(What’s Left of) Our Economy: Trump Metals Tariffs Coverage has Just (Again) Been Exposed as Largely Fake News

Tags

ABC News, aluminum, Associated Press, Bloomberg, CBS News, CNN, durable goods, Financial Times, Jobs, Mainstream Media, manufacturing, Marketwatch.com, metals, metals-using industries, NBC News, PBS, private sector, Reuters, steel, tariffs, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, Trump, Washington Post, {What's Left of) Our Economy

In case you still think that President Trump’s charges of fake news-peddling by the national news media are fake news themselves, consider this: For the second time in two months, if you decided to hold your breath till you found a Mainstream Media item reporting that the America’s metals-using industries have been major job-creation leaders, not laggards, you’d have died.

Such omissions are especially important because since the Trump administration began imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports (in March), the media has been filled not only with predictions of massive employment and production losses in metals-using manufacturing (because the prices of two noteworthy inputs for these industries was bound to rise), but with accounts of actual economic damage that numerous companies in these sectors have already suffered. (See here and here for just two examples.) 

Last month, I noted that, for all these accounts, authoritative government data (through June) showed that the metals-using industries’ performance by both measures had both generally improved, and had indeed both generally improved more than job creation and output in the rest of manufacturing.

Since then, more steel and aluminum tariffs were put in place (mainly because some major U.S. trade partners initially exempted from the tariffs were subjected to the levies). And what did we learn from the newest jobs report, which was released last Friday, and took the story through July (on a preliminary basis)? That the metals-using industries continue to set the national job-creation pace for the entire economy, not simply for manufacturing.

Here are the percentage gains for employment in some major sectors of the economy from April (the first month during which any metals tariffs effects would have been felt) through July except for the industries noted:

entire private sector: +0.53 percent

overall manufacturing: +0.73 percent

durable goods: +0.96 percent

fabricated metals products: +1.10 percent

non-electrical machinery: +1.43 percent

automotive vehicles & parts: +1.06 percent

household appliances (thru June): -0.63 percent

aerospace products & parts (thru June): +1.05 percent

Unfortunately, it was not possible to learn any of this from America’s leading news organizations. For these figures were completely ignored.

To their credit, some leading media mentioned that Trump tariffs and trade war fears in general seemed to be having no effect on manufacturing job creation overall despite industry’s exposure in principle to the fall-out. These included the Associated Press, The New York Times, the Financial Times, CNN, ABC News, and NBC News. Yet the metals-using sectors were never mentioned.

As for The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and CBS News, they made no connection of the tariff/trade war-manufacturing job connection whatever.

And several news organizations actually tried to rationalize the unexpected results. Reuters, for example, claimed that “With manufacturing payrolls increasing by the most in seven months, the moderation in hiring reported by the Labor Department on Friday likely does not reflect the rising trade tensions between the United States and other nations including China.”

According to PBS, “Economists say it is too early to tell whether the Trump administration’s tariffs on imported steel and aluminum are having a significant effect on manufacturing jobs.”

Bloomberg and Marketwatch.com weren’t as disingenuous, but still felt compelled to contend that rising trade tensions continued to cast a long shadow on the job markets’ future – without reporting that, if anything, new U.S. policies and statements were so far having exactly the opposite effect on parts of the economy most exposed to existing metals tariffs.

But no account of press coverage of these Trump trade policies would be complete without observing an equally weird development: Neither the President nor anyone else in his administration has pointed to the outperformance of the metals-using industries, either.

In a little over a week, the nation will get its next major opportunity to gauge the impact of metals and other tariffs, and future possibilities thereof – when the Federal Reserve releases the July industrial production data, which includes detailed statistics on inflation-adjusted manufacturing output. Will the Mainstream Media finally zero in on the sectors where the tariff rubber hits the road? At this rate, Americans should be grateful if they simply ended the string of job loss and other Chicken Little metals tariff impact stories.

Advertisements

Im-Politic: An Old Year Rung Out with Fake News

Tags

ABC News, Barack Obama, Bloomberg.com, CNN.com, Gallup, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Mainstream Media, Marketwatch.com, NBC News, Newsday, Politico.com, The New York Times, Trump, USAToday, Washington Post

Whatever you think of Donald Trump, his presidential campaign, and his first year in office, you can be sure of this: His charges that too much of the Mainstream Media publishes and broadcasts too much fake news will continue – and continue to resonate – as long as their performance in covering a new Gallup survey of the most admired men and women in America keeps typifying their output.

Gallup has asked Americans who they look up to most since the 1940s (for male figures) and since the 1950s (for female figures). As I see it, the 2017 poll’s results were a fascinating mix. They showed that former President Barack Obama and last year’s Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton continued their long strings at the top of their heaps. President Trump came in second on the men’s list – as he has since 2015.

In my view, Gallup played it right in its report on the survey, noting the winners in its lead paragraph and then immediately observing that the Obama and Clinton margins were “much narrower…than in the past.” The firm didn’t highlight that both Democrats’ edge fell at a faster rate than President Trump, but at least its tables made that trend clear.

Few major news organizations followed suit.

USAToday‘s headline, for example, blared, “Barack Obama beats Donald Trump for most admired man, Hillary Clinton tops list again in Gallup poll.” Reporter Ashley May never mentioned their diminishing leads.

CNN.com did better. Its header announced “Gallup: Obama, Hillary Clinton remain most admired” and noted the Obama dip in the second paragraph. But the Clinton fall-off wasn’t reported until the fifth (of ten) paragraphs.

The ABC News headline – “President Trump is America’s second-most admired man, poll finds” – at least accurately reflected the disparaging tone of the full article. “Digital reporter” Karma Allen led off by observing that “President Donald Trump snagged a major legislative victory with the signing of his landmark tax reform bill last week, but he’s still living in his predecessor’s shadow when it comes to public admiration, according to a new poll.”

