Trust & credibility eroding for BHO

President Obama’s poll numbers have been falling, which is to be expected in difficult economic times. It was inevitable that the President’s approval ratings would ebb from his honeymoon period after the election. Simply put: President Obama could not live up to the image that Candidate Obama created. Who could? But there is more behind the change in attitude toward the President than the laws of gravity. Americans clearly discouraged about partisanship and divisiveness, were hoping for a leader who would be the uniter Candidate Obama pledged he would be. Instead, it appears that Washington and partisanship are more divided than ever and the President is engaging in intentional misleading language for the direct purpose of legislative gain.

As I listened to the President’s health-care address to Congress, I was initially encouraged that the White House was going to work in a bipartisan fashion and introduce a bill that addressed the concerns of both sides of the debate. He specifically called to incorporate “...the best ideas of both parties.”

As his speech went on, however, I realized that President Obama was not talking about introducing a new bill, but rather, his passionate but carefully worded oration was an extremely misleading representation of HR 3200. Examples of this deceptive language include statements about no federal funding of abortion and no coverage for illegal immigrants. The President was correct in his assertions that the wording of the legislation does not specifically allow for the provisions of abortions or illegals, however, wording to specifically eliminate these provisions was removed in committee.

This delusive rhetoric creates the impression that the President is not genuine or trustful. These are critical commodities for a President, especially so early in his term.

Perhaps the biggest area of concern for this administration is its credibility on fiscal responsibility. Candidate Obama pledged to go line-by-line through the budget and eliminate waste and inefficiencies. Indeed, the President intends to pay for much of health care reform by eliminating waste and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. The public becomes skeptical of such overly-optimistic savings, and it begs the question why we are not pursuing these savings now? Americans are seeing the federal deficit skyrocket and they are concerned about wasteful spending. Even though Obama has spoken of fiscal discipline, thus far he has let Congress write legislation which continues the practice of debt financing and the funding of special interest waste. The President must show leadership in legislation and fiscal restraint rather than outsource these responsibilities to Congress, which has a proven lack of discipline.

The President’s greatest asset -- and his albatross -- are his oratory skills. His ability to inspire people is a gift. However, it also holds him to the standard he is setting for himself and for others. If the American people believe his speeches are not genuine nor his word binding, he runs the risk of alienation and dismissal. His has inspired millions of young people previously skeptical or ambivalent to the political process. Now, many of these young people are losing faith as they see another smooth-talking politician long on rhetoric, but short on substance.

All is not lost for the President. In order for him to regain some of his popular support, and perhaps save his Presidency, he only needs to live to the standard he has set and govern to the promises he has made.

What is the future for newspapers?

In recent years several major metropolitan newspapers have gone out of business and more have cut back considerably on their coverage. The reason is a decline in readership and advertising revenue, mostly because of the popularity of the internet but also because of reader dissatisfaction. Advertising provides the bulk of newspaper revenue, while subscriptions and street or other sales lag far behind. However, the larger the circulation, the larger the market for products or services advertised in the newspaper, so readers and ads are inextricably connected. A decline in circulation leads to a decline in advertising. As one who grew up with newspapers and believed that they were here to stay, it is a shock that this can no longer be taken for granted. The truth is, many people who do not read newspapers give no indication that they will ever do so. Does this mean that newspapers are doomed?

Maybe, maybe not. But a friend asked a question of me the other day which made me wonder if the alternative to the newspapers going the way of the dodo bird is lurking in the shadows. My friend asked: "Is there a possibility that with the evaporation of ad revenue, the print media will drift back toward express partisanship?"

My answer was "Yes." Let me explain why. Originally, newspapers were not very profitable and many fell by the wayside. Whig (or Patriot) newspapers competed with Tory (or Loyalist) newspapers during the American Revolution and later divided over the wisdom of establishing a national government. After the people elected their first national Congress and president in 1788, newspapers turned to political parties for subsidies, as well as government printing contracts. The most prominent were the Gazette of the United States, a Federalist organ supported by Alexander Hamilton, and the National Gazette, a Republican newspaper supported by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. These and other more or less intelligent, wide-ranging and often mud-slinging publications dominated the political and journalistic landscape until the Civil War. But technological changes made possible a change in the character of the newspapers, although how much is a matter for debate.

