The Power of the Pundits
You see now and again these stories about conservatives growing disillusioned with the Bush administration, and you see them increasingly in recent months. These always seem to wind up leaning heavily on things being said by conservative pundits, however, and it's rarely clear to me exactly how consequential that is. I was glad to see that today's Washington Post had a story that draws that distinction: "Pundits Renounce The President". But how much does it matter? The rightwing punditocracy is, I think, pretty clearly an important asset to the GOP when they're all on the same page. But can it be influential in dissent? I sort of have my doubts, since it should be easy enough to locate and trot out some B-list dudes with more pro-Bush views no matter how disgruntled the current A-list may become.
Certainly from my perch in the lower-middle ranks of progressive punditry it's not at all clear to me that what liberal magazine writers and columnists think about this or that is an especially important factor in determining what happens in the world. One way or another, I will say that Joe Scarborough's "Is Bush an Idiot?" segment is quite good. Of course, I was calling Bush an idiot when doing so was at its very lowest level of coolness.
Don't you think it was maybe considered a little less cool in, say, mid-September, 2001?
August 21, 2006 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt - Since we haven't actually seen A-list right-wing/leaning pundit dissent before, it's all guess work as to what the effect will be at this point. If Bush's approval numbers go below 30%, I think they can certainly be seen as a reason for that.
But Clinton was consistently hammered by the pundits and his approval ratings stayed in the upper 50's and low 60's. Would a doting press have pushed it higher? We'll never know. He never really had a doting press.
After six years, most people have already made up their mind on this President, so my bet is that the pundit class will have little effect. At this point, I think pundits are simply trying to cover their asses. They need to be on the record as being opposed to this wildly unpopular President before we "throw the bums out", less they lose their seat at the round table.
August 21, 2006 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Almost exactly correct. But the pundits really have no fear of losing their syndication deals or their invitations to appear on Hardball or Fox News Sunday. Rather, they criticize the president so as to replenish the stock of their credibility, and to preserve the illusion of their independence. Now they can claim not to be hacks, even though they didn't say 'boo' until now when, as you point out, it no longer makes any difference.
August 21, 2006 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
a smart young feller like matthew probably spends a minimum of 50 hours a week informing himself regarding the issues by reading publications, attending panels, exchanging ideas with other like-minded souls, and so on.
but the average american citizen doesn't do any of this: the average american citizen is busy doing a job and worrying about the bills and trying to take care of their family and so on.
and so for the average american, political views result, not from a careful consideration of the issues or from an in-depth philosophical inquiry but rather from a combination of family background, choice of "team," comments from the worker in the next cubicle or the drinker on the next bar stool, and so on. and somewhere in this mix is the opinions and information from news sources, including pundits.
so, will someone change their position per se because george will has changed his position? no.
but will the change of position by george will (whom i'm just using as an example) influence the nature of the public discourse, which may, as a result, change someone's mind? to that i think the answer is yes....
August 21, 2006 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Of course, I was calling Bush an idiot when doing so was at its very lowest level of coolness."
This is so unfair. I can safely say I was un-cool a couple of decades before Matt even thought of being. I have some totally uncool pictures of me in the late sixties and early seventies which would bring the now-cool Yglesias to his knees in awe of the depths of un-coolness the truly uncool can reach. Some people rule, some people are un-cool, and I certainly know where I sit on the rule/cool spectrum.
On the other hand I was anti-Bush/anti-war/pro-Social Security when certain now way popular kids couldn't tell their left elbow from Table V.B1. Some of us remember the way it was before certain now prominant posters matriculated into the reality-based community.
Welcome to the pool, but some people were calling out "Jump in! The water's fine!!" when in point of fact it was pretty damn chilly at the deep end of the anti-Bush pool. We are ever so glad it is now getting crowded but somebody or somebodies put Bush at 90% back in the day.
Pollkatz: Bush Approval
August 22, 2006 6:24 AM | Reply | Permalink