He continued with the factoid that the results marked “one of the very few times in recent history that an incumbent president hasn’t taken the top spot.” (It’s actually 13 out of 71 times.) And he simply ignored the declining Obama and Clinton numbers.

Bloomberg,com chose as its headline a reasonable “Obama Tops Trump as Most Admired, Gallup Poll of Americans Finds,” but although specifying that the margin was “close,” never mentioned the weakening Obama or Clinton ratings, either. The same held for the article run in Politico.com. The New York Times headline was a similarly accurate “Clinton and Obama Top U.S. Poll on Most Admired People” but the article neglected to include the trend over time as well.

The two worst performances? The Washington Post‘s headline was a gratuitously snarky “Obama beats Trump where it will sting: He’s the most admired man in America.” A graphic made clear the closing Trump-Obama gap, but this development never made it into the article itself. However reporter Philip Bump did consider it important to write that the overall results “coming at this moment, will probably be somewhat galling to Trump.”

Whoever wrote the headlines for the coverage by Long Island’s Newsday seemed like he or she was auditioning for a job at the higher profile Post. “Gallup ‘most admired’ poll is an ‘Obamanation’ for Trump,” was the first description of the survey the paper’s readers saw. The second description, in a subhead? “He just can’t win the popular vote.” The article itself, by William Goldschlag, simply continued in this vein.

But I’d be just as remiss as much of the Mainstream Media by failing to mention journalists who recognized the deteriorating relative Obama and Clinton ratings. So Rachel Koning Beals of Marketwatch.com and Phil Helsel of NBC News, please take richly deserved bows. Let’s all hope your news judgment spreads to many more of your colleagues in the New Year!

Im-Politic: Latest Charlottesville Polls Suggest a U.S. Race Relations Muddle

Tags

ABC News, CBS News, Charlottesville, Confederate monuments, Harris, Harvard University, Huffington Post, Im-Politic, Marist University, Mark Penn, Morning Consult, NPR, Politic, polls, race relations, The Hill, Trump, Washington Post, white nationalists, white supremacists

Keeping in mind how flawed they are, and keeping in mind that the wording of their questions matters a lot, several polls are now in (out?) on the intertwined issues of what to do about the nation’s various (and variegated!) Confederate monuments, and how Americans viewed President Trump’s response to the recent Charlottesville, Virginia “Unite the Right” rally, the counter-protests it attracted, and the violence that resulted – which of course produced the death of counter-protester Heather Heyer. The findings seem pretty clear, if somewhat challenging to explain: Most Americans don’t want the statues etc, removed from public spaces, but at the same time, most Americans disapproved of Mr. Trump’s response to the controversy – which included a defense of keeping the monuments in place.

Huffington Post, a news outlet I rarely cite, just performed a useful service by compiling the results of seven surveys on the Confederate monuments question conducted this month by six organizations. In five of the seven (including the NPR-Marist poll I wrote about last Friday), majorities backed keeping the monuments exactly where they are. In one of the outliers, this position was backed by a big plurality (49 percent).

The only survey showing a widespread desire for change found that by a wide 58 percent to 26 percent margin, respondents supported “relocating monuments honoring the Confederacy from government property and moving them to museums or other historic sites where they can be viewed in proper historical context.” Unless it’s assumed that “proper historical context” would portray the Confederate cause in an overall less-than-flattering light, even this arguably moderate viewpoint doesn’t exactly demonstrate that most Americans view its links to slavery and treason as especially troubling. Which of course I find especially troubling.

It’s possible to explain how these opinions dovetail with the negative reviews drawn by the president’s Charlottesville-related words and deeds, but it’s anything but easy, as I’ll elaborate on in a moment. But first the actual findings.

The earliest survey on the matter yielded results that could be seen as ambiguous. It was the NPR-Marist poll, and it showed that by 51 percent to 31 percent, the public viewed the Trump “response to the violence in Charlottesville” was “not strong enough” (as opposed to being “strong enough). This poll, remember, came out on August 17, and was only asking respondents about the president’s remarks as of Monday, August 14 and Tuesday, August 15 – before his late Tuesday afternoon press conference, when he made much more controversial comments. So it wasn’t entirely clear of whom Mr. Trump should have spoken more “strongly” – if any group or individual.

Subsequent polls, however, have made clear that most Americans believe that the racial issues as well as that Trump performance lay at the heart of their criticisms. The first clue came in a CBS News poll that was released on Thursday, the 17^th. According to the pollsters, a strong majority disapproved of “Trump’s response to Charlottesville” attack and that “Disapproval of the president’s handling of events rose [in interviews conducted] following the [Tuesday] press conference.” Indeed, those interviewed by CBS Tuesday and Wednesday frowned on Mr. Trump’s remarks by a 58 percent to 33 percent margin. The Monday interviewees disapproved by a 52 percent to 35 percent margin.

On August 21, the Washington Post reported that a poll it conducted with ABC News found that that Mr. Trump’s Charlottesville comments earned a failing grade from Americans by a two-to-one ration (56 percent versus 28 percent). And three days later, a survey conducted by Harvard University and the Harris polling firm found that 57 percent of respondents viewed the Trump remarks as a missed opportunity to bring the country together, and 57 percent believed he should do more to promote racial unity. (And in case you’re wondering, 59 percent agreed that the President should be doing more in this respect.)

Moreover a similar Harris finding – that the Trump comments did more to divide the country than to unite it – was supported by data both from the CBS News poll and a separate Politico/Morning Consult survey released on August 23). 

Nevertheless, these polls all presented results that raise important questions as to exactly how their Charlottesville-related views are or aren’t influencing Americans’ views on race relations above and beyond the Confederate monuments controversy.