The introduction of the high speed rotary press in the 1830s reduced printing costs and enabled publishers to give up party patronage. Editors’ partisanship replaced party loyalty. Newspapers sold for as little as one penny and attracted many readers who were less interested in national politics than they were in local developments, especially crime and scandal. The audience had expanded beyond political partisans. The invention of the telegraph in 1832 and the subsequent establishment of the Associated Press in 1848 made it possible to provide wider coverage by many newspapers sharing a few correspondents at sources of news around the country. The price for mass circulation newspapers was the foregoing of overt partisanship in what came to be called news pages and the open presentation of political opinions on the editorial page (while reaping the benefits of large circulation and heavy advertising). The price for the wire services was the need for correspondents carefully to tailor their accounts to newspapers with varying political opinions. The device of choice was the inverted pyramid in which the more important news appeared first and the less important was placed further down in the article, making it simple to edit due to limited space.

In my opinion, the model newspaper in that period and for many years thereafter was the New York Times, founded in 1851. Publisher Henry J. Raymond combined devotion to the Republican party with dedication to factual accuracy in both news articles and editorials, an example widely imitated until the present time.

Now, if the newspapers today have a hard time surviving because of the decline of readership and advertising revenues, it would not be surprising if they turned to partisan patrons. There is even talk of stimulus money for newspapers (in Connecticut and Illinois), which is possible (though undesirable and indefensible), but so far it is not happening. Turning to wealthy patrons would strike many as odious, inasmuch as the myth prevails that partisanship (or at least open adherence to a party) is incompatible with good journalism. Of course, it would be odious because of the identity of the particular patron (say, George Soros?), not because of patronage per se. It is also widely believed that money in politics is somehow a bad thing, even though the costs of campaigns are not cheap. At the same time, newspapers are exempt from the laws regulating campaign financing, reinforcing the myth of journalistic objectivity.

Of course, anything can be corrupted, but as long as every party is free (in a moral, as well as a legal sense) to support newspapers, and for newspapers to accept that support, there is no reason why this should not happen. But there is a major difficulty, caused by the general belief that politics as such is a questionable thing (the contribution of Progressivism), to be endured only because it cannot be stopped but not because it has any intrinsic worth (administration of the service state over party politics). I would not be surprised to see the overt newspaper-party link, if it took place, to resemble the bitter partisanship of the early party press, rather than the restrained partisanship of Henry J. Raymond. After all, if partisanship, as many believe, means to be governed only by one's ambition or interest, the case for accuracy and fairness is not compelling.

In other words, if something like the fact-value distinction (facts can be substantiated but values cannot) accompanies any shift to an openly partisan press, the obligation for accuracy may well be sacrificed to partisan advantage because of the belief that "values" need not be supported by fact and, perhaps more important, devotion to factual accuracy will be dismissed as just another value, not grounded in reality, which is "a blooming, buzzing confusion," as Walter Lippmann, the "Dean" of American journalism for many years, once put it. One man's fact is another man's scourge. (Not thy will, but mine be done.) There is an old rabbinical saying, viz., "What went wrong this time?" which reminds us that we are as apt to screw things up as we are to improve things.

"Objective" journalism has been a disguise for partisanship from its beginnings, but that doesn't necessarily discredit it. Partisans can be accurate and public spirited, and so-called independents can be inaccurate and mean spirited. Republicans (e.g., the old New York Times) used to dominate the press, although they had plenty of Democrat competition. The old sensationalist press was more often Democrat (e.g., Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst) than Republican, and the 20th century version of "responsible" journalism almost invariably favored liberal causes (e.g., the New York Times when the Sulzbergers took it over, but also the Washington Post, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Milwaukee Sentinel, the Kansas City Star, and the Denver Post). More conservative were the Chicago Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, the St. Louis Globe Democrat, the Oakland Tribune, the San Diego Union and the Dallas Morning News.

