress.
Hat’s off.
Rich Lowry’s Op Ed piece in today’s Albuquerque Journal is predictably on the edge of civilized discourse, teetering toward Ann Coulterist psychosis. (He says the question in the Gonzales nomination as Attorney General is "Do we have a right to pressure [terrorists) for information upon capture.")
What fascinates me is not the surface arguments, but rather what lies beneath. For Lowry doesn’t just excuse the White House and Justice Department for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, he blames the people at the bottom of the ladder, specifically the soldiers involved in abuse.
This use of hierarchy is fundamental to human history, of course. Its corollary is that the people at the top are blameless and the poor souls at the bottom, responsible.
Also today, David Brooks writes in the New York Times about Social Security "reform" and tax "reform." (The quotation marks are mine.) He concludes with an endorsement of what the political right has taken to calling "the ownership society."
Now, you know that the newspaper biz has umpteen standard vehicles for organizing and conveying information and meaning. Among them: regular old news stories, news analysis, editorials and Op Ed pieces, columns that follow up on old stories and many others.
With Lowry and Brooks in mind, I have a modest proposal. Let us add one more vehicle, a piece that isolates and highlights reporters and columnists’ assumptions. We might call it "Bedrock."
Sometimes it will be easy to identify what lies beneath. Brooks, for example, has examined his assumptions about the good society and sees no reason to disguise them. But I suspect Lowry, and most writers, do not fully understand themselves. That’s where Bedrock will really help readers. First, they will see clearly what lies beneath the writers’ conclusions. Secondly, perhaps, they will be inspired to examine their own bedrock.
What do you think?
PS I do not mean to suggest that Bedrock is really the bottom. Lowry's column
reminds me that feelings lie deeper than one's so-called rational views. Thus, the US response to 9/11 represents, I would argue, fear more than anything else.
PPS I wonder if Rich Lowry remains editor of the National Review, the magazine William F. Buckley founded. The Albuquerque Journal used to identify him that way; but the newspaper describes him today only as a syndicated columnist.
The Albuquerque Tribune has an extraordinary lineup of syndicated columnists representing a wide spectrum of opinion. (More on that another day.)
Among them are Linda Chavez and David Brooks, both right-of-center and – I was reminded when they appeared recently on the same day - worlds apart.
Brooks appears to be trying to better understand how the world works, by evaluating events in the context of his conservative principles. He entertains the notion that he can err and, while tough, is not mean.
Ergo, while I don’t often agree with his conclusions, I take his views into account.
Not so with Chavez, who would have done well in the Soviet Union, such is her knowledge of the Truth and her love for the party line. (You will remember that President Bush nominated this apparatchik* to be his first Secretary of Labor. Also, that she withdrew amidst reports she’d employed an illegal alien in her household.)
Also, Chavez writes with a poison pen; often portraying those who disagree with her as villains or fools. In sum, she is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of my time other than in this context.
Does that mean the Tribune should not publish her column? No. I wish, however, there existed a formula to help readers distinguish the Chavezes from the Brookses. Unfortunately, editors may not append "This message brought to you by a paid political hack on behalf of her employers...." or anything similar.
Perhaps, though, newspapers could work harder to identify their contributors If, for example, Chavez holds an office in the GOP or gets financial support from one of the rightist think tanks, we readers ought to know.
* Apparatchik - an unquestinably loyal servant, especially of a political leader or
party. (American Heritage Dictionary)
I have said it here before - bias is not journalism’s most serious defect. I don't know what is for certain, but it may be vocabulary.
Of course, the gap between words and reality is eternal, but these days it’s wider than the Grand Canyon. The world changes, reporters and editors don’t. They cling to words that once made sense.
Consider two stories in today’s New York Times, starting with Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s call for judicial independence.
Yes, this is that William Rehnquist, appointed to the Supreme Court by Richard Nixon (and about whose nomination John Dean wrote a fascinating book). This is Rehnquist, a lion of the political right, the very Rehnquist who has led the Court rightward.
And he is worried. He sees that criticism of the federal judiciary "…has taken a new turn in recent years." And he cites several Congressional efforts to intimidate judges. He doesn't say so, but they all emanate from the far right. Right of Rehnquist, that is.
Hold that thought, please.
The second story is about evangelist James Dobson’s threat to defeat several Democratic Senators if they oppose President Bush's nominees - presumably, "strict constructionists" - to the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
In the story, Dobson told the Times he’d been working in this direction every since he had attended a rally backing then -Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. (Moore was fighting to keep a monument to the Ten Commandments in his courthouse.)
The Times reporter, David Kirkpatrick, writes: "The crowd’s reaction [at that rally] demonstrated the depth of popular resentment of liberal court decisions, Dr. Dobson said."
So the separation of church and state is a "liberal" position? (In fact, the Ten Commandments eventually left the courthouse, thanks to a ruling by the US Supreme Court, which only a nut could call liberal.)
What both these stories tell us is that the Far Right is unhappy with conservative positions – independence of the judiciary and church-state separation, both deriving from the Constitution.
And while this happens, the great majority of reporters still use the terms "conservative" and "liberal" as touchstones.
Use them as if they are defined by their relationship on a horizontal line stretching from left to right.
Use them to the exclusion of terms describing a more complex political world, like "far right," "libertarian," "pro-business," "left-wing" and such.
And do so with the acquiescence of editors.
News flash! "Conservative" may be defined historically. Ditto, "liberal."
Update! To use only those words to describe political reality is to distort a complex reality to an unrecognizable shape.
As I was saying, journalism needs to think about its language.