For example, despite the stated desire both for better race relations and for a greater presidential effort to bring them about, and even though Mr. Trump’s comments on Charlottesville were broadly unpopular, most of the polling evidence shows agreement with the President’s view that both sides deserve equal blame for the violence in that city. (CBS’ was the only poll I found with contrasting results.) Those two sets of views don’t easily jibe with the great dissatisfaction expressed with Mr. Trump’s comments ostensibly because they weren’t racially sensitive enough.

Moreover, fully nine percent of Americans, according to the Post-ABC poll, said that it is “acceptable” to “hold neo-Nazi or white supremacist views.” Another eight percent were undecided. (The NPR-Marist poll, held before the heated Trump press conference, found support for “white supremacist” and “white nationalist” groups at only half these levels.)

The best explanation I’ve found for these apparent inconsistencies comes from Mark Penn, a well known pollster who helps direct the Harvard-Harris operations. Penn centered on that Trump press conference and contended, “His arguing the point about the violence is a Pyrrhic victory as he still gets the blame for the polarization in the country. The voters are looking for a uniter and he is coming off as a divider.”

I fully agree that Mr. Trump’s big post-Charlottesville problem has been being too argumentative (on top of firing off inconsistent comments seemingly from day to day) and that most Americans want a unifier in the White House. Yet the polls and Penn’s observation leave me less convinced that a critical mass of the country agrees on what it wants this unifying message to be, especially when it comes to race issues.

Im-Politic: The Polls Say “Let Trump Be [Campaign-Version] Trump”

Tags

2016 election, ABC News, budget, conservatism, discretionary spending, entitlements, Freedom Caucus, healthcare, Im-Politic, Immigration, independents, NBC News, Paul Ryan, polls, poverty, Republicans, The Wall Street Journal, Trade, Trump, Washington Post

They’re only polls and we all should remember how badly most polls blew their calls in the last presidential election. But two new surveys from the Washington Post and ABC News on the one hand, and the Wall Street Journal and NBC News on the other, are signaling to me anyway that Donald Trump has made a major mistake so far in his young presidency in tilting so markedly toward the keepers of the orthodoxy (especially the most doctrinaire versions) in his own party. Instead, he should have been focusing all along on developing a promising new American political center of gravity that he started defining (in his own imitable way) during his campaign.

As widely observed during the 2016 elections, Mr. Trump was anything but a conventional conservative – at least as the term has been understood for the last quarter century. Yes, he made frequent nods toward cutting taxes and regulations, as well as to balancing budgets (objectives that of course aren’t always consistent). He also expressed some support for social conservative positions like further restricting abortion and appointing “strict constructionists” to the Supreme Court. But as also widely observed, if that mix of views was what voters in the Republican primaries and general elections really wanted, they would have voted for an orthodox conservative.

Instead, Mr. Trump trounced his opponents even though he at least as often promised to protect massive federal entitlement programs heavily relied on by the middle class and senior citizens; to guarantee adequate healthcare for non-seniors who can’t afford it; to preserve government support for Planned Parenthood’s provision of non-abortion-related women’s health services; to uphold the rights of gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans; and of course to ignore free market dictates when they seemed to undermine public safety and prosperity by fostering unrestricted trade and immigration.

Undoubtedly, much of candidate Trump’s appeal also sprang from simple, nonpartisan voter anger at the failures and self-serving priorities of the bipartisan national political establishment. But Mr. Trump did the best job of all last year’s presidential hopefuls of identifying the combination of specific grievances that created this anger: notably, over those jobs and incomes lost to Americans Last trade and immigration policies, over those related dangers posed by terrorism and leaky borders, and over the astronomical costs and risks of fighting seemingly futile foreign wars and defending free-riding allies.

The president’s Inaugural Address – which declared his intention to fix these problems with America- and Americans’- First policies – unabashedly proclaimed that President Trump would govern like candidate Trump.

Yet although the president has by and large kept his immigration promises, and approved some (limited) measures to combat foreign trade predation, his domestic policy proposals look like they’re right out of the Chamber of Commerce and Moral Majority playbooks. Nowhere has this development been more obvious than in his endorsement of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s healthcare plan, and in his release of a budget outline that, outside of defense spending, libertarians should be swooning over.

Late last month, I ventured that the president’s support for the “Ryan Care” proposal was a head fake: He had knowingly backed a measure so draconian that he knew it would fail, in order to establish some orthodox conservative street cred with Congressional Republicans and thus enlist their support for the pivot to greater moderation he had planned all along. Something like this scenario could still unfold; according to press reports, even the hard-core anti-government House Freedom Caucus members are growing more amenable to a compromise proposal that would preserve many of the more popular provisions of President Obama’s healthcare reforms.

But Mr. Trump’s continuing insistence on a federal spending blueprint that either eliminates or greatly slashes funding for medical and other scientific research, Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and food and heating aid for the poor, is not only plain bizarre, especially since the dollars involved are trivially small. It’s also politically inexplicable, because there’s absolutely no evidence that these are viewed as priority savings among any important Trump constituencies.

And that’s where the new polls come in. As per the headline results, Mr. Trump’s popularity at this point in his presidency is much lower than the ratings of most of his predecessors early in their first terms. In fairness, the Post-ABC survey also shows that the president would beat his chief 2016 rival, Hillary Clinton, in the popular vote if a new election was held – showing that he’s even more popular versus the Democratic nominee than on election day.

But the both polls showed the president’s support tightly concentrated among his own core voters and Republicans generally. Even accepting the claim that rapid partisanship by Democratic party leaders is proving effective in limiting Mr. Trump’s appeal to their rank and file, it’s still a sign of trouble for the president that his ratings among self-described political independents is markedly on the wane according to the Journal-NBC findings (falling to 30 percent) and low (38 percent) according to the Post-ABC survey.