Lippmann founded a new standard of objectivity that stressed cosmopolitanism in foreign affairs and non-partisanship in domestic affairs. The "ideal" for the journalist was not the statesman or public-spirited citizen but rather scientists and historians who ostensibly are neutral observers with no stake in political action. This has culminated in the presumption of moral equivalence between America and her enemies in news reporting and commentary, a point of view which seems to have taken up residence in the Obama White House.

As this summary indicates, the rise of liberal partisanship is not a recent development. The critics of the liberal press were vocal in the 1960s (e.g., Goldwater campaign), and even in the 1940s (e.g., Hiss case) and the 1950s (e.g., John Foster Dulles' "brinkmanship"). However, one's own partisanship is harder to acknowledge than the partisanship of those who disagree with you. In any case, the press is always partisan, the only question being what kind of partisanship and for what ends.

'Corporatocracy' bashed at Regis

John Perkins, far-left author of the book Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, came to Regis University this week to discuss topics ranging from what he calls a “corporatocracy” and greedy executives to remarkable accomplishments of the likes of Rosa Parks and Barack Obama and the importance of following your passions. Beyond the rhetorical flare of some of the core values that each and every one of us share, the topics John (as he insisted he be called) discussed, his approach to those subjects and his rhetoric raise questions given Regis’s status as an academic institution. Take a look at some of the things he said at this meeting, which was attended by roughly 450 people—so many that they overflowed into another room to watch a live stream:

“Many executives are like thieves, rapists and villains.” “Corporations are here to serve us, not a few executives who make sickening amounts of money.” “Milton Friedman was wrong” about giving executives “free rein and they’ll do the right thing.” “I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned strict borders.” And, of course, there is his argument that corporations have to pledge to be sustainable, just and serve common interests (whatever those are) in order to renew their charter.

Never mind the broad brush of the word “many” in that first sentence, or the fact that corporations are here to serve their shareholders, not us and not executives. Nor that Milton Friedman in fact argued that individuals should be granted free reign in a competitive marketplace to make the best of their lives—not just executives, but everyone.

We can also ignore the inaccuracies of his argument that the Founding Fathers did not intend to have strict borders. And that John made the statement that executives are making “sickening amounts of money” without defining what he means or answering a question to that effect.

Moreover, we can ignore the fact that the United States is operated under the rule of law—something called the “Constitution”—and nowhere is the government granted to right to alter the terms of an agreement—a company’s charter—simply because they want to impose a new set of values.

The issue at hand is not whether John Perkins was right or wrong in his analysis, or if his points were reasonable. The issue at hand is whether or not the approach of and the circumstances surrounding the speaker are appropriate.

Regis University is an academic institution. Students have a reasonable right to expect that a widely-publicized event would involve the dissemination of more than just feelings and emotions, but also facts upon which to base one’s opinions.

Many students were either required to watch or given extra credit to listen to a speaker arguing from a viewpoint that is, by any reasonable perspective, rather far to the left. In the case of the former, they had no choice; in the case of the latter, they had a choice, but it was a confined choice.

In the speech, Perkins presented a lot of arguments that could hold merit—if they were backed by facts and not pure conjecture. Take his statement that there is “no question” that less money spent on military and police spending results in less violence. “We know that,” he affirmed. But how do we know that? He gave no factual support for his claim.

One student told me it was a “rah rah” for Obama supporters and liberals—and she was right. The only time an alternative viewpoint was presented was when I stood and asked two questions, one of which was entirely passed over. Other than that, it was corporation-bashing, executive-bashing and so forth, on the whole.

That’s not to say that there was no value in what he said or good points that everyone can rally behind. For instance, Perkins is right: If you have an issue you’re passionate about, you have an obligation to stand up and do something about it; you cannot just sit idly by and expect others to bring about change. If closing down sweatshops is your issue, for instance, you better believe you should start sending letters to companies letting them know that you are boycotting their products until they change their ways. Alternatively, if supporting free market reforms to fix our healthcare crisis is your passion, go for that, too.

