Four years ago, mainstream media peddled their bias with Dan Rather’s famous phrase, “fake but accurate.” This year we are treated to its corollary: False but justified.
Sebastian Mallaby couples the following two points in his Washington Post column:
1. The Obama campaign is falsely blaming the financial mess on McCain-style deregulation.
2. It is “mostly justified” that Obama reap the benefit.
It is justified because the author says Obama is “more thoughtful on the economy.” That’s it.
Being more thoughtful does not mean being right, but being right is apparently not as important as being thoughtful. It comforts liberals to envision people thinking hard about difficult questions, even when they come up with the wrong answer. Consequences be damned.
Really, I’m not making this up. Here’s the money paragraph from Mallaby:
The financial turmoil has pushed the Obama campaign into the lead, and this is mostly justified. Barack Obama is more thoughtful on the economy than his opponent, and his bench of advisers is superior. But there’s a troubling side to the Democratic advance. The claim that the financial crisis reflects Bush-McCain deregulation is not only nonsense. It is the sort of nonsense that could matter.
Have no fear; Obama is thinking. His superior advisers who give the wrong answers are better than a cadre of mediocre advisers pushing wise policy.
So blaming deregulation for the financial mess is misguided. But it is dangerous, too, because one of the big challenges for the next president will be to defend markets against the inevitable backlash that follows this crisis.
False, dangerous, misguided . . . and justified. Liberalism in a nutshell.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Reasoned argument hasn’t mattered to the left since Marx, who taught them that there is only force and no reasons behind any political position. Occasionally poor saps like Mallaby inadvertently find themselves confronting the absurdity of this commitment and grasp for an intellectual fig leaf to hide it. Here “thoughtful” was the tragic and comedic pick of the moment.
But isn’t this the essence of the liberal view? That giving hard and careful consideration to a problem, while getting the answer wrong, is more . . . virtuous, I guess . . . than is easily solving the problem correctly?
That being a “thinker” – an “intellectual” – should have been the route to social admiration and wealth and fame and riches? That it’s unfair that the crass, unreflective industrialist makes the money and gets the headlines instead?
That liberals should have been the leaders of men, except that all too often they’d be leading men to their doom, but, really, that would be a small price to pay if it put the more thoughful, considerate, and egalitarian liberal in charge of things?
As long as they feel good about themselves, what’s your problem?
Sissy is right, and it brings to mind another corrolary from the golden age of liberalism: If it feels good, think it.
Obama has a superior bench of advisers? Evidenced by what? Some of McCain’s advisers warned of this crisis up to 9 years ago. Meanwhile, some of Obama’s advisers were actually causing the crisis.
Sweet.
I was actually a New York Times headline that started the “Fake But Accurate” nonsense:
Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate, Typist Says
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/15/politics/campaign/15guard.html
Is “thoughtful” the new “nuanced”?
“Well, I feel…” *gunshot*
Another lefty bites the dust.
Excellent blog. Exactly my .357 Rem Max load of culture. I’m NRA and have been since Jr. NRA, plus I have BM and MM degrees and compose classical music. IOW, I’m a pariah outstanding in my field. LOL!
Consider yourself bookmarked.
Fitzroy, you don’t get it. Obama is about Hope! and Change! and did you not know he was once editor of the Harvard Law Review? Clearly a more superior mind that yours.
Off to the reeducation camp for you!
This is why I worry.
It seems nobody (at least nobody near D.C. or power) is willing to admit what really caused this problem; or do anything about the setup that caused this problem.
Are we keeping Freddie, Fannie, Dodd, and Frank? Are we keeping the goal of giving loans to people who have insufficient down payments, assets, and income to cover the loans? Of course we are; they weren’t the problem. Greedy Wall Street tycoons and “deregulation” was the problem. We’ll just fix that…
I’ve never found that ignoring the cause of a problem to be a good plan for solving it. Generally this is a setup for more pain of the same type later.
I bet the market crash of 2017 will make this look like blip in the market.
The swarming Left,
Of sense bereft,
Sinks deep in ills to come.
Their leitmotif
For certain grief;
Non cogito ergo sum.
The illogical but inevitable extension of the mess they have been teaching our children for the last 30 years – it doesn’t matter if you get the right answer, and you might make the others feel bad if you do… the nerve.
The $850,000,000,000.00 price tag is the ‘participant’ ribbon the taxpayer gets shafted with – we didn’t get the right answer, but we had fun, right?
Sorry, I lean right but this post IMHO is a bit unfair to Mallaby, having read the original article. What he says is – Obama has better economic advisors and policies than McCain, therefore it is fair that the Financial crisis helps his campaign. Nonetheless, they are wrong to blame the crisis on Bush/McCain financial deregulation for political reasons, because its not true, and will hamper their ability to hadle the crisis if elected. He did not say that it was fair thaqt they benefit from this accusation – just the overall crisis.
I don’t agree with Mallaby’s claim about Obama’s economic policies and advisors, but there is no logical inconsistency in his case, nor is there really any “whatever benefits our side is for the best, even if untrue” as the post alleges. The left does most of the stupid, ultra-long-bow “hypocrisy hunting”, it doesn’t help to join them in doing so, as, in IMHO, this post sort of does.
Sell stock.
Buy guns and canned goods.
Hey, it’s been working for the rest of us the last couple of weeks….
Hugh,
The logical inconsistency is in his claim that Obama has superior advisors. If they are wrong how can they possibly be superior? It is inconsistent to claim their superiority while pointing out that they are wrong, but because they have this phony label of superiority they deserve the benefit.
I would hold the exact opposite position. They being so completely wrong about the cause of this crisis is consistent with the left’s demonstrated lack of ability to understand basic economic forces. That lack of knowledge is what got us into this mess and it boggles the mind to think they will in any way make things better.
The fact the author comes to that same conclusion is yet another inconsistency in his position. He sees they will screw it up worse, yet he thinks they still deserve to benefit from the crisis based on nothing more than an illogical conclusion they are superior.
I see these “experts” so far as little more than morons ay best. Delusional liars at worst. Superior? Please…..(eyeroll)
At least Obama had the sense to run away and hide during the crisis. That way when it hits the fan he doesn’t get any on him. With his lackeys in the MSM covering for him it might just work. Like he says, ‘Call me if you need me’. When the phone don’t ring, you’ll know it’s me.
This sounds like the logical outcome of “outcome based education”, where getting the right answer isn’t as important as understanding the concepts. Obama wants to inflict his outcome based economics on everyone. It’ll be a disaster.
Bill O’Reilly’s on right now telling Karl Rove “it doesn’t matter what’s true” with reference to what McCain should say during tonight’s debate about the Dem’s complicity for the financial meltdown. Of course, all O’Reilly wants is for the “greedy CEOs” to be pilloried.
Choking O’Reilly – priceless.
quantity has a quality all it’s own….
{ 4 trackbacks }