One main reason: The Washington Republicans President Trump is apparently still courting are even less popular than he is. The Journal-NBC poll reports that many more Americans are dissatisfied with the Republican-led Congress nowadays than in February, and Ryan’s approval ratings are even lower. Moreover, the Republican-led Congress and the Speaker, in turn, are less popular than the president even among voters identifying as Republicans.

None of these results necessarily bodes ill for the Freedom Caucus. Its members don’t care for Ryan, either – allegedly for being too moderate. But many of the latest measures of Americans’ views of major policy issues do. For example, the Journal-NBC poll found that, since February, the share of respondents agreeing that “Government should do more to solve problems and help meet people’s needs” shot up to 57 percent. Even more independents (59 percent) endorsed this position. The share of total respondents believing that “Government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals plummeted to 39 percent.

More pointedly, the Post-ABC poll showed Americans opposing the Trump budget proposals by 50 percent to 37 percent overall, and independents disapproving by an even wider 52 percent to 35 percent margin.

The Journal-NBC survey also found record shares of Americans viewing “free trade” and “immigration” positively – at 57 percent and 60 percent, respectively. But the abstract nature of these questions could well have tilted these answers. One reason for supposing so: The Post-ABC poll reporting that, by a strong 73 percent to 22 percent, Americans favor “Trump pressuring companies to keep jobs in the United States.” Among independents, the results are an even better 75 percent to 19 percent.

So the recipe for Trump political success seems pretty clear: Dump the Freedom Caucus under the Trump Train on the budget and healthcare; preserve (and even boost to some extent) discretionary spending programs that strengthen the economy’s foundations and provide for the needy; keep the campaign promises on entitlements so highly prized by the middle class; and take bolder measures to Buy American and Hire American (as one new set of trade-related Trump jobs programs is called).

Keeping the focus on these priorities, along with a well thought out infrastructure program, should attract and keep enough backing among Republicans and independents to offset any losses in Freedom Caucus ranks, both in Congress and at the grassroots level (where they seem modest in number). Adding new policies to combat predatory foreign trade practices, moreover, should please organized labor enough to bring into the fold many union members and leaders plus the Congressional Democrats they strongly influence. An extra bonus – this program could well give President Trump the political leeway he needs to stay his course on immigration (which of course has seen a softening of his views on the so-called Dreamers).

Often in American history, calls to “Let [name your favorite politician] be [name that same politician]” have reflected core supporters’ naive beliefs that campaign promises can easily be turned into policy by the office-seekers they elect. But as is so often the case with the current president, Letting Trump be Trump, could confound the political conventional wisdom.

Im-Politic: The U.S. Mainstream Media Keeps Merging with the Political Class

Tags

ABC News, chattering classes, Democratic National Committee, Donna Brazile, Im-Politic, Jonathan Karl, Mainstream Media, This Week with George Stephanopoulos

If you want a revealingly stomach-churning-inducing example of much of what’s whoppingly wrong with the nation’s intertwined media and political chattering classes – and a big reason for Donald Trump’s presidential victory – check out a video of yesterday’s edition of ABC-TV’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos. The episode was capped by a sit-down joint interview by guest anchor Jonathan Karl of Newt Gingrich and Donna Brazile.

What’s outrageous about this? That’s the same Donna Brazile who unmistakably took advantage of her position as a CNN political analyst to leak presidential debate questions to Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. In other words, it’s the same Donna Brazile who is nothing better than a common thief.

Now it isn’t the fault of Karl or ABC News that Brazile is still interim chair of the Democratic National Committee. That’s on the party. Nor is it the fault of Karl or ABC that Brazile’s sense of ethics is so perverted that she’s refused to apologize for the misdeed. That’s on her. What is the fault of Karl and ABC is giving this crook a national forum and treating her like some venerable sage – with Karl failing even to mention her perfidy.

Clearly, America’s political culture has traveled far from the notion of the press as watchdog of the public interest. But what Karl’s treatment of Brazile demonstrates – yet again – is that the problem only secondarily stems from the liberal bias of which the media is widely accused. The fundamental problem is a pro-establishment and pro-conventional-wisdom bias that originates less in ideology (for it’s bipartisan) but in sociology.

For whatever their personal backgrounds, Karl and Brazile (and so many other Beltway denizens) now belong to the same class, live the same kinds of lives and in the same kinds of neighborhoods, socialize with the same kinds of people – and often get invited to the same cocktail and dinner parties. As a result, they too often share the same kinds of values – especially about personal and professional norms of behavior. They thus tend to overlook all but the most flagrant (and highly publicized) transgressions. As Karl has just demonstrated, they even tend to act protectively of each other’s interests. And of course this mutual admiration society and support network takes on special importance in years like the one just past, when outsiders start breaching their common fortress.

Back in ancient Roman days, the poet Juvenal is credited with asking what’s become one of the most important questions in political philosophy and day-to-day governance: “Who guards the guardians?” Karl’s session with Brazile once more reminds Americans that the Mainstream Media has become all but structurally incapable of playing this role.

Im-Politic: Clinton’s Campaign Sure Thinks the Mainstream Media is “With Her”

Tags

2016 election, ABC News, Bernie Sanders, CBS News, CNN, Donald Trump, Establishment Media, Hillary Clinton, Im-Politic, Mainstream Media, media, MSNBC, NBC News, NPR, PBS, The Intercept, The New York Times, Washington Post, Wikileaks

The word “surrogate” is defined in dictionaries as “a substitute, especially a person deputizing for another in a specific role or office.” Now thanks to the Wikileaks disclosures of internal emails and other strategy documents from Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, we know that the Democratic candidate and her operatives believed that many members of the Mainstream Media fit that description for her upcoming White House race as well.

According to a memo released by Wikileaks on Friday, and first reported (to my knowledge) on The Intercept website, the list of journalists viewed by the Clinton-ites as reliable conveyors of her message included numerous opinion journalists whose liberal leanings are no secret. Examples include E.J. Dionne, Ruth Marcus, Dana Milbank, and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post; and David Brooks, Maureen Dowd, and Gail Collins of The New York Times.

