I was going to wrap this into a previous post, but this kind of spectacular cluelessness deserves its time in the spotlight.
Watch two mandarins of Beltway "moderation," Mark Shields and David Brooks, discuss Bush's "new" climate strategy:
Astounding. You really could not ask for a more crystalline example of the intellectual tics that have come to substitute for thought among the D.C. media chattering class.
A couple of things to note.
The first and most glaring is that throughout the entire discussion, neither Shields nor Brooks analyzes or even so much as mentions the merits of the new strategy. Seriously. They don't say a word about what would happen, or wouldn't happen, or what it would entail, or wouldn't, or whether it's an improvement, or not. Nothing. Bush's announcement is discussed purely in terms of horserace politics -- how it appears, and and how other political actors react to it.
Second, Brooks and Shields agree that this is a substantial change in Bush's stance -- but neither say why we should think that. Remember, the Bush administration has been playing hide-and-seek on this issue for seven years now. In the campaign, Bush said climate change is a serious problem and he'd regulate CO2 as a pollutant. Then he rescinded that and said we don't know if human beings cause it. He would say one thing, his science advisor would say another, the EPA administrator would say another, a careful dance depending on the audience. One day we'd hear that a strong EPA report on climate change "came from the bureaucracy," the next we'd hear that the administration had done more than any country in the world to fight climate change. Point is, Bush has consistently given exactly as much ground as he has to, tossing out flares this way and that to distract attention. The one unifying theme in this administration's position toward climate change is that they don't do anything substantial about it.
So I ask you, why should we believe that this -- a redundant series of international meetings lasting almost two years, with no targets or enforcement mechanisms -- is any different? Why should we not learn from history? Do Brooks and Shields think we're stupid? Are they stupid?
Note also that Brooks spins this into a way to bash Democrats, despite the fact that Democrats have been pushing this for years and are close to passing a whole series of bills to address it. And he says Bush has been "liberated by unpopularity." We're supposed to believe that Bush has wanted to address this all along, but he's been constrained by the fact the he's trying to stay popular? What goddamn sense does that make?
Feh. This is your establishment D.C. press corps, people. All that matters are appearances, and appearances are always, always favorable to Republicans and bad for Democrats, no matter the circumstances, no matter the substantial facts of the case, no matter what public opinion reflects. Barf.
(thanks LL)
Jeb Bush still skeptical about climate change
Conservative activists wage war on Republicans who voted for climate bill
Comments
View as Flat
Adam Stern Posted 7:46 am
02 Jun 2007
Shields and Brooks
I couldn't agree with you more, David. And I say this as someone who on most days likes the informative dialogue between Mark Shields and David Brooks on the PBS News Hour. In yesterday's unfortunate segment, both commentators said that environmentalists should have welcomed President Bush to the side of reason, despite the fact that Bush's plan offers no mandatory emission reduction targets, and doesn't even support business-friendly mechanisms like cap-and-trade to get there. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court has instructed the EPA to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act, and 22 major U.S. corporations have called for 60-80 percent reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While scientists overwhelmingly tell us that we have all the evidence we need to act on global warming, media pundits like Shields and Brooks give Bush cover by making it seem like we can afford to dither around for the remaining 18 months of this Administration.
Permalink
inel Posted 10:41 am
02 Jun 2007
smokescreen and vaporware
Shields has the answer at the end of that piece:
which is a convoluted way of saying we should believe Bush because otherwise all our previous beliefs in him come crashing down around us.Anyway, Bush is sitting pretty because he did not commit to anything in his speech the other day, and has proposed a process that will prevent any commitments being made for the foreseeable future. Yes, they do think we are stupid.
Permalink
tico89 Posted 2:47 pm
02 Jun 2007
All may not be lost...
Oh well, at least it looks as if Britain and Germany may actually be going to stand up to Bush on his revolutionary new world-saving climate strategy. Then again, it may just be hot air.
If I share initials with 'Global Warming', is that a sign?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:51 pm
02 Jun 2007
"Feh"?
The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer is my favorite TV show by far, and the Friday show, with Shields and Brooks, is never missed in this household. And of course we hang around for our girlfriend Gwen Ifil and her gang on Washington Week.
So of course I cannot sympathize much with DR's barfing episode. However, his violently ill reaction is not uninteresting.
(Tough, you Orwellian stylists. The "not un-..." construction, which George Orwell deplored in an essay recently referred to in Gristmill, is called in classical rhetoric litotes, and can add some helpful shading to a complicated matter. Of course it should be used sparingly. Orwell made the charmingly naive mistake of believing that the purpose of language is to communicate; but as we all very well know, that is not its purpose at all.)
A distinction needs to be made. These three men, Lehrer, Shields and Brooks, are plainly very intelligent, and know a great deal about how power is won or lost in DC. Shields and Brooks occasionally have something to say about "the merits" of what was done or said by so-and-so, but always their primary interest is in the power relationships: the White House and Congress, the members of the two parties amongst themselves, the politicians and their bases, the candidates and the electorate, and so forth.
But that is by no means all the news, it is by no means exhaustive of the issues, and it is not intended to be so. It is foolish to listen to Shields and Brooks in order to understand "the merits" of anything in itself. The point of listening to them is to enjoy their verbal genius, and to get a sense of the contrary partisan interpretations of what has been happening in our republic's capital.
Mark Shields, on the left, is a hero of mine, a true liberal Catholic in the best sense of the term. He is not perfect, but almost everything he says is interesting. And that includes his curious suggestion that George W. Bush was doubly sincere this past week. It is worth thinking about, even if we may not agree.
And as I recall, Shields did indeed refer to Bush's campaign promise, in 2000, to seek to control carbon emissions, and reminded us that Bush broke that promise.
David Brooks, on the right, is also someone whom I admire: he generally reasons carefully, and he is ingratiatingly articulate. While he can be critical of the Republicans, in a sensible way, and can give some sensible criticisms of liberals, he is unfortunately too often an unquestioning defender of George W. Bush.
Very few of these highly placed DC journalists know much (yet) about climate science and global warming. So far as most of those in the news business are concerned, the issue only recently appeared, thanks to the spectacular career of Al Gore. They will have to get up to speed, but of course will need to be only a couple of pages ahead of the general electorate. It seems unfair to criticize Shields and Brooks for not doing something that they are neither interested in nor they consider their job.
You want to throw up about that? Well OK, so throw up. But that is why we need Grist, no?
Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!
Permalink
inel Posted 11:51 pm
02 Jun 2007
Track Merkel, not Blair
Hot air it is not from Merkel and the rest of the EU.
Merkel is the person to watch now. (Blair's influence is pretty much over, just like Bush's, though Blair can be a great cheer leader for any glimmer of hope of positive immediate action to combat climate change.)
Permalink
ebaerren Posted 1:52 am
03 Jun 2007
The problem...
Is that this isn't actually anything new. It's all stuff he's said previously, before trotting out some toothless proposal for action.
Permalink