It is especially important, as he said, for young people to step out to the forefront and help shape their future, for the world we create now is the world we will inherit tomorrow. And indeed, as Rosa Parks proves, one person can rise from menial jobs in a restaurant to becoming a famous civil rights leader making a huge difference. President Obama also shows how, with hard work and determination, anyone can go from being entirely unrecognized to becoming President of the United States. These are indeed prime examples for the community.

But when students are required or incentivized to go and we are at an academic institution, don’t we have the right to expect that there will at the very least be facts to back up the assertions and help form judgments instead of having to read his book in order to get it? That other viewpoints will be encouraged and brought into the conversation, their questions answered? That, yes, the speaker may bring in strong viewpoints, but the dialogue qualities universities like Regis espouse are actually put into practice?

This is my disappointment and frustration. Regis University is an educational establishment. Education is about the acclamation of different facts and ideas in order to form independent judgments. But if no facts are given to support arguments and no variety of viewpoints exists, that mission is not accomplished.

Jimmy Sengenberger is a political science student at Regis University in Denver, a 2008 honors graduate of nearby Grandview High School, a national organizer for the Liberty Day movement, online radio host, and a columnist for the Villager suburban weekly. He is also College Liaison for BackboneAmerica.net, working through the Backbone Americans group on Facebook.

Calling socialists by their right name

They used to call themselves Liberals, until “liberal” took on negative connotations. Now they prefer to be called Progressives, but in truth they should be called what they really are…Socialists. The term “Liberal” is derived from the word “Liberty”, which should describe someone who seeks greater freedom: economic freedom, intellectual freedom, etc. How could those who want to limit our economic freedom through greater government regulation be called liberal? How could those who monopolize academia and purge those few remaining professors who question their prevailing “orthodoxy” be called liberal?

Over the past few decades the word “Liberal” has often been used in derision, so those on the left have preferred the term “Progressive”. But “Progressive” is derived from the word “Progress”, which should describe those who actually bring progress: greater efficiency, increased opportunity, higher standards of living, etc. Have the policies pushed by the left actually brought progress?

Do labor unions bring greater progress? Back in the 70s, when I first visited London, the city was virtually shut down. A general strike had been called by the labor unions in sympathy with the typesetters of the London print industry, whose jobs were threatened by new computer technology. The unions wanted to continue the centuries-old practice of setting each letter of type by hand. Had the unions gotten their way and held back technological progress, they would have destroyed the English print industry.

Does socialism bring greater liberty? Back in the 70s, while stationed with the army in West Berlin, I regularly visited the Wall, designed to keep those who wanted liberty trapped in their oppressive system. Fifteen years later, before the fall of that Wall, I was able to visit East Berlin as a teacher leading a group of students. The communist tour guide told us that they had no unemployment in their supposed “worker’s paradise.” I whispered to my students, that workers were not free to quit their jobs and to not work was to be forced into a labor camp. Our guide also informed us that there were no homeless on their streets like there were in America. I whispered again, that if there were any homeless they would be scooped up against their will and deposited in mental institutions.

Does government interference in Free Markets bring progress? Back in the 80s when I first visited the Soviet Union, I was amazed how the greater part of the population lived in poverty. I visited the apartments of common Russians living in squalor in the large government apartment blocks, but never saw the pleasant dachas of party officials. I wandered through the shops with empty shelves and saw the long lines in front of those shops when they actually had something worth buying. I noticed two kinds of cars: the shabby little Lada with a lawnmower engine driven by those lucky enough to get one after years on a waiting list. I also saw the sleek, chauffer-driven sedans of the party officials. There were even lanes in the middle of the road reserved for those party officials. The socialist experiment which promised Russians equality and progress was an abject failure.

What kind of world awaits us, if we trust our future to those pseudo-liberal, pseudo-progressives? Will they really bring us the liberty, equality, and progress they promise, or will it be the maximum security, inequality, inefficiency and backwardness of what I saw in the 70s and 80s?