There’s nothing wrong in principle with their presence. There’s no evidence so far that any of them offered their services to the campaign either voluntarily or in response to a request. And unless material comes out indicating active collusion, although surely most are bristling at the suggestion that they’ve been in the tank for anyone in politics, none of these pundits has any control over how they’re viewed by politicians.

But the Clinton characterization of other list members is much more troubling. Dan Balz of the Post isn’t exactly a pure-play columnist – presumably that’s why his employer doesn’t place his pieces on the op-ed page. But his “news analyses” are supposed to occupy some middle ground between opinion and hard news. That concept isn’t necessarily illegitimate. But maybe the Post could clue its readers in on how it views the relevant distinctions, so they could make up their own minds as to how to view these articles?

Another category of listees is problematic, too, but maybe a little less so, since Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Mathews host talk shows on a cable network (MSNBC) that doesn’t try very hard to hide its partisanship. (Similar criticisms of course can be leveled at many of their counterparts on Fox News.)  

Major problems, however, surround the inclusion of news show hosts and anchors who do style themselves as objective journalists. For reasons, I described yesterday, no one should be surprised that ABC News Sunday talk show host George Stephanopoulos is viewed as a Clinton surrogate. But his CBS counterpart John Dickerson? Wolf Blitzer of CNN? Charlie Rose, who does double duty at CBS and PBS?

And scariest of all is the number of listed journalists who present themselves as completely objective beat reporters, like Jonathan Karl of ABC News, Jon King and Jeff Zeleny of CNN, Mara Liasson of NPR, Andrea Mitchell of NBC News, and Karen Tumulty of the Washington Post. Moreover, in another memo, the New York Times‘ Maggie Haberman was described as an especially “friendly journalist” who has “never disappointed” the Clinton team with her performance after their promptings.

Since this material dates from spring, 2015, it’s of course nothing more than speculation (however plausible) to venture that Clinton’s operatives have viewed these same journalists as trusted allies in the campaign against her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. (He didn’t declare his candidacy until June.) But the timing is revealing nonetheless because by April, Clinton’s main rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders, had thrown his hat into the ring, and it was clear by then that many voters in the party’s left wing were recoiling at the prospect of Clinton as liberalism’s standard-bearer.

As a result, these memos add to the case that much of the national press corps has seen its real mission not as reporting events as objectively as possible, or even as fronting for Democrats, but as defending a center-left status quo against populist challengers of all stripes. Certainly Sanders and many of his backers count themselves as victims.

Fortunately, the only silver lining in this picture is a bright one: Americans’ trust in the mass media to give them the straight news dope is at an all-time low, at least according to Gallup. Undoubtedly that’s a big reason why the establishment media’s finances show signs of weakening across the board. If money really does talk in the ranks of these profit-seeking enterprises, mounting business pressures could push them back to their more responsible roots. Or the Mainstream Media’s owners could arrogantly decide to go down with their ships – in which case the big question will be whether investors more devoted to quality journalism will recognize the vacuum they’ve left.

Im-Politic: What Khizr Khan Gets Completely Wrong About America and Islam

Tags

2016 election, ABC News, American Muslims, citizenship, CNN, Democratic National Convention, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Humayun Khan, identity politics, Im-Politic, immigrants, Islam, Khizr Khan, military, Muslims, naturalization, refugees, terrorism

It’s hard to imagine even the strongest Donald Trump supporter not being moved, at least temporarily, by Khizr Khan’s speech at the Democratic National Convention last Thursday night. So many of the elements of an emotional blockbuster were present:  the deep gratitude expressed to America by a Muslim immigrant success story; the supreme patriotic sacrifice made by one of his sons in military service; and the heartbreak of losing a child. And of course for many other Americans, Khan’s remarks raised major questions about the Republican presidential nominee’s views on the domestic security threats posed by refugees and immigrants seeking admission to the United States today, as well as by Muslims already living in the country.

That’s why it’s so important to explain why Khan’s speech, and the rave reviews it’s received in the establishment media, sadly exemplify many of the ways in which Trump’s critics on this score keep undermining constructive debate on these crucial issues.

First, Khan practiced a version of almost-always-irrelevant (at best) identity politics with his headline-making charge that Trump has “sacrificed nothing and no one” for his country – unlike the Khans and the families of other “brave patriots who died defending the United States of America.” The clear implication is that the GOP standard-bearer – and all other Americans who haven’t lost family members in combat – have no right to speak out, or perhaps even to hold opinions, on matters concerning eligibility to immigrate or domestic terrorism.

Of course, few positions have been more un-American – at least once the nation began expanding suffrage beyond white male property holders. Freedom of speech and voting and policy-making are now completely independent of not only race and creed and wealth, but of experience – and properly so. Instead, they are functions of, variously, citizenship or residency.

In addition to being philosophically noxious to current notions of representative government, any other approach would be utterly impossible to put into effect. Just to cite one example – whose experience on Muslim immigration should count for more: Those of the Khan family and their like? Or those of the families of the victims of September 11, or San Bernardino, or Orlando?

And as some Twitter commenters have reminded me, Khan’s views on the subject would also deny Hillary Clinton the right to weigh in on these Muslim immigration subjects – for her family hasn’t lost anyone in combat, either.

Second, in recent months, Khan’s speech, along with Trump’s various statements on Muslim immigration, and especially on the American Muslim community, have generated a flood of statements not only expressing outrage that American Muslims’ patriotism could be impugned, but implying that, if anything, this group is actually more patriotic than the U.S. population as a whole. One especially popular version has emphasized how many American Muslims, like Khan’s son, have served in the American armed forces.

Of course, this is another form of identity politics. And “patriotism” can take many different forms. Just as important, though, is noting that, however admirable the life and career of the late Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004 by a car bomb, it wasn’t an especially typical U.S. Muslim life.

The emerging conventional wisdom was summed up nicely by CNN: “Many [Muslims] have served in the military protecting the country against terrorists….” Stated ABC News pointedly: “Despite recent rhetoric against the fastest-growing religion in the world, Islam has contributed a great deal to the U.S., including in the military, Defense Department figures show.

“Muslims have played an essential part in guarding the homeland and fighting for its interests in war-torn countries the world over, fighting in all major U.S. Wars….”

But the actual data these statements are based on – when placed into any minimally adequate context – tell a very different story. ABC News cited Pentagon figures as pegging the number of self-identifying Muslims serving in the U.S. military at 5,986 – including reserve and national guard members. That’s out of a total of 2.14 million total personnel in all these branches of the American armed forces. Do the math and U.S. Muslims add up to slightly less than 0.28 percent of servicemen and women.

How does that share compare with Muslim’s total percentage of the U.S. population? Not all that well. For that figure was 0.90 percent, according to a 2014 Pew Foundation study. So although the absolute numbers are tiny, America’s Muslim residents are actually significantly under-represented in the military.

ABC took pains to note that the Defense Department statistics show that “400,000 service members have not self-reported their faith. So the total number of Muslims currently serving in the U.S. military is likely higher.” But by the same logic, the total number of Americans of all faiths serving is likely higher, too. In addition, the Pew report found that the nation’s Muslim population is significantly younger than the American public as a whole, including those of prime military service age. So Muslims’ under-representation is arguably greater than the raw figures indicate.

Again, military service isn’t the only form of patriotism, and patriotism isn’t and shouldn’t be a legal standard for opining or voting or entering politics or government. (Immigrants who want to become naturalized American citizens do need to pass tests on the English language, and American history and government. Moreover, most are required to take an Oath of Allegiance to the United States, including a promise to serve in the military under any relevant Selective Service laws and regulations unless they can prove that their religious or other “deeply held” beliefs bar such activity.)

But the claim that the American military contains surprisingly large numbers of Muslims clearly is false.

Finally, like nearly all other critics of Trump’s Muslim immigrant and domestic Muslim proposals, Khan offers no viable ideas on addressing the special domestic security problems revealed by the data that these populations unquestionably present. In fact, he has compounded the obstacles to needed solutions by joining the chorus accusing Trump (and his supporters) of “consistently [smearing] the character of Muslims.” What Khan and the like continue overlooking is the exponentially disproportionate role played by Muslims – including American citizens and including the children of immigrants, who have been exposed to American values all their lives – in recent terrorist attacks, and the consequent imperative of focusing anti-terrorism efforts on this population.

Worse, Khan’s full-throated support for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton suggests that he backs her plan to quintuple the admission of Middle East refugees, and thereby inevitably magnify the current threat.

Having never lost a child, I can’t honestly say that I feel the Khan family’s pain. Not being a Muslim, I can’t honestly say that I have experienced or even fully understand the frustrations no doubt felt by the great majority of American Muslims whose beliefs and actions have never jeopardized the United States. But I am someone who at least tries to concentrate on the facts rather than spreading anecdotes (either representative or misleading).

So I do feel justified in maintaining that Khan and his Islamic and non-Islamic enthusiasts need to start purveying less outrage and more wisdom, and recognizing the clear and present dangers posed to Americans by Muslim populations inside and outside the Middle East that are still in general struggling with reconciling their faith with the values of Western secular democracy.

Im-Politic: The New York Times Fails the Test of Media Bias on Refugees/Terrorism

Tags

ABC News, Al Qaeda, Cato Institute, FBI, Im-Politic, ISIS, Jeff Sessions, jihadists, media, media bias, Middle East, New America Foundation, Obama, radical Islam, refugees, September 11, terrorism, The New York Times

The New York Times has long proclaimed itself to be the nation’s (and maybe the world’s) newspaper of record, dedicating to publishing “All the news that’s fit to print.” But when it comes to its coverage of the debate over admitting refugees from today’s war-torn Middle East, the paper’s approach seems to be “All the news that fits support for leniency.” For twice within the last week alone, The Times has put out features that completely ignore some of the most important facts that have complicated this controversy.

Last Friday, The Times ran an item emphasizing how long refugees from Syria must wait to enter the country, and how many background checks they face. That’s undoubtedly useful information. But did reporters Haeyoun Park and Larry Buchanan even mention the complete absence of independent corroborating information available to the federal or United Nations officials trying to vet them? No. Did their editors believe that such information was pertinent, and that Times readers deserved to know it? Apparently not.

In fact, there’s no evidence that the reporters consulted with specialists on refugee admissions and border security who harbor major doubts about screening’s sufficiency. Nor is there evidence that the editors requested more diverse sourcing. This conclusion seems justified because the only sources of information listed at the item’s end are agencies of an Obama administration that’s been vigorously, and often belligerently, insisting that the vetting situation is under control, and two non-profit organizations that strongly support this position. So the article unavoidably created the impression that not only are current Syria refugee procedures painstaking, but that they are painstaking enough.

Comparable lapses characterize today’s Times offering on “the origins of Jihadist-inspired attacks in the U.S.” According to this article, “All of the Sept. 11 attackers entered the United States using tourist, business or student visas. Since then, most of the attackers in the United States claiming or appearing to be motivated by extremist Islam were born in this country or were naturalized citizens. None were refugees.”

That’s important to know. But it’s at least as important to know that Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions has released a list of 12 vetted refugees who this year alone have been charged or implicated in federal courts of participation in Jihadist attacks in the United States.

In addition, two years ago, ABC News reported that “The discovery in 2009 of two al Qaeda-Iraq terrorists living as refugees in Bowling Green, Kentucky — who later admitted in court that they’d attacked U.S. soldiers in Iraq — prompted the [FBI] to assign hundreds of specialists to an around-the-clock effort aimed at checking its archive of 100,000 improvised explosive devices collected in the war zones, known as IEDs, for other suspected terrorists’ fingerprints.”

ABC then proceeded to quote by name the FBI agent in charge of the bureau’s Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center as stating that “We are currently supporting dozens of current counter-terrorism investigations like that.” Moreover, according to the report (which quotes numerous other FBI agents by name), “Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees….”

These disclosures don’t invalidate the article’s claim about the great number and severity of the terrorist threats to Americans that have not come from refugees. But they completely invalidate the clear suggestion that tighter restrictions on refugee admissions, which President Obama has so far adamantly refused to consider, can not meaningfully enhance Americans’ security. Nor did either Times piece mention the live possibility that the refugee threat could grow significantly going forward, as the Middle East experiences ever heavier, bloodier conflict, and as the U.S. and other militaries keep failing to put the kind of pressure on ISIS that kept Al Qaeda on the run for much of the post-September 11 period.

Also revealing – and unacceptable: Similar to the first piece, none of the “security experts” quoted in the piece contradicted the Obama line. The only ones mentioned by name come from the New America Foundation, which has a long record of backing the president’s domestic and foreign policies, and the Cato Institute, which has long favored an Open Borders approach to American immigration policy. How difficult would it have been for Times reporters Sergio Pecanha and K.K. Rebecca Lai to find specialists who disagreed? And again, did their editors even make this request?

The point here isn’t that Mr. Obama and his supporters are indisputably wrong and that their opponents are indisputably right about refugee policy. The point is that the issue is complicated, that important evidence can be cited to support both of the groups of approaches that have recently emerged, and that a responsible newspaper would not have pretended that the case for the status quo is airtight. If the powers-that-be at The Times want to make that case (as is of course their right), they should use the editorial page.

Im-Politic: Washington Week (Unwittingly) Nails it on Anti-Terror Strategy

Tags

ABC News, Alexis Simendinger, border security, Ed O'Keefe, Gwen Ifill, Im-Politic, ISIS, Mainstream Media, Middle East, Paris attacks, PBS, polls, public opinion, RealClearPolitics.com, refugees, terrorism, Washington Post, Washington Week in Review

Let’s hear it for Washington Week in Review! Seriously! Like most news talk shows, it’s usually only useful for conveniently summarizing the Mainstream Media conventional wisdom on current events at home and abroad. But it’s latest broadcast shed important light (albeit unwittingly) on a major and positive development in American public opinion on dealing with the threat of ISIS terrorism.

A principal theme of this latest PBS show was the alleged disconnect, in the wake of the latest Paris terrorist attacks, between Americans’ clearly heightened fears of terror strikes at home on the one hand, and on the other their apparent view that limiting Middle East refugee admissions is a better response than crushing ISIS militarily with American forces.

As Washington Week anchor Gwen Ifill indicated, she was “surprised” that the political flashpoint created by these latest terror strikes “did not turn, as it has in the past, on questions of war and retaliation but, as we’ve been discussing, on whether refugees from the fighting in Syria should be allowed into the U.S.”

Similarly, The Washington Post‘s Ed O’Keefe agreed with Ifill that it was “incredible” that new poll findings released by his paper and ABC News indicated continued public reluctance to send large numbers of American ground troops to the Middle East to fight the ISIS organization that claimed responsibility for Paris – just as other polls revealed majority opposition to those refugee admissions.

And according to RealClearPolitics.com’s Alexis Simendinger, these results showed a lack of consensus among Americans who she described as “all over the map” on these issues and in fact (understandably, of course) “confused.”

In fact, as is so often (and seemingly increasingly) the case, the public here looks to be way ahead of its leaders – and much wiser. For these poll results are completely consistent with my oft-stated view that the best way to deal with the threat posed by ISIS is not to seek its decisive defeat on the battlefield – since the Muslim-Arab world’s culture and society are so terminally ill that a powerful ISIS successor is bound to appear eventually. Instead, as the poll indicates, the public understands that America’s anti-terrorism efforts are best focused on what the government can plausibly hope to control much more effectively – its own borders and their continued excessive porousness.

There’s an obvious way to fill this gap in the analysis offered by Washington Week and its counterparts: Include a typical Main Street American in the discussions. Ratings could well soar. And just as important, their supposed experts might actually learn something worth knowing.

Following Up: The Flood of Refugee Canards Rivals the Flood of Refugees

Tags

ABC News, Al Qaeda, border security, Following Up, ISIS, Mexico, Middle East, refugees, September 11, Syria, terrorism, The Atlantic

The inaccurate, ahistorical, illogical, and downright irrational canards about the wisdom of admitting significant numbers of Middle East refugees into the United States keep popping up as fast as refugees are being created. Earlier this week, I covered and debunked some of them. Here in no particular order are some more I’ve run across since then that simply have no role to play in a realistic, constructive policy debate:

> Those favoring an unusually cautious approach are confusing, or worse, equating refugees with terrorists. We can thank President Obama, among others, for this one. Who on earth is he thinking of? The fear that’s most widely expressed is not that those truly fleeing conflict, persecution, utter chaos, or some combination of the above, mean the United States and the rest of the world harm. The fear is that dangerous enemies taking advantage of the tumultuous situation both in the Middle East and at European and other foreign entry points to mingle in with the refugee flood and gain access to target countries.

> America’s vetting procedures are entirely adequate. This is a claim made by the president, as well as by many of his political appointees, and by politicians and others who favor either current U.S. admissions policies or more lenient approaches. According to Mr. Obama, refugees are subjected to “the most rigorous vetting process that we have for anybody who is admitted.” The trouble is, this process was put in place before Syrian and Iraqi leaders, and ISIS and similar groups, starting last year, sparked the latest – and by recent historical standards, the most widespread and politically destabilizing – round of armed conflict in the Middle East.

So it’s scarcely relevant, and even less comforting, to insist that current procedures are the most stringent in U.S. history. The standard that must be met is whether they are adequate given current circumstances – and this is the question that the President and his supporters apparently don’t want to address. And in this vein, it matters decisively that some of Mr. Obama’s leading national security aides don’t share his confidence, and just as important, have expressed these doubts on the record, for attribution.

> U.S. vetting procedures have already been succeeding for years. Similar to the above claims of adequacy, many leniency supporters contend that American screening has already proved its sterling effectiveness over many decades. In the words of The Atlantic’s Russell Berman:

“In the 14 years since September 11, 2001, the United States has resettled 784,000 refugees from around the world, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute, a D.C. think tank. And within that population, three people have been arrested for activities related to terrorism. None of them were close to executing an attack inside the U.S., and two of the men were caught trying to leave the country to join terrorist groups overseas.”

But as indicated above, current challenges potentially dwarf even those that emerged after September 11. After all, current Middle East conflicts have destabilized many more of its regions than 9/11, its aftermath, or even the second Iraq War. So the refugee outflow today is much bigger.

Moreover, Al Qaeda, the group responsible for those terror strikes, was effectively bottled up in and kept on the run and off balance in Afghanistan for many years afterwards by the U.S. military and its allies. Of course, subsequent terror attacks were attempted, their generally small scale and America’s ability to thwart them are compelling evidence that the organization’s capabilities had been – to use a current term of art – significantly degraded.

More important, the source Berman cites could well be inaccurate. In 2013, ABC News reported that “Several dozen suspected terrorist bombmakers, including some believed to have targeted American troops, may have mistakenly been allowed to move to the United States as war refugees, according to FBI agents investigating the remnants of roadside bombs recovered from Iraq and Afghanistan.” In addition, refugees from Syria are already showing up at America’s Mexican border. Although many will doubtless be genuine, even those who turn themselves into the authorities may be counting on the Obama administration’s poor record of monitoring such arrivals’ whereabouts over time. (In addition, Mexican smugglers have just been caught trying to sneak in individuals from Afghanistan and Pakistan).  

And here’s another big problem with claims of vetting’s successful record. As I wrote on Wednesday, the world saw that less than a dozen attackers armed with high power conventional weapons could turn a major Western capital into a war zone for hours, and kill and wound hundreds. But does anyone really suppose that future attackers will limit themselves to such humdrum armament? Even fewer terrorists could wreak far greater damage with chemical or biological weapons, or even a “dirty” nuclear bomb. Even today, therefore, “very good” isn’t nearly good enough. Going forward, it will be even less adequate.

> Mr. Obama has also criticized the focus on security threats from Middle East refugees by noting that the numbers he has decided to admit from Syria (about 10,000) are dwarfed by the flows of tourists into the country. Others similarly cite the ease with which radicalized Europeans carrying valid passports can arrive in America. I offered some rebuttals to these points yesterday. Here’s an elaboration on one:

Such leniency arguments also overlook a crucial difference when it comes to the vetting challenge. The great majority of foreign tourists and other visitors to the United States come from countries where serious population and law enforcement records are available. So reliable – though by no means perfect – cross-checking and other crucial screening activities are usually possible. These data, as I and so many others have noted – including the president’s own top advisers – either simply don’t exist in today’s war-torn Middle East regions, and/or American authorities have no access to them. So at the least, many fewer reliable cross-checking activities are possible.

>The United States has a moral duty to accept refugees. No quarrel here with a point championed emphatically by the president and so many others. But curiously, Mr. Obama and his allies on the issue seem certain that this national moral duty will be carried out by admitting the relatively small number of 10,000. Why should this figure, though, have any special significance? And where’s the evidence that the actual level isn’t 20,000? Or 24,652? Or 100,000?

Which brings up a related, too often neglected issue. The president – and others – unmistakably have a right to their opinions about America’s moral duties. And the president’s opinion should carry special weight since he has been elected (twice) as the nation’s top political leader. His fellow citizens have granted him considerable (though not absolute) power to make policy, and to use his office as a bully pulpit to convince them that his opinions are correct.

But on matters such as defining moral duties, it’s crucial to remember that the president’s opinions are just that. Simply opinions. Moreover, his opinions on moral issues carry no special weight, though they are by definition of special interest. For he was not elected to be preacher-in-chief, and nothing about his personal history or the history of his office indicates that he deserves any deference on matters of ethics. I’m as much of an expert as he is. So are you.

As a result, America’s (democratic) values point to majority opinion as a major determinant of policy in this sphere. And so far, all the evidence shows that the American people favor the restrictionist position.

> Americans have usually been hostile to refugees – thereby increasing their obligations today to admit more of them. Here’s where a major history lesson is in order. As made clear by this post on public opinion during previous refugee crises, Americans have rarely been enthusiastic about large-scale admissions proposals. And as I wrote Wednesday, much xenophobia and other forms of bigotry have greeted them. But the author also displays sophomoric judgment, simplistically suggesting that poll numbers reveal all. This is poor methodology even by the standards of public opinion analysis, for no effort is made to measure salience.

So although strong opposition was expressed, for example, even for admitting refugees from Europe after World War II, and from the communist bloc during the Cold War, strong opposition was never demonstrated in any other form. The typical American may have grumbled about these policies, but when all was said and done acquiesced in them with scarcely any resistance or even protracted protest. The charge of widespread – and effective – prejudice is often justified early in American history. But after the mid-20^th century in particular, sound historical analysis reveals that the U.S. record has been commendably humane.

There’s little doubt that constantly evolving circumstances (AKA “history”) could justify more welcoming U.S. refugee policies down the road.  But there’s also little doubt that until such a shift genuinely is warranted, the flood of specious calls for change will continue – if only because there are so many more ways to be wrong than to be right.